1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 2,

Part 1

[ Page 727 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce the following people in the House today: Mr. Kai Yau Choi, founder and chair of Sun Wah Group, Hong Kong, and also a noted philanthropist; Ms. May Choi, the treasurer of Sun Wah Group, and her son, who is the grandson of Mr. Choi, Mr. Lip Ting Cheung; Mr. Pak Hang Tse, vice-chair of the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association and president of Sun Wah Food Supplies Ltd; Mr. David Strong, president and vice-chancellor, University of Victoria; Mr. Brian Lo, member of the board of governors, University of Victoria, and general manager of Asian banking for CIBC; and Mr.

King Wong, president, Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association. I'd ask all members to make them most welcome.

G. Wilson: With us in the gallery today is the mayor of one of the most beautiful communities in British Columbia, Mr. Earl Basse, mayor of Sechelt; and accompanying Mr. Basse today is the administrator, Mr. Joe Calenda. They're here to launch us on a new quest for a new courthouse, and I look forward to the work we have with this government in putting that together.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to this House an individual who works very hard for me back in the constituency office. Would the House please welcome my executive assistant, Dyane Betts.

H. Giesbrecht: Visiting us in the gallery today, we have five members of the Northwest Communities Coalition. This is a group based in Kitimat, and they're here to make representation to members on both sides of this House on the importance of Alcan's power generation and the effects on the economy and security of northwest communities. Visiting with us today are Rick Wozney, the mayor of Kitimat; Councillor Ray Brady from the district of Kitimat; also Al Wakita, Brent Morrison and Mario Feldhof. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are some friends from Vancouver, Mr. and Mrs. Tejwant Singh, their two daughters, and Mr. Singh's father visiting from India, Mr. Nahar Singh. Would the House please make them welcome.

I also would ask members to make welcome my constituency assistant, Sharlene Gevatkoff, who's here from Dawson Creek. She's joined by my legislative assistant, Claire Vessey. Please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Visiting me today in the galleries is my friend, Marie Mosby, from Lantzville -- born and raised in Crescent Valley but now sort of moved to Vancouver Island. She has never been here before, and I promised her if she'd come and watch, we'd put on an excellent display of decorum and democracy at its best.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1996.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 8, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1996. This proposed legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation. Some of them are basic housekeeping provisions -- it's an onerous burden I have as Minister of Municipal Affairs -- designed to meet specific needs in the communities of Vancouver and Comox, and to ensure the validity of regional district and Islands Trust land use bylaws.

The remaining amendments have two major goals: to help the greater Vancouver regional district with the financing and cost recovery of major infrastructure works in the lower mainland, and to help the city of Vancouver resolve a longstanding governance issue -- that of neighbourhood constituencies or wards -- by ensuring that a majority, for purposes of a referendum on wards in Vancouver, will be defined as greater than 50 percent. Since the 1970s this has been a contentious and divisive issue in Vancouver.

Our government is introducing this amendment to signal the city of Vancouver that it is time to make a decision for or against wards, once and for all, using a fair process that represents the wishes of the majority of voters.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1996

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is the shortest miscellaneous statutes amendment bill in some time. I am pleased to introduce Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996. This bill amends a number of statutes: Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992; BC Forest Renewal Act; Columbia Basin Trust Act; Employee Investment Act; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Hospital Act; Hospital Insurance Act; Liquor Control and Licensing Act; Trade Development Corporation Act; and Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act.

The bill also contains transitional provisions to allow elections in newly amalgamated school districts. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this bill. I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to table the annual audit conducted by the firm of Green Horwood Munro and Tuckey, chartered accountants for the office of the auditor general, for the year ended March 31, 1996.

Oral Questions

DEATH OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR KNOWN

TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The minister informed the House today that the

[ Page 728 ]

Child and Family Review Board is up and running. We know that in the last eight months since Mr. Justice Gove reported out on the Gove report, 14 children have died under the ministry's care. My question is: why has the minister not ensured that each of the 14 deaths has been given to the Child and Family Review Board for their independent review?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like to make it clear to the members opposite and to the House that this ministry looks at the deaths of these 14 children in a very, very serious way. It's tragic -- one death is too many. These deaths are all reviewed in the process. They are all reviewed by the coroner. They are all reviewed by the director of child protection under the act. I stress again that this is a very, very serious matter. This ministry takes it very seriously, and we have taken aggressive steps since the release of the Gove report. We have moved on many, many of the recommendations of Gove, and we are committed to implementing that report.

G. Campbell: The minister may rest assured that everyone in this House takes this seriously. The fact of the matter is that the Child and Family Review Board is up and running, and our information is that not one of these incidents has been referred to that board for review.

Justice Gove was very clear -- he was very clear -- that part of the problem with care for our children in government service is the government service. It's a shame that we have to say that. It's a shame that he had to write it. It's a shame we had to read it. But we must have an independent review. My question is evidently to the Minister of Health, who seems to know more about this than the Minister of Social Services. Justice Gove identified the "invisible children" as a real problem, a problem where children who die under the government's care go unnoticed and uninvestigated. When a child dies, investigate.

When a child dies, pay attention. Why on earth would the Minister of Social Services not refer each one of those deaths to the Child and Family Review Board?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would like to make it absolutely clear to the Leader of the Opposition that we do accept our role very seriously when the province, when the government, becomes parents of these children -- some 13,000 children in a year. The process is that all the deaths are reported to the director and the coroner, and that process is in place now. If one of these deaths has to be referred to that board, it will be. Again I would stress how very, very serious this issue is and how very seriously we address it. I am somewhat offended....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it is not good enough that the members of the opposition tend to play politics with this very serious issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

G. Campbell: One of the issues that we have to deal with here is the death of children under the government's care. That is what we are dealing with. My question is to the Minister of Social Services, who is responsible for these children: how many of these deaths -- the number -- have you referred to the Child and Family Review Board? The advocate that was appointed, Ms. Joyce Rigaux, was clearly one of the problems. The ministry is a problem. We do not question the minister's care for these children. What we question is: how many of these incidents -- how many of these 14 deaths -- has the minister referred to the Child and Family Review Board?

Hon. D. Streifel: Each and every death is reviewed by the director and the coroner. The work is in process. This government has re-established the integrity of the audit and review division. We have a better information-sharing system. We have hired more social workers to address these things.

Some Hon. Members: How many?

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's obvious that the members opposite aren't interested in the steps that have been taken to protect the children in British Columbia.

B. McKinnon: The story of Bryan Lacroix is another

chapter in the story of how the Ministry of Social Services is failing B.C.'s children. He was seized by the ministry at birth because he was cocaine-addicted, and before he was a month old, custody was granted to his father. The ministry dropped out of Bryan's life for 13 months until he was on life support in Children's Hospital. He died a few days later of a massive head injury, which the coroner determined was caused by a severe blow to the right side of his head. Bryan Lacroix wasn't in the custody of the ministry when he died. Clearly he should have been. My question to the minister is: has this case been referred to the Child and Family Review Board?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll take that question on notice and return the answer to the member.

The Speaker: Member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I don't think a supplemental is allowed, given the question on notice, but if you have a new question, I will take that.

APEX MOUNTAIN RESORT

LOAN GUARANTEE

M. de Jong: My question is for the Aboriginal Affairs minister. We're getting another lesson in NDP economic planning. The government first stood by idly while a blockade was set up at the access to Apex Mountain. They then recognized that the blockade was causing serious problems for the principals of that operation, and so they provided an $8 million loan guarantee. The blockade situation hasn't been resolved. It's still incredibly difficult for those principals to attract anything in the way of investment. Yet, now the government has announced that it is withdrawing that loan guarantee.

It is, in effect, calling the loan. I'd like to know from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs if he's prepared to admit today that his government's mishandling of this affair has brought Apex to the verge of bankruptcy, and that his government's decision to withdraw that loan guarantee will virtually guarantee that it slips into bankruptcy?

Hon. D. Miller: The propositions of the member are patently absurd. There is no question that we have a

funda-

[ Page 729 ]

mental difference between ourselves and the members of the opposition because, as I understand it and as I observed the Leader of the Opposition during the election, their view is that we should not have initially moved in to support this company. I believe that's on record. But we did do that, and we do have a fundamental difference.

In my view, we made a prudent business decision. The government has invested heavily in this company. It has assisted, every step of the way, to try to keep it alive, to maintain it. But the sad fact is that despite their best efforts and our efforts in working with them, they were unable to attract sufficient equity investment to maintain the operation. Therefore, we did what any prudent investor would do: we issued a demand for the government's loan.

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: There's one significant difference between what existed at the time the government made that initial prudent investment decision and the decision it made today to pull the rug out from under Apex, and that's that in those days there was a member of the NDP representing that riding. That's the significant difference between then and now. They've agreed it's a public road, they put up $8 million in support of that contention, the issue hasn't been resolved, and now they're pulling the rug out from under the people at Apex and the people of Penticton.

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The information we have is that the restructuring proposal to Treasury Board went with a recommendation that it be accepted. If that is the case, will the minister confirm it, and will he advise this House on what basis the decision to withdraw the loan guarantee was made, in the face of a recommendation to the contrary?

Hon. D. Miller: The ministry has been working since April to gather the required information for submission to cabinet. That submission came to me, I took it to cabinet, and we made a decision. But I am a bit perplexed. I did allude earlier to the stated position of the opposition that there should be none of these kinds of loans or investments. I'm curious, and I wonder: is it the position of the opposition that we should spend more money on this operation? I think they have an obligation to clarify their position. They can't -- or at least, they shouldn't -- be allowed to have it both ways.

R. Thorpe: On Monday the NDP government issued a deathblow to Apex Resorts. Time and time again this government has said it's listening. My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: which tourism operators did he consult with, which city officials did he consult with, and which small business operators did he consult with before he pushed Apex over the edge?

Hon. D. Miller: At the outset, the member sounded as though he were reading from Apex's press release, but he simply reinforced the question I posed earlier. What is the position of that member -- indeed, the Liberal caucus? Do they want us to put more money...?

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, all the yelling and shouting.... I wonder if one of them can summon the courage to stand up and say to this House right now.... Do you want us to put more money in, or have we made the right decision?

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Penticton on a supplemental.

