Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1992

[ Page 817 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce to the House Dr. Bernard Bressler, the associate dean of the faculty of medicine for research at UBC. He is one of my many former bosses and is with us today in the House. Would the members please make him welcome.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce some visitors to the House today. Mr. Dave Abbott is here, and he has two people: the former premier of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev, and Marilyn Monroe, the actress. They're outside the House, and they're here to publicize the Movie Magic on May 1, 2 and 3. Dave Abbott is a former media person, and I'm introducing them today on behalf of the Minister of Tourism and Culture, since she isn't here. If any of the members of the House would like to have a photograph of this historic visit and a memento for themselves, they are available outside the House. Mr. Abbott is in the gallery. Would you please make him feel welcome.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a distinguished and noted federal MP for British Columbia. He served this country in the constitutional debate over the last number of years and has taken a courageous stand on many issues. I'd like to ask the House to welcome the MP for Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ian Waddell.

E. Conroy: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to introduce to this House Toby Ward, who is here from my constituency. He is a young and coming journalist, and he happens to be sitting up in the press gallery. We all wish him well, and I'd like to welcome him to Victoria and to the House.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House today Jerome Roth, who is the executive assistant to the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen, Jack Whittaker. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my son Andrew Chisholm, who is visiting us from SFU. Would you make him most welcome.

D. Streifel: I have visitors observing from the gallery today: Aimey Antle and Erin Antle with their mother, Juli Rees, from Winnipeg. They are also accompanied by a former colleague of mine, Frank Pozzobon. Would the House help make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's a rare occasion. A second introduction I'd like to make is from the senior high school in my riding, Terry Fox Senior Secondary School. In the gallery today we have a group of over 200 students, of which there are 50 accompanied by one of the teachers, Mr. Bruce Kiloh, who was recently nominated for the Mining Association of B.C. person of the year. I would ask the House to welcome these students, who are here as part of their social studies course -- and the teachers with them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like the House to make welcome a nephew, Rob Ferrier from Prince George, who is studying here in this wonderful city at Camosun College.

Oral Questions

B.C. CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, an easy question to the Premier today, the first back after a weekend. A one-word answer is all that's required. Could the Premier tell the people of British Columbia: in what month of this year will the people have a opportunity to vote on a made-in-B.C. question on constitutional reform for Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I think the question is one that.... I would very much like to say the month and the day when that vote can take place, but I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that the constitutional ministers of this country have been meeting over the last couple of weeks, are going to be meeting this week, and hopefully are moving closer to a constitutional package of reform that will allow this great country of ours to move forward. I think that when the constitutional affairs ministers complete their discussions and negotiations in the next few weeks, I will be able to answer that question much more definitively.

G. Wilson: I note that on February 21 on a local talk show the Premier said: "I don't care about anybody else's timetable; I'm sticking to B.C.'s timetable." Will the Premier tell this House by what process the B.C. question will be formulated, what the date will be when it is put before the people, and how much time will elapse before the people have an opportunity to vote on that question?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, the process is by referendum. That process will take place on the timetable of the people of British Columbia. As I explained in my first answer, we are into a very sensitive and I think positive set of discussions and negotiations that are taking place across Canada so that this can be a Canada round, not just one province. We're proud to be part of Canada, but I want to make it clear that we will have a referendum. I think what we should do, though, is complete those discussions across Canada so that we can have a constitutional reform package that will succeed this time.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

G. Wilson: I think all members of this Legislature want to see the constitutional reform succeed this time. 

[ Page 818 ]

To that end, will the Premier today commit to this House that he will set aside full time for every member of this Legislature who wishes to debate on the formulation of the B.C. question and the timing of such a question? And would the Premier commit today to making sure that such a debate will take place in this House prior to any question being put to the Canadian people by the Mulroney government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, that is a matter of future policy, but I have made it clear that it's the people of British Columbia who will have the final say in the changes to the Canadian constitution. That will take place.

POACHING

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of Environment. At the annual convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the minister launched a new program, the undercover envirocop program. Will the minister confirm that the objective of this program is to reduce wildlife theft by the apprehension and prosecution of all poachers?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the intention of the program is to reduce poaching, yes.

C. Serwa: My question was with respect to the apprehension and prosecution of all poachers.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, there is an array of measures available to the ministry to do everything it can to eliminate poaching and illegal acts, and every effort will be made to make use of that array of resources.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

C. Serwa: I note, hon. Speaker, that the NDP government in Ontario, for example, interprets aboriginal hunting and fishing rights as allowing hunting in class A parks. Does that situation now exist in British Columbia?

[2:15]

The final thing is: what special provisions do the aboriginal people now enjoy with respect to your government in relation to poaching in this province?

The Speaker: Hon. minister, there are actually two questions there, but the minister may choose to answer one of them.

Hon. J. Cashore: Officials in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are in close consultation with aboriginal peoples throughout the province. We are seeking to address these issues on a partnership basis, and to this end we are working closely with the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We look to that process as the one that's going to work best for all people -- aboriginal people and the citizens of the province.

TEACHER LAYOFFS

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. We on this side of the House wonder if the Premier has any message for the more than 1,000 teachers and support staff who will receive layoff notices from their local school boards.

Hon. A. Hagen: All boards at this time are finalizing their budgets for the coming year, as we are debating our budgets in this House. In the course of those plans, they are looking to the programs that they will be able to fund next year. We are in a planning process with boards, and I suggest the member should speak to the individual boards about their particular plans for their districts in the year ahead.

W. Hurd: A supplementary to the Premier. In his party's election treatise, "A Better Way," we note the following: "Educators will get the respect they deserve and will be drawn back into educational planning. Elected school boards and college boards will have their mandates restored." Was this government's idea of a mandate a pink slip, and do you get involved in education planning without any job?

Hon. A. Hagen: Every board in this province is committed to the education of its children, and every board in this province is working, as we are, within the budgets that have been provided for us. I have great confidence in the boards of the province to maintain services for children and to maintain the jobs of the teachers and support staff that are working in those districts. They are in a planning phase at this time, and they are letting us know of some of the difficulties that they have in that planning. But at this point it is very premature for the member to make such provocative comments about the future of jobs for teachers and support staff.

W. Hurd: Another gem from "A Better Way": "Funding will be geared to local needs rather than to artificial provincial averages." What's the difference between the federal government downloading on this province and his government downloading on school boards and councils in this province?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, let me speak to the education budget, which has increased by 9.1 percent this year; $300 million more to the school districts of the province, most of it targeted to school programs. We have also increased stability by providing additional funding for rapidly growing school districts, for enrolment, for English as a second language and for school districts planning for new schools, in addition to providing new services in the school meal program. This government is working with teachers, with school boards and with parents to bring about a stable and predictable funding program. We have begun that this year by ensuring that there are increases to every school district in the province for every one of the school districts, along with capital funding for schools to be improved and portables to be removed.

[ Page 819 ]

HIGHWAY TOLLS

D. Symons: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The opposition notes with interest that the minister is flirting with the concept of tolls for highway construction. Is this now NDP government policy, or is this just the minister's personal trial balloon?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This is in the best tradition of open discussion. I would point out to the member opposite that, as he is quoted in the Sun this morning, he is not opposed to tolls in certain conditions.

D. Symons: There were some qualifying words around that, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Symons: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the NDP government is going to earn additional tax revenue from increased fuel tax, licensing fees and ICBC rates. They collect far more from these sources than they intend to spend on highways. How can this minister justify a further tax on the personal and commercial motorists of this province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the member opposite is going down the wrong road. The point is that there are many serious transportation problems throughout the province. If we want to put some of these off for ten or 15 years before we address them, that's one possibility. I would raise the possibility of funding these projects through borrowing and then creating a sinking fund, using tolls, to partially pay off those debts.

D. Symons: A supplemental to the Premier. Considering the vital importance of tourism to the provincial economy and our already high gas taxes, how does the Premier, who is fond saying the province is open for business, think tourists will respond to this new NDP toll tax?

The Speaker: I would recognize the member for Okanagan West.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Premier has confirmed that some $36,000 in caucus global funds were used to defray legal costs incurred by yourself in connection with the Firestone civil suit. Can the minister advise the House who paid his settlement costs, estimated last week to be in the range of $25,000 to $30,000?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that the question is out of order. Notwithstanding that, let me assure the hon. member that no taxpayer expenditures were made in that regard.

C. Serwa: Can the minister tell us why he would continue to use caucus global funding to pay for his legal costs, even after he knew that cabinet ministers are precluded by government policy from having their personal legal costs paid by the taxpayer?

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, the question is out of order. If the member continues to ask questions out of order, I guess that's his prerogative, but let me say this. With respect to that situation, I think it's fair to say that the right thing to do -- the correct thing to do, under the circumstances -- was to release the information before this House. That information made it clear that the former Attorney General of the province, Mr. Smith, was tampering with the administration of justice. I'm pleased to say that my caucus made a conscious decision to stand in support of that action on the part of this member, and so it should have. We make no apologies for having done so.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

C. Serwa: Can the Minister of Labour confirm that no organized labour group ever contributed either to defray his legal costs in the Firestone suit or to pay, in whole or in part, for the settlement costs? That's with respect to the $25,000 to $35,000.

Hon. M. Sihota: Not only is that question out of order, but quite frankly it is insulting. Let me say again to answer: I can confirm the fact that there was no assistance provided directly or indirectly by labour with respect to that matter in any way whatsoever. Having said that, I want to make it abundantly clear that the hon. member is breaching the privileges of this House by asking that kind of question. Quite frankly, I find it offensive and insulting that he would make that kind of accusation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration for 1990-91.