R. Thorpe: It is my understanding that the government officials made several requests to Apex on how they should be organized and how they should operate. It is also my understanding that Apex complied with all those governmental conditions. In addition, it is my understanding that the government retained the professional consultants, Arthur Andersen and Co., to advise on the restructuring plan. Will the Minister of Employment and Investment confirm that Arthur Andersen did, in fact, endorse the Apex restructuring plan?

Hon. D. Miller: I would just respond with two points. Firstly, I'm somewhat mystified by the member's allegation, since he was in my office today and received all the information from my officials. Secondly, we did indeed have Arthur Andersen in as a monitor to provide information to government; and if Apex is desirous of that Andersen report becoming public and want to give us permission to do that, then I'm quite happy to make it public.

OATWAY CASE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. We're led to believe that convicted pedophile, Bobby Gordon Oatway, has only to ask to be transferred to Sumas in order to be eligible for unsupervised, unescorted day parole. This man has a history that is alarming to anyone who's read it. What steps will the Attorney General take to make sure that the people of Abbotsford, particularly the children, are protected from this pedophile with a history that suggests to everyone that he will reoffend at the very first opportunity?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Mr. Oatway is a federal prisoner in British Columbia. We have a public notification system whereby if there are any dangerous offenders -- pedophiles and the like -- who are about to be released, we notify the public in the appropriate areas to the extent possible under the guidelines. I am assured that under the federal guidelines a similar process is in place, and the public would be notified when and if this man is released.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, and for the information of the House they will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the chamber, I call Committee of Supply in Committee B, and for the information of the House they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.

[ Page 730 ]

[2:30]

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 51: minister's office, $398,000 (continued).

M. Coell: This morning we were discussing the Child and Family Review Board at some length. I wonder if the minister could tell us the names of the people on that board.

Hon. D. Streifel: The six board members currently appointed are: Rheal Brant-Hall, Bruce Hardy, Kelly MacDonald, Jane Parlee, Lex Reynolds and Sydney Segal.

M. Coell: I thank that minister for that. Could he tell me how they were chosen to be on the board?

Hon. D. Streifel: It was an independent external review process.

M. Coell: I'm not sure I understand that answer. It was an independent external review process. Were there ads put in the paper, and what were the qualifications for these people to sit on the board?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, I understand there was some advertising. B.C. regulation 450/95 says: to be eligible for appointment to the board, a person must demonstrate an understanding of: (

a) key aspects of British Columbia's child, family and community service system, including governing legislation, policy and service delivery mechanisms; (

b) the essential elements of conducting a fair and objective review; (

c) child and youth development and special circumstances, rights and needs of children in care; (

d) the characteristics of British Columbia's diverse cultural, racial, linguistic and religious communities; and (

e) the importance of handling personal information in a confidential manner.

M. Coell: That is an impressive background for anyone to have on a review board of any kind.

The review board was set up prior to January of this year. Could you tell me how many times it has met?

Hon. D. Streifel: I can't pick an exact number of times the board has met, but there have been 25 general inquiries, 22 requests for assistance of a general nature -- but not within the established jurisdiction -- 22 complaints related to alleged breaches of the rights of children in care and three matters referred by the ministry.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline the three matters that were referred by the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't have that information, hon. member. I'll supply it.

M. Coell: Why not? We have staff here. Certainly that information is at hand.

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't have the exact information. I'll supply it.

V. Anderson: I'm afraid that in looking at Judge Gove's report earlier and asking questions, we made an assumption that some things had been done, which had not been happening. Key to dealing with the concern about Matthew Vaudreuil and his case was the fact that internal reviews were being done. No external independent review was being done, and there was no process in place at that time to make that happen. As a result of that, the review board was put into place, and the ministry gave a great deal of prominence and public relations to the responsibility of that board and the promise that things would be different.

But it's déj� vu; things are happening exactly as they did before. We spent many weeks and many months going after the ministry to get a review of Matthew Vaudreuil's case in the first place, and then we were surprised by the extent of the difficulties, even beyond our imagination, that he discovered.

I want to refer to and ask for the minister's response to part of Judge Gove's report in volume 2. In case they want to refer to it, it's on pages 134 and 135. It talks about the ministry's proposed new policy on critical incident review. Certainly, today we're talking about critical incidents of children who have been under the care of the ministry. The whole policy is that these should be independent reviews of the service itself. Let me quote just briefly:

"This proposed policy raises serious questions about the values that underlie it. If the principal rationale for reviewing children's deaths and injuries is to learn from mistakes and identify flaws in the child protection system, then the reviews must be performed independently, not by staff in the regions involved. If a line social worker is even partially at fault, then that worker and everyone up the line to the regional director may bear some responsibility for poor practice or inadequate supervision."

I don't want to put the stress at this point on the front-line worker, because once again, we discover it's the top of the system that is not at work. I go on. Judge Gove writes:

"There is a significant risk that review decisions will not be made objectively, and the public would be justified in distrusting the process. If the review process is to have any professional and public credibility, it must take place outside line authority. Those who have a personal stake in the outcome should have no say in whether a review is done or how it is done. This is an elementary principle of accountability and quality assurance."

I stress, again, that last line: "This is an elementary principle of accountability and quality assurance."

Can the minister explain to us why the practice was not followed as recommended and as promised to us again and again in the public relations of the ministry -- that every incident would be reviewed according to Judge Gove's recommendations? That decidedly is an independent review. They have admitted -- they have indeed bragged -- that the system was in place to do that review. How come, in not one or two but 14 cases, that independent review was not even asked for, apparently, much less done? How can we trust the changes that they promised us when such is the situation? Could the minister explain to us why this has happened?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to go over this ground again for the hon. member, as we've done many, many times in the past few days. First of all, the coroner has the mandate to review all deaths. The coroner works within protocols with the ministry, and all deaths are reviewed by the coroner. The office of the transition commissioner is now working on the best external model, and we are committed to that. That work goes on. The transition commissioner has a mandate that runs to 1999. We are working on those initiatives but in the interim we're utilizing the coroner, when in fact this wasn't always the case in the past.

[ Page 731 ]

The deputy ombudsman is preparing a report that will be delivered very quickly, on some modelling. We have an external review of critical instances -- that's the board we're referring to -- and the work goes on. We have taken interim steps. We are committed to taking longer and more permanent steps, and we are working with the office of the transition commissioner. I will remind the members that the office of the transition commissioner will be reporting through an all-party committee.

[2:45]

B. McKinnon: What the minister has just said scares me half to death. What he's saying is that the coroner is in charge. But what happens before that? What happens to the children when they need to be taken out of their homes? We have 14 children; we have Bryan Lacroix. It's very frightening. What are we going to do for these children while the transition commissioner gets prepared to review all cases? What are we going to do for the children before they die, before they're killed, before they're abused? I think those are the questions we have to review right now. We have to put a process in place right now, not after it's too late. Could the hon. minister answer that, please?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would remind the member that the case she refers to is still under investigation by the police, as I understand. I find the line of questioning from the member somewhat problematic, in that there are many, many things we've done with the job of the transition commissioner to introduce and recommend a new child protection system. The ministry has been actively making changes to improve the current system. We've gone over this time and again in the past few days.

A child protection consultation service has been introduced. There are 12 experts available across the province to assist social workers with difficult cases. In addition, the ministry has forged a strong link with a child abuse team at the Children's Hospital, to ensure access to highly specialized medical opinion. This government has hired 268 new front-line social workers -- the largest single hiring of social workers in the history of the province. All social workers are now hired with the minimum standard of a bachelor of social work degree. These are just some of the initiatives we've undertaken to ensure that we do everything we can to protect the children of this province.

A. Sanders: I would like to revisit the previous question to a certain degree. What the hon. minister has said may in fact be the case in the same way that someone may use a number of ingredients to make a cake and then say: "Well, this hasn't turned out like a cake, but I used all the ingredients. What's gone wrong?" We're really not that concerned in terms of what's been done in initiatives. The fact is that there are 14 dead children, and the first time they're being intervened upon, depending on what the coroner is saying.... They've died from natural causes; they've died from something else.

What are we going to do? What we've done is obviously not working. It's not stopping deaths among children. What can we do to improve the system so that children don't have to die in order for us to recognize something is incorrect or very, very wrong?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm rather curious to know if in fact the members opposite understand what the mandate and the work of the coroner is in this province. I wonder if they understand, in fact, that of the 14 deaths, five died of sudden infant death syndrome. I'm dealing with a position across the way from me; she may understand what that is. Two were medically fragile children -- one of these babies was born without a brain and had a brainstem only. We have an AIDS death here. We have five children who were killed in car accidents. We have one alleged homicide and one alleged suicide.

I think the members opposite demean and degrade the memories of these children in this manner, and I think it's outrageous.

Interjections.

The Chair: Take it easy, everybody. The hon. member continues.

A. Sanders: I appreciate getting from the minister that delineation and breakdown of what the individual children died from. There is no question that the child with HIV and the child with anencephaly are "natural causes." Those would have proceeded toward a normal death; that would have been the logical outcome. I would suggest to the minister that five children dying from SIDS is extraordinarily high, as is the case of five children all dying from motor vehicle accidents, unless they were all in one car.

We need to know more in terms of looking and learning from this. What can we learn from this to prevent it from happening? Were those children in cars where there was an impaired driver? In the cases where SIDS occurred, were the people who were looking after those children inappropriate in terms of their care for the children? There are a number of correlates on the abuse spectrum that do correlate with SIDS, such as when sudden infant death syndrome is associated with shaken-baby syndrome. Were these things delineated?

This is not a criticism. This is to ask: what can we do in those cases that could have been otherwise? What can we do in our system to improve those circumstances? That is a question we need to ask; this is not a personal attack. It is nothing more than saying: "Let's make it work better." Those statistics, in terms of ten of those children dying from two causes, are statistically far above the normal population.

Hon. D. Streifel: I will take the member opposite up on her statement that this is not a criticism, in order that we can all move forward and work on behalf of children in British Columbia. I will also take this opportunity to correct the record. My staff tells me that I informed the House of five deaths due to automobile accidents; I correct that to three and apologize.

Indeed, what can we do? How can we prevent deaths in automobile accidents? How can we prevent, specifically and case by case, a heroin overdose, for instance? We can't stop trying, hon. members. If we stop trying, that's when we stop caring, and we will never stop caring.

M. de Jong: Can the minister confirm for this committee when the Child and Family Review Board was created?

Hon. D. Streifel: The chair, Bernd Walter, was appointed in November 1995.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate what the mandate for that review board is?

Hon. D. Streifel: The mandate is under

section 70 of the act, and it is to monitor breaches of the children's rights.

[ Page 732 ]

M. de Jong: My recollection of the circumstances that gave rise to the creation of the review board was that it was in direct response to perceived improprieties -- or difficulties; I'll use that word -- with respect to what took place with Matthew Vaudreuil. Will the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, it's a part of the legislation that provides this form of review when the rights of a child have been breached.

M. de Jong: I recall hearing earlier, during the course of these debates, the minister indicate that the review board was created to review critical instances involving children that are presently, or have been in the past, under the care of the Social Services ministry. Do I recall those comments correctly?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: I think, hon. Chair, I heard the minister say that the answer is yes. Assuming that to be the case, would he include the death of a child within the parameters of a definition of critical instance?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, of course the answer is yes.

M. de Jong: If I follow the debate thus far, then, the minister has said -- and I want to be clear so he can correct me if I misspeak any of his words -- that the commission was created to investigate critical instances involving children. He has said that a critical instance would certainly involve the death of a child. My question to him, then, is: why have none of the 14 deaths that have taken place in the last number of months been referred to the review board?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would need clarification from the member, because he's jumping from a commission to a board. I'm not quite sure what the reference is. Could the member clarify that?

M. de Jong: I'm talking about the Child and Family Review Board, so we'd better back up. My understanding of what the minister said was that critical instances involving children were subject to examination by the Child and Family Review Board. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

M. de Jong: We then went to where the minister confirmed that in his view the death of a child represented a critical instance. So my question is: that being the case, why have none of these 14 deaths, or critical instances, been referred to the Child and Family Review Board?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would remind the hon. member opposite that some of these cases are still under consideration and that we haven't closed them out yet. Only five of the investigations have been concluded. I would again remind the hon. members that we're dealing with many causes of death in the 14 cases. Some are natural causes and some are accidental. In fact, there still exists a possibility that some of them might.... We're still involved with the coroner in some of the cases. There's still involvement with the courts in one of the cases. There are still some review processes going on, hon. members.

I would suggest that you're a little premature in your criticisms on these issues, as only five of the investigations have been closed out, and we are dealing with deaths of different natures here -- natural causes and accidental processes.

[3:00]

M. de Jong: This is the minister's opportunity to put on record what his understanding of the mandate of this Child and Family Review Board is. Is he now saying that not every death of a child under the care of the Social Services ministry, or formerly under the care of the Social Services ministry, would be referred to this review board? Is that what he's now saying?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, as I said, there may be some referrals under this process in time, but in the interim we're working with, and under the direction of, the coroner. There's court involvement in at least one of these cases, and we are working within the processes to develop a system that works. In the interim we have taken steps, and some of them are there for the very first time, where we have the protocol with the coroner on some of these issues.

M. de Jong: The minister is suggesting, it seems to me, that no referral would take place to the Child and Family Review Board until all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted or have taken place. Does a protocol or a policy exist? Is the minister therefore saying that in the event of a civil litigation arising out of the death of one of these children in the care of Social Services, there would be no referral to the review board until such time as that litigation has concluded -- which might be two, three, four or five years?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, I'll try this one more time, and it's an attempt for the ministry not to jump out in front of the work of the transition commissioner. I think it's very important that we allow that work to go on, and we have taken interim steps. I think it's somewhat unfortunate that the members would specifically try to point out generalities. It's very difficult to jump ahead of what recommendation a coroner may make -- or the Crown and the police. I will not jump ahead of those processes, nor will I jump ahead of the very important work that the office of the transition commissioner is doing.

M. de Jong: Let's not deal with generalities, then. Let's deal with two incidents of non-accidental death that the minister has confirmed have taken place. The minister's approach seems to be either that we've got a policy but we're not going to tell you what it is or -- and I think this is the more likely response -- that we don't know what the policy is. We don't have one. You set up a review board, but -- pardon my language -- what the hell is it for?

An Hon. Member: Unparliamentary.

M. de Jong: What the heck is it for? You've got a review board that the minister says is designed to analyze critical instances involving children, and the government and the ministry apparently don't see fit to refer matters involving the death of children to that committee. He can't provide any indication of what the criteria are for making a reference to that committee. It apparently is done on an ad hoc basis: some deaths of children qualify, and deaths of other children don't

[ Page 733 ]

qualify. Well, that's not good enough. The minister is charged with the responsibility of attending to the interests of these children, and, lamentably, in the case of 14 of them, it's too late.

The question, though, relates to the policy, if there is one, that exists within the ministry. You set up a review board; you issued press releases. You touted it as something that was going to provide a solution, as something that represented a solution for these kids, and then you don't refer any cases to it. Does the review board function on the basis that referrals are made by the ministry or that the review board itself must request that a matter be referred to it? What's the policy? What's the procedure there?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer the hon. member for Matsqui three pieces of reading for tonight. One is the bill,

section 83; one is the Gove report; and one is the editorial that was written in the local paper about him.

M. de Jong: Maybe we'll read them together; then we'll at least know that the minister has looked at the Gove report.

The minister seems perplexed that the official opposition would be interested in the operation of a review board that apparently doesn't review anything. Can I ask the minister this: will the minister indicate whether or not a request has been made by members of the review board to examine any of the cases resulting in the death of children under the care of Social Services?

V. Anderson: I appreciate the former Minister of Social Services suggesting we should read the report. The present Minister of Social Services is also suggesting we read the report, which we have done fairly extensively. I would like to quote from the recommendations there which have to do with the review of child deaths and serious injuries.

To put it in context, the recommendation was that there should be a person responsible to review these, and the suggestion was a children's commissioner. At the moment, the closest we come to that is the transition commissioner.

An Hon. Member: What about the coroner?

V. Anderson: The coroner was never referred to in Judge Gove's report. There have always been coroners. Coroners have always had the death of any person reported to them. Had Judge Gove recommended that it be the coroner, it would have been very simple, and it would have saved a lot of planning and undertaking.

"The children's commissioner should be given responsibility for receiving reports of deaths and serious injuries of all children and youth who are in the care of the province or who are receiving child welfare services. The commissioner should: (

a) in the case of any death or serious injury which the children's commissioner determines to be suspicious or unusual, refer the case to a judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia for whatever form of investigation the judge considers necessary, and (

b) in every other case, decide what form of review or investigation is appropriate, assign the case and monitor the review or investigation. The children's commissioner should have the authority, at any time, to reassign a review or investigation."

The report goes on to say:

"Death and serious injury reviews should proceed promptly and should be coordinated with other investigations or proceedings. They should not be prematurely terminated and should not be postponed except for good reason. Review reports may be supplemented by qualified individuals, but not altered by anyone other than the author.

"The provincial ministry responsible for child welfare must ensure that findings from death and injury reviews lead to improved social service delivery and that patterns and trends identified from reviews and other epidemiological sources lead to reforms in provincial practice standards, qualifications, training and service design."

Judge Gove has emphasized not only that we are concerned with what went wrong when a child has died or received serious injury while in care of the province, but that we should learn from those mistakes, and the lessons from those mistake should immediately be applied so that the service is altered and corrected -- not three or four years down the road when it suits our agenda, but immediately -- so that children can be protected now, and so that the same or similar incidents will not happen to other children under care. It's the immediacy of the information that leads to the opportunity to do something.

Has the minister referred these 14 cases to the transition commissioner to review them, take the lessons from them and apply them to evaluating and monitoring the present system, even as she develops new systems? It seems critical. Will the minister let us know if he has referred these to the transition commissioner, and if not, whether he will do so, so that the transition commissioner can use the lessons from them for her planning and immediate response?

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara for finally making the point on behalf of the Liberal caucus.

Justice Gove recommended that these instances be referred to a body outside the ministry. Hon. members, the review board is within the ministry.

We are working with the office of the transition commissioner. The member for Matsqui should listen very carefully to this and commit to reading this tonight and coming back to the House tomorrow and suggesting: "Oops! We didn't quite read it properly again. We thought it was more important to try and inflict a wound or score a point rather than be on message and on with Judge Gove."

Hon. members, Judge Gove recommended that we review these outside the ministry. We have avenues to do that now with the coroner and the ombudsman, and we are working with the office of the transition commissioner to bring into British Columbia the permanent office that will review these -- the permanent avenue for review, not ad hoc nor something within the ministry, as the members opposite would prefer. I suppose that if I committed this day to refer all these to the review board within the ministry, tomorrow they'd be saying: "Didn't you read Judge Gove? You're inside the ministry, not outside the ministry." Members, do your homework.

[3:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to inform the House about the current situation of the all-party committee that will deal with the Gove report and the appropriateness of items that need to be discussed at that committee. The government approached the opposition last week to determine the best method by which to reappoint that committee to deal with Judge Gove's recommendations, and I just received information this afternoon from the opposition party about how best to proceed. We had been awaiting input on how to restrike and reconstitute that committee. I've received that and we can now move forward.

[ Page 734 ]

The suggestions that have been made around recommendations from Judge Gove can proceed forthwith, as happened prior to the election when the transition commissioner reported and discussed the various recommendations with the all-party committee. I look forward to now being able, with the information received, to appoint that committee forthwith.

V. Anderson: I think the former minister and I have had too many dealings back and forth. My next question was going to be about the committee. She's reading my mind, and I'm a little concerned about that.

We need to do that. I'm glad to hear that it's finally going to go ahead. But prior to going ahead, might I ask if the minister.... First of all, I need clarification. In the original discussions about the review board, there was a suggestion that it was an independent body. Though I had some questions about that, I was going to let it go, assuming that it could operate independently and could be taken, at least for the time being, as an independent, reliable body. The minister has just now said that the review board is a body within the system, and therefore it cannot do the independent, outside review. Would the minister clarify for me if I'm misinterpreting what he said?

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. member, I would put myself in the opposition seat. With the Gove report, which says that we must have a body that reports outside the ministry, if this minister makes a decision to refer these instances to this board that reports directly to the minister, what would you say about it, hon. members?

V. Anderson: We agree wholeheartedly on what we would say, and I appreciate that being clarified.

Because these are critical incidents and need to be acted on immediately, might I ask if these 14 critical instances have been referred to the transition commissioner so that she might deal with them? She has responsibility for monitoring an overview of the ministry and these concerns, even while they're developing a process. Have they been referred so that she can respond and deal with them and with the lessons that are learned from them in a proper context?