Hon. T. Perry: I wish to table the report entitled A Closer Look: A Profile of People With Disabilities in British Columbia. Then I will make a brief ministerial statement.

The Speaker: Does the minister have leave to table the report?

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

DISABLED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. T. Perry: This report, A Closer Look, based on the health and activity limitations survey conducted as part of the 1986 federal census, provides a comprehensive look at British Columbians with disabilities. Hon. Speaker, 

[ Page 820 ]

A Closer Look is at once both disturbing and compelling. It is disturbing in that it clearly identifies barriers to independence faced on a daily basis by British Columbians with disabilities, barriers associated with employment, income and education. It is compelling because it also contains personal accounts of British Columbians with disabilities who, through courage and determination, were and are able to overcome barriers to independence and lead fulfilling and productive lives, and they continue to do so. Many of them will be present to meet members of this House at a reception I will host on behalf of the government this Thursday evening in Vancouver, to which all hon. members have been invited.

The tabling of this document is timely and significant, as this is the week of Independence '92, an historic international congress in Vancouver dedicated to people with disabilities and their quest for equality with all other citizens. I urge the key participants attending Independence '92 to read this report with consuming interest. They will find it invaluable in providing a perspective from which to develop and deliver new products and services to increase the independence of people with disabilities.

In conclusion, I want to commend those who were responsible for the publication of this report, A Closer Look. Collaborators include my ministry, the ministries of Education, Social Services and Finance, and the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities.

[2:30]

D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for tabling this report in the House today. This is an important report dealing with the profiles of British Columbians with disabilities. I'd like to echo his words. It is extremely timely that this report be tabled in the House during this week, the week that Independence '92 is being hosted in Vancouver.

Independence '92 is a major international congress on people with disabilities. Our only hope as members of this assembly would be that the various ministries of government, including Advanced Education, Education, Social Services, and other agencies of government, including the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, live up to the hope and promise that has been made in the past. We hope that the commitment to provide services and benefits to British Columbians with disabilities of various kinds is still there.

H. De Jong: I also wish to thank the Minister of Advanced Education for bringing this report before us. A couple of years ago, when the previous government was undertaking some initiatives to help those who had disabilities, I spoke about this matter. I made reference to a gardener taking care of his garden. So this Legislature is taking care of the people who are hit by the storms of life. I'm very pleased that this work is continuing and that the Minister of Advanced Education has seen fit to bring this important booklet to this assembly. Undoubtedly we'll be discussing these matters further in the estimates to come.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, pursuant to the standing orders, I would advise members that the House will sit tomorrow afternoon.

Secondly, I call Committee of Supply: section A in the Douglas Fir Room; section B in the chamber. The Douglas Fir Room will consider votes 18 through 21 of the Ministry of Attorney General, and the committee in the House will consider Education, the minister's office vote.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

On vote 24: minister's office, $398,558 (continued).

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, my questions this afternoon have to do specifically with the provision of funding for aboriginal people through the Ministry of Education as part of joint shared programs with the federal Department of Indian Affairs, and also through any special provision of funding that may be available for language training or cultural programs that relate to aboriginal people.

On the first instance, my question specifically is with respect to the formula provided in funds made available to aboriginal people. What is the position of this ministry with respect to the provision of those dollars directly to Indian bands for administration, as opposed to the current formula that is at work now where school districts become involved in the maintenance and distribution of those dollars? Could the minister outline what kinds of costs may be affected with the provision of dollars that might be available for aboriginal people, on a per capita basis, through this current system?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe a number of those issues have already been canvassed. Let me just respond briefly. There are a variety of working arrangements with local school boards and native bands and tribal councils around the delivery of education across the province. In addition, there are funds available for native language and resource development, sometimes in collaboration with local boards, tribal councils or other groups. It's a very diverse picture in terms of how services are provided for the aboriginal people of British Columbia and their children.

G. Wilson: If I am going over ground that has been covered, I trust the minister will have patience with me. I don't believe these questions have been asked. They are more specific to the availability of dollars for aboriginal people. There are two groups that I have some concern about -- those that are not reserve-based and may be a part of an urban environment and those that are reserve-based -- to make sure that there is adequate and proper provision of moneys for aboriginal children that can be administered directly from the 

[ Page 821 ]

federal share. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the advisability of the provision of those dollars in a direct transfer -- federal to tribal council -- as opposed to involving school districts, and on how that might facilitate dollars earmarked for native education that currently aren't finding their way there, especially for those native children who are not reserve-based.

Hon. A. Hagen: There is funding in the block for native children who are not reserve-based. As I noted, there are many arrangements between local school districts and bands and tribal councils around the delivery-of-education system. As in all areas, these are subject to negotiation on an ongoing basis. We're always working with native populations around the delivery of education services to their children.