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

F. Gingell: Just to change the subject completely, a little more than a month ago, shortly after the minister was appointed, I wrote him a letter concerning the issue of a knee brace required by one of my constituents, who is on GAIN. The knee brace was considered by her chiropractor to be the appropriate treatment. The off-the-shelf model costs $75, but the Social Services worker informed my constituent that if they bought this model, they could not get reimbursed.

The only way to get reimbursed was to go to the doctor, have a special one prescribed and have it manufactured -- the cost of which would probably be more than $300. Yet the $75 solution was the solution. Social Services won't pay the $75 but will pay the $300.

The same issue has come up earlier with regard to spectacles. People on GAIN find that it is perfectly adequate to go into some store and get a pair of reading glasses of similar strength on each lens for $20 -- not reimbursable by Social Services. You go and spend $250 -- go to your ophthalmologist and spend a whole bunch of money -- and that is reimbursable. It seems to me that, as you search for ways to use the resources available to do the greatest good, there is an opportunity here for us to loosen up some rules and to bring a more common sense approach to these issues.

I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that and advise this committee if he has any plans for making adjustments to the current rules and regulations.

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand the seriousness of doing constituency work, and I very much respect a member that works on behalf of their constituents. I take the member's comments under advisement on this issue. As an individual who has to keep a knee tied up if I'm ever going to do anything slightly strenuous, I can understand what this individual may be going through. I would like the opportunity to explore this a little further with the member, as currently the....

F. Gingell: June 19.

Hon. D. Streifel: The morass of mail, hon. member. I could write myself a letter and not get it until next year, I think.

In fact, the member makes some valid points, but there are some difficulties within the system if we open up to over-the-counter solutions for medical problems, whether they be vitamins or glasses or braces. It's sometimes difficult to put on a limit. How far does that go? Currently, a medical practitioner prescribes something, and it's possible.... I do know that my own ophthalmologist -- when I hit the Big 4-0 and I needed reading glasses for the first time -- gave me the option.

He said: "You might want to get a prescription, or you could, in fact -- your eyes are about the same -- go try them on at the local drug store." The member makes a valid point, but we do have some problems within the system in developing a program we could relatively control with over-the-counter solutions. I'll keep the comments under advisement and work on some form of possible solution with my staff.

M. Coell: We have now spent about 15 hours discussing your estimates. From our perspective, we realize that this is almost a $2-billion-a-year ministry, and it also takes care of the most vulnerable and the most fragile in our society. It's one that deserves the length of time we've taken. I realize I have a very good team of people on this side asking questions, and I realize the minister is alone for the most part. I appreciate the 15 hours that he has given us. I must be honest: there were many questions that we didn't get answers for and that we have been promised answers for.

We will be looking for the minister to inform us on all of those questions that we did not got answers for during the estimates.

I just want to end our comments with the following thoughts. The Gove commission was a commission that, after a lot of demands from the public on the administration of Social Services -- and this doesn't just go back over the last five years; it goes back over the last 20 years -- was designed to review the ministry, to make recommendations that would help that ministry become accountable and gain the respect that it needs to function in this province. Many of the recommendations that are in there need to be implemented quickly. I am aware, and all my colleagues on this side of the House are aware, that some of those recommendations have been implemented.

[ Page 735 ]

It will be our position -- we will be pushing the minister and the ministry over the next years -- to see that those recommendations are completely built into the system, that the accountability to the citizens of this province is there and that the professionalism that we see in staff is recognized by the citizens of this province. If this ministry, of all ministries, doesn't have the respect of and the accountability to the people of this province, we are indeed in big trouble.

As I said, this ministry takes care of the most vulnerable and fragile in our society, and they deserve our full attention. I can assure you that this opposition will give this ministry its fullest and undivided attention over the next few years. Thank you for listening to us, and thank you for acknowledging our comments, hon. Chair.

Vote 51 approved.

Vote 52: ministry operations, $2,600,413,000 -- approved.

Vote 67: office of the transition commissioner for child and youth services, $7,200,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Streifel: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 11.

[3:30]

BC BENEFITS (YOUTH WORKS) ACT

(second reading)

Hon. M. Sihota: It is a pleasure for me to rise in debate to introduce this legislation. This legislation is a continuation of the government's efforts to change the welfare system in this province. We have lived for the better part of the last 40 years with a particular approach to welfare.

Over the course of that time, many have raised many legitimate public policy questions as to the nature of our welfare system: whether it is some kind of sticky web that people get themselves caught in -- they enter into a life or cycle of state dependency -- and whether indeed the system as we've known it is one that allows people to find their way back into the world of work. In particular, many in society have commented on the tragedy of so many young people in this province being on social assistance and beginning their lives in a cycle of state dependency without much hope.

This government, prior to the provincial election campaign, took it upon itself to begin to take a look at the welfare system as we have known it and to try to make it far more relevant in its redesign, to inject a sense of hope for those people that are caught in the system and to provide them with the necessary skills to find themselves being contributing members of society.

I should say a number of things, driven by a consideration of these reforms -- in part because of concerns about the cycle of dependency, in part because of fiscal pressures in light of federal cutbacks, and in part because of the experiences of other jurisdictions, notably Ontario and Alberta, which in my view took a somewhat mean-spirited approach to these issues.

As a result, our government undertook a review of the system of welfare as we've known it and last November indicated that it would be introducing a series of changes. Welfare as we have known it -- as a result of this legislation and other companion pieces of B.C. Benefits -- will no longer be. As a result of these changes, we're going to make work a better deal than welfare. As a result, our government has started to put together the pieces -- this is one of them -- of a set of strategical changes designed to make work a better deal than welfare.

For example, our government introduced, during the course of the budget that we introduced in this Legislature, a tax cut for working families. Through a provision known as the B.C. Benefits family bonus cheque, many British Columbians -- working British Columbians that are trying to make it from paycheque to paycheque -- will get from this government additional assistance of $103 per month to help them meet their needs.

That assistance is provided not only to those that were once part of this system of social assistance; it's being provided across the board to working families in British Columbia, to assist them to make it from paycheque to paycheque. So the first set of changes that we brought forward is the family bonus program. It's a fulfilment of the commitment that we made during the election campaign to provide a tax break immediately upon re-election to ordinary working families. We're doing that through the $103 per month for those families that are eligible for it.

Now, providing $103 per month to working families is not the entire solution. We also announced yesterday an expansion of the child care program. We, as government, announced an increase of about $13 million in child care, to help working families make it from paycheque to paycheque and to make it easier for families to make ends meet. Again, as part of our efforts to try to make work a better deal than welfare, we're creating and providing more assistance for child care in this province; the $13 million will generate additional child care spaces.

I should point out that this comes after about $160 million in expenditures on child care by this government, a record that is not seen anywhere else in North America. Nobody else on this continent has provided the kind of child care programming and the depth that we have here in British Columbia, so as to help working families make ends meet.

In fact, we're now moving to a regime that not only helps people that require child care assistance in the context that I just laid out.... We're even getting into the situation of providing day care facilities both before and after school here in British Columbia. I know, for example, that has happened in View Royal and at a number of other places in my constituency. So the second initiative we've taken is the child care initiative. That's on top of the family bonus program of $103 per month.

We also made other changes, which are both fiscal and public policy-oriented. One of those changes, as I'm sure the hon. members are well aware, is a three-month residency requirement we brought in as a part of meeting the challenges that we have. That has resulted in caseloads in British Columbia dropping. In addition to that, we have made adjustments in the payments that are available to recipients who are on social assistance. And in addition to that, we have extended the Healthy Kids program to working families in British Columbia in our effort to make work a better deal than

[ Page 736 ]

welfare. What we've done is we've said that dental and vision assistance programs that were available in the past only to those on social assistance will now be broadly available to those people that are covered by the provisions of the family bonus program -- again, another effort on our part to make work a better deal than welfare.

Having done that, we felt that we had to turn to the issue of young people and begin to deal with the situation I described earlier on of trying to break the cycle of dependency with regard to young people. This legislation, then, is an additional step in terms of the approach we're taking as an administration. People 19 to 24 years old will no longer be eligible to collect welfare as we know it. In that context, welfare will no longer be....

An Hon. Member: Is it workfare?

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to remind particularly the more experienced members of this chamber that they do have the opportunity to rise and engage in the debate. Knowing full well the hon. member for Peace River North, I'm sure he'll express a soft opinion on these issues and, having heard him in debate on this matter, endorse these measures by government, which I'm sure all members of the House will agree are highly commendable.

Rather, as a condition of receiving a living allowance, young people under the provisions of this legislation must participate in a training program; it is mandatory. These programs are designed to ensure that young people do not therefore enter into a cycle of state dependency, but rather have the skills and the training necessary to fulfil their potential as human beings. I think that's fundamentally important in terms of the approach we're taking. We are saying very clearly that young people must enter into these training programs, and that if they do not, they will not receive their living allowance.

It is as simple as that: they will not receive their living allowance. We're saying that, at the beginning of their experience with a living allowance, young people must participate in training programs so that we can begin to equip them with real skills to deal with real needs in the workforce. This program that we're introducing is different from welfare in many respects. It says that the old traditional system of welfare is gone, but that through this legislation we are placing an obligation on government to provide training to young people, to equip young people with the skills to become employable.

I want to comment for a moment on the nature of the obligation. Some have suggested, incorrectly, that the obligation here on the part of government is to find 12,000 or 13,000 jobs for young people. The obligation is not that. The obligation is to find that number of training spaces for young people -- up to 13,000 training spaces for young people. I am confident that we can provide those 13,000 training spaces. As hon. members may be aware, this is something that government has been working on for the better part of the last six or seven months.

We believe that we have put together an infrastructure that's available from one end of the province to the other and that will provide these training spaces.

That's not to say, with this program as with any other program that one deals with in government, that there won't be glitches; there clearly will be, and we'll have to work through them. It is not a guarantee of jobs but a guarantee of training. That's an important point.

Secondly, we anticipate that a good number of these young people -- in fact, all of them -- will as a result of this training become more employable, because they will have skills to offer when they go and interface with employers. It's important that they have something to offer; it's not possible these days to show up at a business and say: "Hire me, I'm a nice guy." You have to be able to demonstrate that you have a repertoire of skills that are relevant to that employer.