G. Wilson: Certainly the information we are receiving in my own critic portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs from a number of aboriginal groups around the province is that there does not seem to be a satisfactory system of guaranteeing that the dollars available for native education go into native education, and that they are being used for other purposes. This is difficult to determine with any certainty because of the manner in which educational funds are reported and the manner available for us to assess in these estimates as to how that money can be earmarked or tied. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that, to see if there is a better way to get to the actual dollars available and the dollars actually being applied to aboriginal people.

Hon. A. Hagen: I again repeat that there are a variety of means by which dollars flow to native children in the school districts. Some of them come via the federal government on an average basis per pupil. There are additional resources that we make available on a program basis, and those will be as variable as the school districts. I would certainly agree with the member that there need to be ongoing efforts, as we are engaged in at this time, to ensure that aboriginal people have a very strong voice in the education of their children -- as all parents wish to have a voice in the education of their children -- and that arrangements are made with their local school districts to accommodate those aspirations and those needs. It's impossible for me to give you all the variety of ways in which school districts are working with their bands and tribal councils. Those negotiations are important and ongoing, and we are committed to them being productive.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for that answer.

A question related to this matter of funding for aboriginal programs has specifically to do with involvement in alternate programs, alternate schools and schools being established outside mainstream educational facilities where there are programs being established outside name-based white communities and where aboriginal people and young people are accessing education. To what extent is the Ministry of Education tied to the funding of those schools, and to what extent is that strictly driven by the Department of Indian Affairs? I wonder if there is some provision to work out exactly what kinds of dollars are coming in to the province with respect to those special facilities.

Hon. A. Hagen: Again, there are a variety of models. There are schools within the public school system, federally operated schools and independent schools that receive funding under the Independent School Act. We have a number of working arrangements established between the native people and the various jurisdictions with whom they work -- local school districts, the provincial government and the federal government.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for trying to answer my question. I don't know if my question is not easy to answer, or if I'm not asking it in enough detail. I'm attempting to isolate, in terms of some numbers, the dollars available on a per capita basis so that we can know with some certainty that those moneys allocated on that basis are going to that end. I wonder how we can find those figures with some degree of certainty so that this year we know that if there are "x" number of dollars dedicated to "y" school district for aboriginal schools, or young children going into the schools, then in fact those dollars are being committed to those programs. I'm aware there are a variety of programs, and I am aware that there are joint jurisdictions, but I'm trying to get a handle on the figures, the numbers, that are actually being applied.

Hon. A. Hagen: I repeat, hon. Chair, that there are funds for the education of aboriginal children that come from the federal government based on the average cost. There are additional funds that are provided by the province. In most instances those funds are, like all funds, distributed to school districts based on their aboriginal populations. There are a variety of arrangements that the aboriginal peoples make with their local school boards through local agreements for how their children are educated.

I really think it's quite difficult for me to give you the kind of figures that would be useful. We have, again, diversity in our native population, in the school districts of the province and in the service delivery. If we can provide you with some additional information that might be helpful to you, we'd be very happy to oblige, but it's very difficult for me to provide you with what I think you're looking for in terms of this going into that, because of the diversity of educational systems that are in place.

I've been surprised myself, as minister, at the diversity. I think the goal, again, is that the native people have a strong say and voice in the education of their children. We're committed to working with the native people toward that end.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the difficulty the minister is finding. Perhaps my question might be better put in a written question which the minister and the minister's staff might be able to respond to. I'd be happy to do that and would welcome a response.

[ Page 822 ]

With respect to the direction that these questions are headed in, it would seem that because of the diversity the minister talks about, and because of the joint jurisdiction between federal and provincial governments, there is an unnecessary complication with the provincial government's involvement in the maintenance, administration and provision of transfer funds. I wonder what the minister's view is -- and I'm sensitive about not walking into future policy areas -- with respect to making a provision where band councils rather than school boards can directly administer those moneys.

[2:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: The member has described something that does in fact happen, where funds flow from the federal government to the band, and to the school board for agreed-upon services under a local education agreement. It's one of the diverse ways in which the aboriginal people are involved with setting up their own expectations around the delivery of education for their children.

G. Wilson: I'm aware that some councils, although I understand very few, actually work in that way. I wonder if the minister does have an idea in terms of the percentage increase of dollars that are going into local educational programs, what as a percentage of dollars there might be in terms of programs servicing aboriginal people. I don't know if you've broken it down by region in the province, but I wonder if you could give me a percentage increase with respect to reserve-based programs or programs for reserve-based people, and a percentage increase for those that are in urban schools where they are non-reserve-based? Are those figures available?

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a far too detailed question for us to be able to answer through the estimate process. I think it would be better if the member took us up on our offer to help him understand something about the range of ways in which native programs and schools and children are funded. I think that if that's what he's seeking, we can serve his purpose better in another forum.