That gets me to the next facet of this program. It is important, if not imperative, that in the design of these training programs there be a very close relationship between the ministry that I represent and the private sector. If we are to provide real skills for young people, if we are to reduce the "relevancy gap," if I can put it that way, then we have to make sure that the skills we are providing these young people as part and parcel of these programs are skills that are required in the community and are relevant to employers.

Therefore the involvement of businesses, both small and large, and of community groups, both profit and non-profit, is absolutely critical to the success of these programs. We intend to put a fair bit of effort into making sure that we are matching skills with needs: real skills to match real needs to provide real hope to these people, to help them break the cycle of dependency.

In order to test that, we did engage in a number of pilot programs in this province so as to see whether or not we were headed in the right direction. When the Premier and I had the privilege of announcing this program last week in New Westminster -- I must confess I didn't think of this sort of situation till I got there -- we visited a bicycle shop where young people were being trained to be bike mechanics. Of the 56 students that had enrolled in the program, all 56 were placed with employers.

The reason for that, given the fact that mountain-biking and those kinds of activities are currently not only very much in vogue but very much a part of our lifestyle, is that there's a shortage of people who can service these bikes. So all 56 were being placed. That's not a market niche I would have thought of, but it was a market niche which employers thought of. They came to us, as well as community groups, and said: "Look, we think there's a need out there to train." Therefore we provided a contract to do that.

I'm not saying that every child or young person that goes through this program is going to be trained as a bike mechanic. I'll use that as an illustrative example. So whether it's ski technicians or bike mechanics, there are opportunities. We rely on the marketplace to identify those opportunities.

[3:45]

It was amazing to be at that facility and to see through their body language -- not through their words or utterances -- the sense of self-confidence that these young people were exuding, because they had something they could take to a prospective employer. They could show that they had skills and that they were trained. We were taking young people who had no training, giving them relevant training, giving them a sense of hope and then crystallizing that sense of hope into a real sense of accomplishment when they secured employment.

The trick of it, in terms of this program, is to make sure that we're matching skills with real needs. That's one of many examples, and I'm not going to take up the measure of my time here to give the hon. members all sorts of additional examples, be it in the area of tourism, environmental technologies, computer skills applications or many others that I can enumerate. If they wish, I'd be happy to give members of

[ Page 737 ]

both sides of this House lists of organizations and programs in their constituencies that we have already approved, so they can see for themselves that there's a linkage here between community needs and this program, and that we are providing people with real skills to meet real needs.

For young people, it's often that first job, that first opportunity, that is the critical one. If you can sort of make your way into a setting and get that first job, a real solid first job, then that opens up the world in terms of potential for you in the future. If all of us in this room reflect upon our own life experiences, I think we would all acknowledge that it was in many ways that first break in life that set us off on a particular career path.

In the past, we have relied on employers to do the training. As a result of these programs, we are going to do some of that training through government and through the provision of these programs. That's not to say -- and I want to emphasize this point -- that there won't be private sector involvement. There has to be strong small business and large business involvement in this for the program to succeed. Certainly during the short time I've had the privilege of serving in this portfolio, I've been sort of making sure that business understands that and that we involve ourselves in a virtually unprecedented way. So that's happening: these 13,000 spaces should be available.

I should also point out that there are three phases to this program. Young people, when they initially enter the program, have to go through a phase where they're give a job search kit, and they have to be out there looking for employment. Indeed, if there is employment offered to them, they have to accept that employment as a condition of their receiving the living allowance. That program exists for about seven months. Some hon. members may ask why it's seven months.

The reason is that one in four youth on assistance find work on their own within one month, 60 percent are on assistance for less than three months and 75 percent are on assistance for less than six months. So that gives an indication of why we chose those time periods.

The message is very clear: you cannot simply collect welfare and leave it at that. There will be a living allowance if you're a young person aged 19 to 24, and if you are to receive that allowance, you must be involved in these programs that train you and upgrade your skills. If after the seven months they have not found work, then we go into a more concentrated form of assisted job search for a period of two months. If that doesn't work, we move into these training programs that I've described.

The program is different than Ontario's workfare, which some have advocated, and which I'm sure my good friend from Peace River North would no longer advocate, if indeed he advocated it in the past. He might have been tempted to. I'm sure that he will be most supportive of the program the government is offering. In Ontario the view is taken that you have to volunteer your labour in order to receive assistance from the state. You must take a shovel and go out and work in order to receive assistance from government. We're not taking that approach; we reject it. We're taking, I think, a far more thoughtful approach.

What we're saying is that we're going to deal with the underlying problem, which is that people don't have the skills to market themselves in the marketplace in order to get employment. In our approach, therefore, young people are told that as a condition of their participation, they must participate in training programs in order to help break the cycle of dependency. We're dealing with the underlying problem, in order to provide people with real skills that will crystallize into real jobs. We will give them real hope and help them adapt to real needs in the workplace.

Let me also say that there will be detractors and doubters, as there will be with any program. I know from my experience in this chamber that that's often the case when government brings forward programs. I'll listen to what hon. members have to say during the course of second reading debate, and certainly we'll listen with care to what they have to say during the course of committee stage with respect to this bill.

Having said that, however, I want to make it very clear that to me the real measurement of the success of these programs -- and I believe they will be successful, because a considerable amount of thought has gone into their development -- will be the track record that emerges. It is my intention to advise, on an ongoing basis, both the public and the members of this chamber about the progress we are making. I will do so in order that they can quantify the impact, for example, on the living allowance rolls as they relate to young people.

This will help them see the degree of diminishment in the number of people that are on a living allowance, how fast we have been able to move them along and the savings that in a direct sense have accrued to the provincial treasury as a result of these changes. This will help them see which kinds of community and employer programs have worked and which ones haven't. This will be done so that we can learn from our life experience in these programs.

We will constantly fine-tune our programs so that they are continually responding to the marketplace as it evolves. These programs will be evolutionary in that context. I hope that we will keep the relevance gap as narrow as possible and make these programs as relevant as possible for young people.

This is an ambitious undertaking by government. Welfare as we know it will no longer exist. The strategy of child care, the family bonus, the Healthy Kids program, the Youth Works provisions and the three-month residency requirements is to make sure that the turbulent components of the kind of experience that we've had for the previous 40 years is not part of our life experience henceforth. It is an effort on the part of government to give a helping hand to those who need it so that they, like all of us in society, have every opportunity to fulfil their potential as human beings.

Having said that, I look forward to what I'm sure will be both supportive and generous comments from my colleagues across the floor. With that I move second reading.

R. Masi: On reading the

preamble to Bill 11, I find it difficult to disagree with the overall intent and objectives of the bill. I agree that we should preserve the social safety net, and that all components of society -- individuals, families, business, labour and governments -- also share responsibility for economic security. I also agree that youth have a responsibility to achieve the self-sufficiency and financial independence that comes from employment. There's no doubt that youth with a lack of experience or skills may need assistance to find employment.

Training support and early involvement in the workforce enable youth to gain such experience. There's no doubt that the Youth Works program should be financially and administratively accountable, effective, efficient and well coordinated. These are commendable intentions and they deserve support.

[ Page 738 ]

However, I do have concerns about the effectiveness component of the program. Can we assume that the jobs really exist? Are the opportunities there? I read in the Vancouver Sun that the Premier stated that the government would find 13,000 jobs for young people by September. It's my understanding that time is short. It's also my understanding that this summer there are 5,000 fewer jobs than last summer. Michael Goldberg of the Social Planning Council of B.C. stated in the Globe and Mail that: "There's just not enough jobs for people under 25. They have a horrifically high unemployment rate."

We must look at the marketplace because it is a factor for jobs for young people. The lack of jobs is directly related to the cost of doing business in British Columbia. We look at overregulation, lack of incentives for small business, taxes -- namely the corporate capital tax -- fees and the Employment Standards Act. These are all factors that affect the marketplace and jobs for young people. I sometimes believe that British Columbia is not really open for business.

Looking at another factor, can we assume that all youth have the motivation to achieve self-sufficiency? Given their various backgrounds and educational experiences, will they really participate? We're dealing with an element of society that in general has a poor self-image and has not experienced success in the school system. Often they are dropouts, with a lack of achievement; they have trouble interacting socially. Often it's a lack of family support -- sometimes there is no family.

It's an element that lacks self-assurance, often despite the fa�ade of bravado: the coloured hair, the earrings, the loud noise, etc. These are often indicators of a lack of self-assurance. This is an element that will often seek out similar interests in terms of gangs and street kids. Sometimes it's the other type, the loners and isolated ones, who have the difficulty in obtaining jobs and employment.

Again, I'm not criticizing the intent, but I'm looking at effectiveness. How could many of these same young people succeed when they haven't succeeded at anything else? They're usually dropouts, as I said before, or have trouble interacting socially. These are young people who have not been served well by our school system, a system that still reflects the economic conditions of the fifties and sixties; it primarily values academic achievement and relegates skills training to a second tier. This is unfortunate, because we are reaping the product.

We know that 65 percent of young people on welfare have no formal education or training beyond the level of high school. They need the training before they can get the jobs. That, to me, is the crux of the matter.

I'd like to quote from the Ministry of Education report, 1993-94: "Early school leavers reported that the high school curriculum was too abstract and not relevant to their lives. Students identified the need for more flexibility in school schedules and structure, increased relevance and more interesting courses as important drop-out strategies." Again, we have some fundamental work to do in dealing with this problem. I'm sure that the minister understands this. I hope that the minister is going forward with some of these fundamental approaches.

[4:00]

I worry about the many kids who will sit through a proposed program like this but will not participate. This is the old passive resistance. In seven months they have to locate jobs. They can say they're looking, but they'll still be eligible for help in this case.

I worry more, though, about the street kids, the street people, who simply refuse to participate. They'll say: "We won't go." What can we do with them? I don't have the answers. Are they going out on Granville Street and begging? Are they going to steal? Are they going to assault old women? Are they going to end up in jail? What do we do? Do we recycle them?

I don't see the answers in this program. We have to look at the expectations. Are they realistic? Are the rules enforceable? One thing that I've learned in 20 years of administration in the school system is that you don't implement rules that you can't enforce.

Let's look at the implementation aspects on a provincial level. Does one size fit all? We have 40,000 youth on welfare, I believe. What about the learning abilities of these youth that are on welfare? I suspect that there will be a wide range of comprehension abilities here. How do we deal with the individual differences that we're going to face in a program like this?