G. Wilson: I will indeed take you up on your offer, and I would much appreciate getting that information. It's difficult as a critic in aboriginal affairs, because much of my questioning has to be in education, social services and in health care rather than in aboriginal affairs.

Is there any attempt in terms of the funding to start to move toward direct language training in the mainline school services provided in British Columbia with respect to aboriginal languages?

Hon. A. Hagen: We did answer that question earlier, and the answer is yes.

J. Dalton: I have several things that I want to canvass this afternoon, but I thought I should open with some general remarks on the fact that we've spent an extended period of time on these estimates, and importantly so. In fact, if I recall the words of the minister as we initiated our estimates almost two weeks ago, she said: "There will be ample time for full debate." I think that all members can appreciate that we've had a very extended and full debate. I make those introductory comments, because the timing of today's estimates is significant.

Yesterday was April 20. That was the day, according to the School Act, the final budget for each district had to be filed and handed down. I do have some particular comments that I wish to make about several of those districts, which without question have faced some very significant economic shortfalls.

The first thing I would like to say is that the Surrey School District -- and it's unfortunate that we have this example -- has filed its budget a day late, and it has also filed with a $3 million deficit included in its budget. Clearly that is contrary to the provisions of the School Act. The Surrey School Board was quoted as saying that they felt that they were compelled to file this deficit budget given the very serious economic shortfalls in their district. I would like the minister to comment on the process that Surrey has had to go through: first, whether there may be any ministerial action taken against the Surrey School District as a result of this late filing and a deficit budget; secondly, whether this is not a predictable example of what we have commented on many times, and other people as well, that the school districts would be facing very serious economic conditions and are therefore compelled to have to go contrary to their own wishes and file such a deficit budget.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let's just note that yesterday was a holiday, and I take no issue with Surrey having filed its budget with our ministry today.

Let me just make a couple of comments about the information that Surrey has provided. I appreciate the information they have provided. They are aware, as the member has noted, that there is a compliance requirement for them to design a budget that is in line with the amount of money that has been provided for them. I think that was $232 million. My ministry will be working with the Surrey board, as it has over the past number of weeks, concerning the challenges that that district faces with such a rapidly growing school district. It is a very large district. It has many new students each year and is working to maintain a good working and learning environment for its children.

Let me also note that in our increased funding to every school district, including the Surrey School District, we have taken initiatives to increase stability and predictability. Surrey has some additional funding in its block for its rapid growth. It also has some additional funding that will be coming to it in the course of the next few months.

Surrey is operating a school meal program, which is funded on a targeted basis. Surrey is experiencing a fairly significant growth in the number of ESL students, and I'm quite sure it will have additional funds to help with the assessment and placement of those students. That school district will also anticipate funding for an 

[ Page 823 ]

increased enrolment in September. One of the ways we have acted to improve predictability this year is to enable boards to know very early in the school year what the increases in funding will be as a result of new students.

In addition to the added funding that Surrey has received, additional funding will be coming to that school district in the course of the next few months.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that response. I must say that I am not convinced -- and I suspect the Surrey School District is not fully convinced -- of the hoped-for further funding. In one statement attributed to one of the school officials in Surrey, they felt compelled to file a $3 million deficit budget given that they had no expectation of being able to hire the additional staff that a growth district such as Surrey would be expected to. Perhaps we can come back to that particular example later. I did want to make comments on that. It's unfortunate that a very large and growing school district such as Surrey felt compelled to go in contravention of the law and file a deficit budget. Perhaps it's a very indefinite hope, but Surrey is hoping for some special-aid grant or emergency funding that perhaps would be forthcoming after having been compelled to file a deficit budget.

As I said in my opening comments, the timing of our discussion today is of interest. I appreciate that yesterday was a holiday, as the minister pointed out. I don't know that it was a holiday for all, but certainly it was for us, and therefore school districts would not be in contravention for failing to file as of April 20. Today would be the deadline to do so.

I would like to take us back to January 31, and we'll work forward from that date. January 31 is a significant date because, as the minister of course will certainly recall, that was the day that she and the Minister of Finance announced the block funding increase for '92-'93. It was our reaction in the opposition right on that day -- in fact, we commented at the time -- that the increased funding would not be sufficient to take care of some of the anticipated and real costs of school districts. I think every evidence would indicate that our reaction at that time was correct and was accurate.

In particular, on January 31 the minister made the following comment -- and this is taken from the news release of January 31 that came from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights. The minister is quoted in this release as saying: "The next year will not be easy, but under these difficult circumstances this is the best decision for education." The hon. minister is referring, of course, to the block funding increase which, as we discussed previously in these estimates, was a 2.4 percent economic adjustment, and then other increases for increased enrolment and some of the discrepancies in the school year's accounting as opposed to the government's fiscal year.

The minister has certainly several times in these estimates reminded the committee that the overall lift to her ministry is $300 million. We recognize that. It's a 9.1 percent lift in the ministry budget itself. However, I come back first to the statement the minister made on January 31 that next year will be a difficult year, or as she actually said: "The next year will not be easy...." I think there is every evidence that the next year for many school districts will be anything but easy. We take ourselves from the significant date of January 31, an increase of in effect 2.4 percent for the school districts. It was quite predictable, and now the evidence is in, that many districts would be in significant economic shortfall for '92-'93.

If I may refer to some examples, I'm probably going to detail some more significantly than others, but every school district in some sense is feeling the pinch. That's not to say that we should just instantly find more money and correct all of their problems. School districts, of course, have to defend their budgets. They have to demonstrate, if they are in an economic shortfall, where the particular areas are in which they are feeling the difficulties.

Some of the evidence has now come forward as of yesterday, the date for the budgets to be set. We are informed by one article in a Vancouver newspaper that -- and these are only approximate figures -- 1,000 jobs in the education system will be cut as a result of the economic shortfall. Now these are teaching, administrative, support staff and other related, such as custodial positions. I think it's a reasonably accurate estimate, Mr. Chairman, that 1,000 jobs overall are going to be lost in the B.C. school system -- teaching and non-teaching related functions -- as a result of the budget that we are now debating. That's unfortunate.

[3:00]

I believe, if I can recall, the minister made a public statement recently suggesting that the districts having to lay off and give notice to teachers will perhaps at least have some satisfaction or -- maybe that's not the right term -- some limited pleasure in knowing that the growth districts will be in a position to hire these laid-off teachers, the ones about to be dismissed. I think probably the example of Surrey would point out that that is not a likelihood. We commented previously on that. Every district is facing economic shortfall. Growth districts such as Surrey, even though they might like to hire the laid-off teaching staff from other districts, are not going to be in a position to do so, as the evidence indicates.

If I can just make some other particular references while we're on the topic of layoffs within the school system. Some of the districts that have already announced or are going through the process now of layoffs are: Vancouver, 220 teaching and non-teaching support staff plus administrative positions; Victoria -- as was well documented, quite a while ago -- 263 part-time and full-time teaching positions from the Greater Victoria School District. Some other examples that are referred to -- just to show that we're not talking about lower mainland or Vancouver Island only -- Prince George is facing 52 cuts in its school district; Cowichan, 35; the Shuswap district is also referred to in this article from the Vancouver Sun of yesterday, 23 teaching positions being lost.

I'm just citing those, Mr. Chairman, to reinforce the position that we have been advancing in these estimates that the block funding is inadequate.... We could also 

[ Page 824 ]

address -- but we're not going to deal with that here specifically -- the obvious need for a very serious re-examination of the block funding formula itself. But these examples do point out that there's a very significant economic difficulty that many, many school districts are going through for '92-'93. If we do not address the overall question of funding -- and, as I say, that will be a future policy discussion -- then things are not going to improve over the years.

I'm inviting the minister to comment as to the very serious disruption to these and other school districts that is being caused by the layoff notices and by other cuts that I'm going to refer to in a moment -- and whether the promise that this government has indicated, at least to the school system, that things would improve was perhaps a misleading reference. Perhaps the school districts had an expectation for the upcoming year that has been anything but realized. Is the minister prepared to give very serious consideration to the requests of school districts that some form of emergency funding, special aid grant, special purpose grant -- whatever we wish to call it...? Would it not be a strong possibility? Because quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the school officials that I've talked to over the last few days and weeks do not see the real expectation of improvement, certainly not in the next year and even beyond that. It is very difficult for these school officials to do serious and effective planning when there's so much discontent within the school districts and so much upset caused to the teachers, parents, students and everyone who's involved in the system.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, one of the challenges in debating the Education estimates is that we have a cogoverned system. There are 75 school districts in the province, who are responsible for setting their budgets, their school programs, within a framework which is established by the Ministry of Education, and much of our discussion is related to school district budgets.

I am responsible in this House and to the people of British Columbia, on behalf of my government, for the budget of the Ministry of Education, and I do believe that to some extent we are going over ground that we have been going over now for almost two weeks in respect to these estimates.

Let me repeat that every school district in British Columbia received an increase in funding this year. Every school district is fully funded for increases in enrolment for the coming school year, including an additional phase where funds will be provided for latecomers into the school system. In addition, there have been funds allocated for some of the identified areas of need as we move toward the goal of a more stable and predictable system, which the member mentioned.

On January 31, I announced a funding and finance review which would take place in this coming year preparatory to next year. A great deal of work has gone on in respect to preparing for that review with, I might note, cooperative consultation from school districts of the province, who have provided us with a great deal of useful and helpful information, because we are jointly responsible.