Let's look at the makeup of the province also. We have small towns, one-industry towns, large urban areas. Are the conditions equal for a one- or two-industry town, a small town? What if a young person in fact sincerely completes the whole program, and the local industry in a small town is belly up? What do you do then? Are they able to take the course over and over again? Or will there be special considerations for that person?

Let's look at the goals of the program, under the sixth

whereas: first, financially and administratively accountable; second, effectiveness; third, efficiency; and fourth, well coordinated. Well, I believe that you will have administrative accountability. I think your officials and your managers know how to do these things. I see no questions here.

Will you have program efficiency? Well, you'll be well organized and well planned. I'm sure the program will have well-coordinated delivery centres, probably over a hundred agencies.

But you do not have effectiveness. That is the most important

whereas of the bunch. To have effectiveness in a program, a program must deliver the outcomes to all the participants, with perhaps very few exceptions. Thirty percent success and 40 percent success are not good enough; 95 percent success is getting there. Only with a high effectiveness level can any program bring about an attitudinal change. An attitude change toward welfare is, I assume, the prime goal of this program. I hope it is.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

So I suggest that the program, if it is to be effective and to accomplish the goal of attitudinal change, must be based, first of all, on an economic strategy that supports the concept of job development and the free enterprise initiative. It must be the beneficiary of a totally new approach to educational success in our secondary schools, that values and acknowledges technical and skills training and career-specific education to the same extent as academics. Thirdly, it must individualize the service for extreme and hard-core cases before they are cut loose in the streets.

Fourthly, it must include an accountability component of examinations and ongoing program assessment, generally called feedback, that we can monitor the program with.

[ Page 739 ]

With all due respect, I would suggest that the minister might examine a program that would assess skills, provide training and ensure that employable welfare recipients have the skills and training before they search for jobs. I know that's not as easy as it sounds; it's an easy thing to say. It would be a very broad-based program, but it might have some beneficial long-term effects.

The opportunities for trained and skilled workers has never been greater. However, the lack of trained and skilled youth has never been more apparent.

C. Hansen: I don't think anybody in this chamber can deny that youth unemployment is a crisis in this province, yet we have an economy that has been relatively strong compared to other provinces in Canada. It's true that a very healthy number of jobs have been created in this province compared to other provinces, but the fact of the matter is that we could be doing a lot better. That's for another debate.

If you look at the last four years alone, the tragedy when it comes to youth employment in this province is that while the unemployment rate in British Columbia for those over 25 years of age has been falling, at the same time, consistently year after year, the rate of youth unemployment has been rising. In June of 1996 the youth unemployment rate in B.C. stood at 17.8 percent, up 2.3 percent from June of the previous year. It's a sad fact that the number of young people in British Columbia with absolutely no work experience increased from 10 percent in 1989 to 16 percent in 1993, the most recent stat that I have.

There's another sad stat. If you look at the B.C. youth labour force participation rates, in February of 1990, 68.5 percent of young British Columbians were either in the workforce or were seeking work. By February of this year that participation rate had fallen to 59.3 percent. I think a lot of the tragedies of youth unemployment are in there -- the discouraged workers, those who have gone out to find opportunities that are not there or those who find they don't have the proper training for the jobs that are there. I think in those stats we see the tragedy of people dropping out, opting out and becoming disillusioned with the opportunities that are there.

On the other hand, if you look at welfare participation in this province, in 1995 there were 80,000 young British Columbians between the ages of 19 and 24 who were on welfare. I understand that was growing at a rate of 7,000 a month. It's a sad statistic.

Earlier in the spring, before the election was called, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of street kids who had decided they needed to do something with their lives. They had come to a training program to learn some skills about how to seek employment and how to ensure that they could get a good, prosperous and lasting job. It was interesting. What struck me most about the discussion we had that morning was the genuine willingness they had to work. These are not kids who are expecting handouts from society, handouts from government. They want work.

I remember one young man said to me: "I don't understand why government can't just build a sawmill and give us all jobs." I tried to explain that there have to be environmental and economic conditions that allow a sawmill to be productive and successful. There was no doubt in my mind that they genuinely wanted to work, yet the opportunities weren't there. We often hear about the "lost generation," young British Columbians who feel that they don't have the proper training, there aren't the proper opportunities, and there aren't the jobs so that they can fill their dreams and be a constructive part of our society.

When I heard that this bill was being introduced, I was quite optimistic, because I felt that it would be a bill that speaks to that concern, that speaks to that frustration out there and speaks to the lack of opportunity, the lack of training and the lack of jobs for young British Columbians that we find in this province. This is a bill that should be about hope.

If I were a young British Columbian between the ages of 19 and 24 and read through the language in these 11 pages of this bill, I should come to that last page and say: "Thank God, somebody is finally doing something about it. Thank God, somebody is finally realizing the frustration and anger that is out there among that generation."

It should be about training and it should be about jobs. I've read through all 11 pages, every word in this bill, and in here is very little about training. I found absolutely nothing about jobs. In fact, there was nothing in the press release about jobs. I understand in the press conference there was some big promise of 13,000 jobs. But you know, it should also be part of a comprehensive package.

It's one thing to get young British Columbians off welfare. It's one thing to give them the opportunities for skills and training, and it's one thing to give them the job opportunities, but it's got to be part of an entire package. I think that whole package has, first of all, to include a comprehensive job creation strategy, which we have not seen from this government.

Secondly, I think it also has to go to a change of attitude, which goes back to our school system and back to the way young people are involved in our society. Part of that changing attitude, I think, has to come from an orientation in the school system towards work and towards creating work and towards how jobs are created in this society.

We have a program called the CAPP program -- I forget exactly what it stands for -- job skills training in high schools where they get 30 hours of job experience, and it's a great program. I've talked to some of the teachers that teach it, and I've talked to some of the students that have taken the program, and it's certainly something that's long overdue.

What we are doing so much of in our society is teaching young British Columbians how to develop job-search skills, how to develop training. But searching for what jobs, and training for what jobs? I think that's the question that has not been answered adequately either in this legislation or by this government. You know there's a direct correlation between the number of young British Columbians on welfare and the number of young British Columbians that are unemployed. You can reduce the number of young British Columbians on welfare by creating jobs, but you can't create jobs by reducing the number of people of welfare. The reverse is simply not true.

The object of this bill is obviously to get youth off welfare and, as I say, that's a noble objective. But when we look through the sections in this bill, it talks about allowances, it talks about consequences of not participating in programs. It's talking about the consequences of having assets that you have not disclosed. It's talking about information gathering. It's talking about the consequences of not supplying accurate information. It's talking about the reconsideration and appeals process. It's talking about what government will do to you if somehow there's an overpayment, whether accidental or otherwise.

It's talking about the fact that you can't garnishee these benefits. It's talking about the powers of the minister and the duties of the minister. It's talking about the agreements that can be made with other bodies, whether it's other governments and other provinces, or whether it's other

agen-

[ Page 740 ]

cies of the provincial government. It's talking about the various offences that take place under this act. Finally, it talks about the power to make regulations. It doesn't talk about creating jobs anywhere in this legislation, and I think that's a dramatic oversight. It's an oversight that if it was complemented by other actions of this government could be accommodated.

I'm surprised somehow that my remarks so far haven't been ruled out of order by the hon. Speaker, because we're talking about the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill.... It's called "Youth Works." Well, it is about youth, but it's not about work, and I think that's an oversight.

There is this promise, apparently, that came out in the press release of 13,000 jobs that would be created by the private sector by September. Quite frankly, the track record of this government on making promises of jobs has been very good, but the track record on delivering on those promises has been very bad. My fear is that this is one of those other promises that is yet to be broken. Quite frankly, they don't have a track record when it comes to job creation, especially for young British Columbians.

My fear is that this whole initiative is going to do more harm than good. My fear is that you're raising the hopes and the expectations of young British Columbians. You're raising the hopes because you're finally delivering something that has been sought, and that's training opportunities. It's an opportunity to get off a dependency on the state and get into real and productive jobs so that they can live up to their dreams and aspirations. But they're false hopes, because this bill does not deliver on that.

[4:15]

You know this is a vote in principle, and if the principle of this bill is to get youth off welfare and into jobs, then I support it. I think when it comes to the committee stage, we're going to look at some very serious amendments that I hope the minister and the government will take seriously, because we will look at ways that we can strengthen this bill to make it meet the needs of young British Columbians.

You know, just as an example, we talk about a seven-month waiting period -- seven months from the time that a young British Columbian applies to get on this program -- and what do they get? They get this booklet of pamphlets that they have to go home and read. I have heard so many cases of young British Columbians who have fallen into a dependency, and they don't want to wait seven months. They know they need training. They know they need opportunity, and what they're being told is to go back and read these pamphlets for seven months and look for jobs that they already know are not there, because there hasn't been the job creation strategy to back it up.

My fear is that this program is going to exacerbate the frustration that is there on the part of young British Columbians. From what we have seen today, there is no coordinated training in place -- or to be in place -- in time for young British Columbians coming through this program. I think the words "coordinated training opportunities" are very important. It's not just a case of a bunch of contracts being let to organizations around the province who can set up classrooms and invite beneficiaries of this program to go through career training and job training exercises.

There has got to be a coordination of all of those programs so that the counsellors who are trying to guide these young British Columbians can steer them towards the program that is most effective for their needs.

So basically those are some of the things that we'll be looking at when it gets to committee stage. I will be supporting this bill in principle because I think the objectives of the legislation are good, but we think it is sadly flawed, and we will try to address those in a committee stage.

V. Anderson: When we look at bills, one of the last things that we usually do after we've gone through it

section by

section is deal with the title. It's usually just done as a matter of course, without ever referring to it. But as I listened particularly to the minister today, I began to realize, as I hadn't previously, that this is mistitled, because, as has been explained, it's not about getting jobs or providing jobs or work for people. It could be titled "Youth Training"; it could be titled "Youth Advanced Education"; it could be titled "Youth Opportunities." Many other titles might be appropriate rather than the title Youth Works, because that's certainly not what it's about.

It might be wise for the minister to think about a change in title -- quite seriously; I'm not joking about this. If people are going to trust this, they have to know that the title says what it is, that it doesn't mislead them or give them false hope or false promises.