I can speak to our goals, which were to make education our highest priority; to increase funding for every school district to the tune of $300 million -- $232 million directly to the programs that the member is talking about; funding for debt-servicing of new schools; renewed schools; and health and safety improvements in those schools. Those are the targets for our funding. We have improved funding, and we have introduced some programs.

It is a difficult year. It is a year, as I said, that will not be easy. We are facing, in the province, a massive deficit that could eat up tens of millions of the dollars which the member would like to have going into school programs; so would I; so would every member on this side of the Legislature. We have provided for education in the province for next year, and I am satisfied and proud that we have given that priority to education, as we said we would when we were elected.

The issue, then, of looking at school districts district by district is something that cannot be fully canvassed in this Legislature because we are dealing with the budgets of another level of government for which I have the greatest respect and with which I believe I have excellent working relationships.

The Chair: Before the member continues, I would just concur with the frustration over the matter of the two different jurisdictions; however, they are intertwined, as the minister has pointed out. Could the member continue, keeping in mind that there are limitations on the ability of the committee to address matters which are being dealt with at the school board level in all respects.

J. Dalton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks and I certainly appreciate the remarks the minister has just made. I do feel, however, that it is very important that we in opposition stand up and speak strongly on behalf of school districts. That is certainly part of our function, and I think it's a very important function. I don't think the minister would quarrel with that. I do appreciate that once the funding is set for local school districts, then, of course, they have their own jurisdiction and authority as to how they spend that money.

There is a recurring theme here, and it's one that I don't want to have to restate many times. Covering old ground, as I believe the minister said, is not necessarily going to be profitable. But I would point out again that this is a significant day, because now the final budgets are in. Those final budgets, of course, are dictated by what the ministry provides to each school district. Therefore we cannot escape the real fact that because of the underfunding of the system, these districts are now indicating to us that their final budgets.... Very unpleasant and unfortunate news is coming forth.

I don't wish to be guilty of restating something that we have said, certainly in a general sense, many times before in these estimates. But I can certainly point out to the committee some specific examples of school districts that are now facing very significant disruptions in their program offerings because of underfunding. I've already referred to the layoffs of teaching and non-

[ Page 825 ]

teaching staff, so we don't need to examine that in any further detail. That certainly is an obvious indication of disruption in the system. Again, the overall problem of underfunding is causing many difficulties.

I would like to point out to the committee some examples of underfunding that are causing disruptions from district to district. One very significant example: in 1992-93 the West Vancouver School District is facing a budget reduction of $2.142 million. That, among other things, is resulting in 25 full-time-equivalent teachers being laid off in the West Vancouver district. That's just another example of the difficulties many districts are facing. Burnaby is another example. It's facing a $1.8 million cutback for 1992-93.

If I can paraphrase what the minister commented on recently, it is correct that every district has received an increase in its budget for 1992-93, as opposed to the previous year. But when the increase is inadequate to provide for even the obvious fixed costs of a district, not even taking into account possible salary increases and all the other things that are going to impact on a district, I'm going to suggest that this very serious problem of underfunding has to be specifically addressed. It would be nice if we could all come up with a solution that would be reasonably desirable for all concerned. Reality dictates that that is not going to happen, but we do have to come back and reinforce these very unpleasant times that school districts are going through.

If I may, I will also refer to one other example, because I think this is probably the most dramatic example in this province. I may be perhaps overstating it, but I think not. It's very unfortunate to me personally because my three children attend the North Vancouver School District, and they are going to suffer as much as anyone within the district. I had the unpleasant task of attending the North Vancouver School District meeting when the final budget was set on April 14. I have the document in front of me, and I can tell you that there was a litany of program cuts and reductions. Just to point out some examples, there were 14 programs in North Vancouver that were eliminated completely. They are gone because of the underfunding of the system -- including some very significant what I call "flagship programs" that the North Vancouver district has built up over the years, and now unfortunately has to go and eliminate entirely from their offerings, such as the outdoor school program. That outdoor school program -- certainly well-known throughout British Columbia -- has to be mothballed for '92-93 because of underfunding. The band and strings program for elementary students is gone -- again, a flagship program well-known throughout British Columbia. It is entirely regrettable to me personally, and as the official opposition Education critic, to have to cite these examples. But there is reality. We're not talking about hypothetical situations -- maybe a few people being disrupted or having to shop around and find jobs elsewhere. We in North Vancouver are losing very important and significant programs, and it is because of a $10.2 million shortfall for '92-93.

[3:15]

The minister correctly.... As in our previous discussions, I acknowledge the special grant of $2.8 million that her ministry extended to North Vancouver, but even taking into account a special grant for one school district -- and I believe that was 14 percent of the entire special grants given to the districts -- obviously that is not taking care of the problem, not in any way shape or form.