My experience with youth over many years is that they're interested in getting out and being involved. They're interested in being creative. They're interested in using their skills and the opportunities and experience they have, but so seldom do they have the opportunity to do it, particularly in our modern world.

I had the opportunity to work with youth in the early sixties in the inner-city service project. There was a lesson that we learned, which I think we forget again and again. The young people who wanted to be part of that project said: "If it's ever been done before, we don't want to do it. But we'll do anything else." They went out and discovered, in the community of downtown Vancouver -- where this happened to be -- what needed to be done, what wasn't being done. They found a way to do these things.

They were creative, and they put to shame many of the other people who were working in downtown Vancouver, and they created a whole new opportunity for themselves. They used the resources of adults, they used the resources of skilled people, but they sat down and worked those projects out for themselves.

Back in those days, there were programs like Katimavik and summer youth work programs, where young people came in and responded to the needs of the community and got their experience in the opportunity of doing real work. They weren't filling in. They weren't doing work that somebody else had been doing. They were discovering tasks for themselves and creating their own opportunity. They worked together as teams.

There's an approach here which I think is fundamentally important: that we work with young people, we don't work for young people or try to direct them in our adult ways, if we think that's the way to go. It's interesting that in times of crisis, when a country is under attack, who is it that we turn to? We turn to the young people -- 19 to 25. They make up the bulk of our services and of our armed forces: army, navy and air force. Suddenly these young people who apparently didn't have any skills are out there saving the future for all of us. I think the first thing we have to do is not underestimate the skills of our young people and take the opportunity to work with them.

There have been many programs over the last number of years, and the futility of those programs was brought home to me by one young fellow who had been on the street and was

[ Page 741 ]

now struggling to be creative in another program. They had approached government to try and find some support for that creative program, and they said: "No, in order for you to stay on welfare, you've got to go take a course on learning to write résumés and how to get a job." He said: "I used to teach the course on résumés. Why would I go and take another course on résumés?" But the system said he had to do it anyway. I appreciate the principle of this, and again I think it's the way in which we go. I think we have to ask ourselves about the context of the system.

In order to demonstrate the context, I just went down briefly, and this was all I could carry at one time. These are the books -- some of them, that is -- for the current GAIN regulations, part of which this is to replace. There is the book of the regulations entitled The Income Assistance Manual . That's one of them. This manual is just this week's changes in the manual of rules and regulations which comes to us. That's the income assistance manual.

An Hon. Member: Part of it.

V. Anderson: Part of it, yes. This is GAIN's regulations, another part of it. This is part of the program of independence that we've had, and this is the temporary assistance manual.

An Hon. Member: And they can't read.

V. Anderson: And they can't read, an hon. member tells me, yes.

This is the fast-track manual that has been prepared for constituency assistants around the province. This has just been done within the last few months. It was revised and now, with the new B.C. Benefits program, all of these are totally out of date. None of these apply any more because the Benefits program does away with welfare. The theme now is: "GAIN is gone." GAIN is gone and the new world is here. But is the new world here? We look at the principle of the bill, and actually it doesn't say much about principles except in the clause at the beginning.

Then if we turn to the back, it says the rules and regulations which govern the bill all have to be written and will be done by order-in-council or by the people behind the scenes. Unfortunately, our alphabet only has 26 letters, because the items that have to be done for regulations literally go from A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K right through to Z. That's what the bill is all about: all the things that are in these 26 things yet to be done in the rules and regulations. It doesn't really tell us what the program is going to be about, and it doesn't help us....

Interjection.

V. Anderson: Perhaps we should be doing it in other languages, because some of the other languages don't have as many letters to their alphabet. That would be more helpful -- and it would be multicultural in that way.

Also, it doesn't say what is going to happen to people who have either visible or invisible disabilities of whatever kind. It's talking about "the employable young person." But nobody really knows what an employable young person is. It talks about the "employability program." Well, the very fact that the majority of these people don't have jobs means that they have either visible or invisible handicaps. It misses out on these things.

We look at the principle of the bill, and there are words in it like "the minister may" or the young person may.... It doesn't tell us with any definitive detail what any of this is about.

It tells us what the consequences are of not doing what the system says. The consequences are the same as they've always been: you're in trouble. If you don't do it our way.... Don't be creative. If you don't fit into the niche, then you don't fit. That's why they're not employed at the moment: because they don't fit into the niches that we've created.

It talks about "failed to accept suitable employment." Nowhere does it define what suitable is. And they have "left employment without just cause." It doesn't say what "just cause" is. So it implies that there is a new bureaucracy, of some kind or other, of well-meaning people who, on behalf of the young people, are going to tell them what they should be doing, when they should be doing it and how they should be doing it. That's the very system that most of these young people have had to depart from, because it didn't meet their needs.

It implies that Big Brother and Big Sister are going to look after us, and that they're going into direct us to the kind of courses we need and the opportunities we should have. Nowhere in here does it indicate that anybody is going to sit down with an individual, one by one, if they wish, to help them develop a plan of where they would like to go.

As was illustrated earlier in our question period in another estimate, if you go off the program you will likely have to take out a loan to take the training,

whereas if you stay on the program, you can get it free of charge. So you're going to find a way to do that, and I don't blame them for that kind of undertaking.

This is part of a package which the minister has referred to as B.C. Benefits. But if you look at the five bills that deal with B.C. Benefits, three-quarters of each of those bills is exactly the same in wording. They've got different covers and different names, but not a different philosophy. The philosophy is the same in the front of each one of them. They are all part of an image-building which has no substance. It's like theatre productions: there's a good frontage, but behind the scene there is no substance. What we have here, I'm afraid, is a lot of frontage image but no substance behind it.

[4:30]

At one point I was tempted to say that what we have here is a blank cheque and we're hoping that somebody will fill it in. What I haven't discovered is whether it's a debit or a credit, either for the government or for the young people themselves. The aim is laudable: to help young people get experience and training. Hopefully, the jobs will be available for them, or they may be able to get the skills to create those jobs for themselves. But as has been pointed out, nothing in this bill indicates that those jobs will be available for them.

I think we can say that the practice of overregulating the programs that we do in this Legislature doesn't look to be overcome by this program. It's falsely named; it's talking

[ Page 742 ]

bout youth works rather than youth training, youth education or youth opportunities. In principle, yes, but as so often with this government, in practice, no.

L. Reid: I am pleased to enter into debate on Bill 11, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act. I can assure this House that I was critic for Skills and Training when this government introduced the Skills Now program. There are alarming similarities in this program, and again, I believe, it's an opportunity to put the cart before the horse. I would submit to this House that the reason there is such a time lag of seven months is that the programs simply aren't ready today. That is probably the reason, which is alarming. I'm happy to provide the minister with some evidence. I'm happy to quote from the hon.

Minister of Employment and Investment when he said the guarantee could not be offered immediately, because they'd be swamped with applications and the programs are not ready yet.

This is a huge concern, because this government takes great delight in overselling a program and an idea, and once again implementation is not their strong suit. There's no magic to the selection of seven months. In our view, it is simply that the programming is not in place. The hon. Minister of Employment and Investment starts out by saying he is prepared to offer a flat guarantee that young people on welfare will get training. The catch is that the training programs are not ready, so the guarantee does not kick in for nine months. You can't guarantee someone a service but say it's not there for almost a year.

When this minister rose to his feet, he talked about the sophistication around the selection of seven months. I have great difficulty in the explanation, because I don't believe it's true. I do believe that this minister has once again been sent out to sell a program that's not ready and will not be ready for many, many months.

Again, the explanation probably isn't valid at the end of the day, probably doesn't make good sense, and the explanation the Minister of Education gave about the number of folks coming and going from the welfare scenario is not helpful. The reason the majority of young people are unemployed today is a literacy question. To force them into job searches that they are ill-equipped to handle.... It's ludicrous that they believe that this kind of job search is somehow helpful.

I would be the first person, as a teacher and as a school administrator, to stand before this House today and talk about the necessity for training and education programs. But I would put those programs in place before I asked those students, those young people, to go out and search for jobs they are in no position to acquire because they simply don't have a skill set. You don't force somebody through the maze of finding a job, and once they've been unsuccessful for seven months -- and lack of success is a criterion -- you give them the building blocks, the stepping stones, so they might actually get a job.

Again this government has turned on its ear what should be logical. Logic would demand that the building blocks were there and that the people who needed those stepping stones around literacy, understanding a curriculum vitae, doing a résumé, general presentation skills on a job site, and all of those things, were offered them first, not seven months later. And if we're talking about self-esteem, my hon. colleague for Delta North talked about the self-esteem and self-confidence of young people going forward.

Why would we put them through a barrage of not having the skills necessary to get a job so this government can beat them down for seven months and then say: "Now we are prepared to offer you those stepping stones"?

Hon. Speaker, I would submit to you that it's because the programs are simply not ready today. This government took great delight in announcing something that was not ready. Again I will make the case that this is an identical scenario to Skills Now. This government spent vast amounts of taxpayer dollars on an advertising program, saying call this 1-800 number. And when you called, it rang endlessly. The programs weren't there; the phone calls were not received; people in this province were not well served. This program does not present itself today as being dramatically different.

The background material presented by this government on behalf of this program says that Youth Works isn't about make-work; it's about helping make youth ready for work. Well, that's not until you've pushed them through the keyhole backwards for seven months, demanding that they demonstrate to the public that they don't have the skills. Once they've done that for seven months, once they've demonstrated that they're unsuccessful over and over and over again, then the ministry is going to come and offer some service.

Again this minister just doesn't get it when it comes to being a Minister of Education in British Columbia. You build on the strengths that students have. You don't ask them to demonstrate that they have no skill set before you reach out and offer them a hand. This is coming at it from a completely wrong direction.

If indeed the program looked at literacy and putting in place some basic work skills, I would absolutely support that. Just simple logic demands that this must come first, not seven months later. That is a huge concern. Certainly phase one is a seven-month program. Phase two is an additional two months, so we are looking at something that could take upwards of a year before a student or a young person in our society would be granted access to a certain set of skills. I'm not convinced that running them through the gauntlet for nine months is in their best interest.

I'm amazed that this minister would leap to his feet and suggest that it is appropriate to force someone to demonstrate that they don't have the skill set and then force them to do it for nine months before this government would say: "Perhaps we're coming at this from the wrong direction; perhaps the opportunities for educational enhancement should come first." That, to me, is the most positive and most optimistic route to take.

Evident in the material that has been prepared, when it talks about post-secondary training, is that those who are ready for post-secondary education can choose to opt out of Youth Works at any time -- meaning full well that if you're in the Youth Works program, you're not ready for any kind of post-secondary training. Again I would suggest that this minister has to turn this program around in terms of timing and offer those services first. Don't ask someone to put at peril their level of self-esteem and their level of self-confidence to satisfy the fact that this minister's program is not ready to go.

I have said many times in this House that this government is not interested in implementation, because they're not decent managers. This program would lend itself to that assertion once again. I have every sense that this is about getting.... This part of the House, this Liberal opposition, is only concerned with giving reasonable opportunity for people to get into the workforce. On this side of the House, we would give them the building blocks to do that.

We would not ask them to put their personal self-confidence in peril yet again, for an additional seven months, to satisfy the fact that this government is not organized. That shocks me, and it disturbs me as a teacher. It is not the way it's done. I look forward to this minister's remarks, because I believe that he is coming at this from completely the wrong direction. This gentleman is

[ Page 743 ]

not a teacher. He does not understand that there should be some systematic approach to providing opportunities for individuals.

Interjection.

L. Reid: This is not about denouncing flexibility, as the hon. member would heckle from the government benches. This is about understanding that young people in this province deserve some logical opportunities -- some sincere, genuine opportunities -- not another announcement of another program that doesn't exist, and won't for nine months, and some half-hearted attempt to justify a time line simply because the program is not ready.

So again, hon. Speaker, I look forward to the minister's remarks. I am saddened, because I believe this will create tremendous optimism when little is found to be optimistic about.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill 11 in principle. It is, I think, an entirely abhorrent way to proceed. I think that, frankly, as a government that deems itself to be a social democratic government, it should really question just how far it has strayed from some fundamental principles that it believed in.

This bill is discriminatory. This bill entrenches in the minister of the day incredible powers to determine the well-being of an individual and whether or not that individual should take a particular set of training. It supposes that if that person.... Let's also be very clear that it's not only the person between the ages of 19 and 25 but also their dependents; we're talking about young parents here. If these young parents don't adhere to what the minister deems they have to do, they're cut off. And then what? What does that mean? They're out on the street? That's what we need.

We need to have more people on the street. This government is prepared to say: "Well, we told you what you had to do; you had to get involved in this training program or that training program."

If you happen to be in an area such as my own -- Sechelt, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River -- which, unfortunately, has anywhere from 22.6 percent to roughly 19 percent youth unemployment in the very age levels that this government is talking about.... If this government deems -- as it has, in fact, over the last number of years -- not to provide those training programs within those communities, what are they going to do? Are they going to get up and move? Are we going to relocate them -- and relocate them to take training programs to find employment where?

It seems most strange to me that in a society that deems to look toward equality, we then start to fragment the population and suggest that somehow in this magical mystery tour we call life, a whole set of circumstances alter and change when we pass a particular age.

It's okay to be unemployed if you're 16 or 17, even though your home life and family life may be quite different, but the moment that you enter into this golden age of youth employment, which is defined here as a person 19 years of age to 25, then there's a whole set of restrictions, regulations and rules that are going to be applied to you as an individual -- and not only to you but also to your dependents. So we're talking about young parents here as well. I can't emphasize that enough, because throughout this legislation these dependents are affected.

Not only does it mean that when you're in that age bracket -- once you're 26 and you're unemployed -- a whole set of other circumstances apply, and these rules no longer apply to you because you have now passed that magical age, but the minister is able to order an assessment of you in terms of your income and assets. The minister is prepared to tell you that if you are to be eligible for this assistance, you may be required to dispose of those assets as a precondition. That's what this bill says the government can now do.

If you have to dispose of those assets, it says you have to accept what the minister deems is suitable employment. It doesn't tell you what it is, but it says the minister says that that's what has to happen. You have to make a reasonable effort to assume suitable employment.

[4:45]

Beyond that, if you assume the so-called suitable employment, and as a young person you find that you're working in a situation where your employer is abusive or is making all kinds of demands upon you that you feel are not justified, you have one of two choices. Either you can try to make that case stick in a tribunal or some form of judgment court -- that you're in an employment situation that causes you all kinds of grief -- or you can quit with cause.

If you find that you're working in a situation where a person is demanding things of you that most employers wouldn't, you find yourself in an unacceptable situation, and you determine that that's it -- I'm out of here, I quit -- then you're out, you're gone, you're not eligible, because this act says that if you voluntarily left employment without cause, that's it, you're gone.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Now the minister says: "Hold it -- without cause." Does the minister not understand the kind of relationship this now puts a young employee in? Somebody who's desperate for money, who may well have dependents, who is struggling to pay the rent, who finally gets into a job and is being asked to do more and more work for the income that's provided... until the individual believes that they are being exploited so much by the employer, they're out of there. And they're out of there without cause -- they're off the list; they're out of luck.

This government talks about protecting the worker; this government talks about protecting against exploitation. It now says that the minister can allow that individual, who is not going to fear the employer as much as this minister if this person deems that this workplace is unsuitable and that they can no longer work in that area....

That's a problem, because it says that the lives of these young people are now going to be affected by the high hand of government, which is going to determine what is best for them, where they should get training, what training, what jobs, and whether or not they have to stick to that job -- because if they don't, they're cut off. But only till they're 26, and then their freedoms are returned. Or if they're 18, their freedoms are maintained. But if you're between 19 and 25 the government will tell you and your dependents what you will have to do.

This is offensive legislation, and it speaks against the civil freedom of every individual. We need to recognize that government is not the place for training to take place; it isn't the position of government to provide that training.

It is the place of the educational institutions that we already have in place to provide adequate training, to work in partnership with the evolution of our so-called brave new entrepreneurial spirit that this government keeps bragging about, and to make sure that investment comes into the province and that people, having seen that investment, find that there is opportunity for jobs and for jobs to expand. It is there for people to seek out and find employment on their own, to go out and create jobs and wealth. It isn't the government's job to do that. Neither is

[ Page 744 ]

it the government's job to turn around and say to individuals: "You will take this job or you will take that job, and if you fail to do so, you're cut off." And then do what?

This law says that if you're in an unworkable situation and you find that employment isn't there or you're simply unable to find it, you pound the street day after day to try to seek employment. You go through this program, you find that it employs you to do something that you can't find a job for, and at that point the minister says: "That's it; you're gone; you're out." Then what? Maybe this is the new age, where this government is going to turn around and say: "It's back to the churches. Go back to the churches."

Let me tell you about the level of intolerance that's starting to come up. I want to read you this from the Downtown Victoria Association about saying no to panhandlers. You know what it suggests you do? It says don't deal with these people, because you're only encouraging them. It says that if these people persist, call 911. That's what this little pamphlet says you should go ahead and do -- and then make a contribution to the United Way or your local church. That's going to be great, because under this bill young people who may have all kinds of skills coming out of their well-activated brains and skills coming out of their brawn, if that's what they choose to do, can't get a job.

It isn't training; it's the end result, the job, that they want. Many of them have buckets of training, more training than they know what to do with, because every time this government comes up with a new idea it's to train them to do something else. God, we have people who are trained to do 15 or 20 jobs. They are trained to train people to train people to train for jobs -- but they can't find one. That's the problem: they can't get one.

But that's okay, because it says that here in this area, if they're not happy they can go ahead and get a reconsideration, an appeal, under this new little piece of legislation which we're about to debate, the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act, something we haven't got into yet. Check it out. That gives these people no hope. Why? Because who's going to ultimately make that decision? It's going to be the very people who made the decision in the first place.

Hon. Speaker, we're right back to where we were last night when we talked about not lumping everything together so you have one person who therefore becomes the prosecutor, judge and jury. That's what this does. This is offensive legislation in principle. It's bad legislation, and we shouldn't allow it to proceed.

Let's take a look at some of the other issues we need to look at as we get into deciding this. We talked about the matter of regulations and the member for Vancouver-Langara picked it up. Let me suggest that we'll get into it in more detail as we get into committee stage, but

section 3 says: "Subject to the regulations, the minister may.... "

Section 4 says: "Subject to the regulations, the minister may.... " Again, sections 5, 6 and 7 all say subject to those regulations. What are they? What are those regulations allowing the minister to regulate? One of them, for example, allows the minister to determine "rules for determining the income and assets of persons who apply for youth allowances or benefits and persons to or for whom they are provided." It also says that dependents of these young people will be affected by this government, who may now also intervene to the degree that they determine what those assets may be.

Is there a clear definition of assets anywhere in here? No. Does it mean that if a young person has inherited some dollars from an ailing parent, sister or brother who may have died, or somehow may have acquired some asset that gives them an opportunity to have security and a financial base, the government is going to demand they sell it? The answer is yes. Does that make sense? No. Will they have a choice? None.

This is outrageous legislation. In the five years that I've been in this chamber, I haven't seen legislation that has been so intrusive into the lives of individuals. It is unbelievable, hon. Speaker. That's what the minister says I said about the last bill, and it's true. The more legislation of this government that I read as we proceed, the worse it gets.

I'm astounded and amazed by every page I read from this point forward, hon. Speaker, because this government doesn't seem to think that individuals should have the right and the freedom to move. They don't seem to think that these people, regardless of what their age should be, should be unfettered from a minister who will determine, in Ontario workfare style -- and that's what this is -- what they have to do, where they have to be trained and where they have to go to work.

Do we want to get rid of welfare fraud? The answer is absolutely yes. Is it true that we'll find this is going to mitigate welfare fraud? The answer is absolutely no. What are the dollars that are going into this? What is the cost of this program? My estimate, in going through the data and looking through the various pieces of legislation, puts it around $300 million in terms of total budgetary cost. Hon. Speaker, do you know that's roughly half of what this government writes off in unpaid debt?

Do you know that there was one individual, whose name I won't mention here, in Prince George, who had a debt of over a million dollars that was written off by order-in-council -- just wiped out with the stroke of a pen -- because it was deemed uncollectible? This person is still a very high-profile, very well-placed, very wealthy individual -- just gone, because an order-in-council just wiped it out.

These young people who don't have jobs are not responsible for government debt. The poor among us are not responsible for the fact that governments right across this country have systematically and provincially run up huge debts and deficits. The fact th