So, coming back to this North Vancouver example, 14 programs were eliminated entirely, including some very significant and well-recognized programs of long standing. Another 17 programs in North Vancouver have to be curtailed. There are significant reductions in 17 other programs, including library acquisitions. So that means that the libraries in that district -- among other school districts -- are going to be suffering.

It's a very sad commentary to have to state that because this ministry has not been able to provide the adequate funding to school districts, we are facing such significant cutbacks.

I would also point out to the committee that in North Vancouver 96 full-time-equivalent teaching staff will have to be let go because of these reductions, as will 17 administrators, plus non-support staff. I cite that example because, as I said earlier, I believe that's probably the most dramatic example in this province. Perhaps some will accuse me of being a bit self-serving, because it also happens to affect my children. However, I don't think there's any question that North Vancouver is a very significant example. It's one that certainly brings to reality the economic shortfall that many, many districts are facing.

I would restate to the minister: is there not some means of addressing these economic shortfalls by providing some emergency funding, more special grants? School districts like North Vancouver are going through pure agony as to how they plan for the next year. I would also point out that it is not just the next year. What about the year after? Will they be able to reinstate these programs? Do they have any expectation from the ministry that, even if they have to live without for a year, they can start their planning for the '93-94 school year?

It would be far preferable to all concerned if some form of emergency funding -- for want of a better term -- were made available to these districts that can demonstrate real need and are not just suggesting to the minister: "Well, by the way, we're having a few economic difficulties. Please bail us out." So I invite the minister, if she can, to perhaps give these school districts some glimmer of hope, some light at the end of this very dark tunnel that has been created by underfunding the system.

Hon. A. Hagen: Again the member is asking me to comment on the decisions of the North Vancouver School Board. I could look at a whole range of issues in relation to school districts. As I've noted, school districts are responsible for setting their own budgets. I respect the very challenging and difficult task that that is for every school district, every year.

I must repeat that North Vancouver received an increase of 3 percent this year over last year. It has received increases each year, as have other districts of the province, in line with a consistent approach to the 

[ Page 826 ]

basic education program funded by our service. North Vancouver offers a rich array of programs. The member is well aware of that, and so am I. North Vancouver has been treated fairly and consistently, as have the other districts of the province, in the nearly $240 million that have gone to each and every school district for school programs across British Columbia.

L. Fox: When I addressed a question to you with respect to the effects of the fair wage policy on the capital program last week, you deferred that to the Minister of Labour, and I more or less accepted that. But on further review, I find in the order-in-council listings that order M37, which the minister herself signed, was a direction to the school boards and to the province as to how the fair wage policy would apply with respect to capital projects. So I have to ask you again, hon. minister, if there's been any consideration given as to how this fair wage policy would apply to the more remote segments of this province. In many cases individuals in the trades are well-recognized in various ways, certainly in terms of their work ethic and expertise, but they're not ticketed. It is of extreme concern in my area that this so-called fair wage policy would not allow the people and the companies that historically built our schools, did a very good and economical job and through that supported their respective communities.... I'm extremely concerned that this policy may limit their opportunities to continue to provide those services.

Hon. A. Hagen: As I noted in our discussion previously, concerns relating to implementation of that will go to the Minister of Labour. I note the concerns that this member has raised, and I'm sure they will be made known to the minister.

L. Fox: I look forward to that direction being given to the minister, hopefully emphatically, from your perspective.

Another clarification that I'd like to get with respect to a question I asked last week is specifically to do with the $30 million designated for educational change and implementation in '92-93. Has the minister decided on what basis those dollars are going to be allotted -- whether it's going to be done on a per-capita or per-student basis, whether it's going to be done based on needs tests -- or what process is going to be used in order to distribute those funds through the system?

Hon. A. Hagen: The amount of money that the member refers to is in the Ministry of Education budget to support education change. There is a wide diversity of initiatives being proposed to assist teachers, parents and school districts in achieving change. Once our estimates are finished, we will be in a position to begin to consult with our partners in education on the ways in which those dollars will be used in the school districts. The important thing for me to note is that approximately one-third of the ministry's direct budget will be going to assist the process of change in the school districts of the province.

H. De Jong: I just have a couple of questions. The first one deals with the possible inequity in block funding. When block funding was initiated by the previous Minister of Education, there were some school districts that received considerably more and others less, as it applies to a student ratio and the funding per student.

I'm sure that the minister is quite well aware of the problems District 34 ran into. They operated a very frugal budget for years prior to the block funding coming into place, because they were very concerned about the funding cost to the taxpayer. At the same time, they got caught in this block funding, which really hampered the operations of School District 34. I guess one of the reasons that it's difficult is that many school districts, through the bargaining process, have established by contract with the teachers a class size or a student-teacher ratio.

My question to the minister would be: is that a fair way of running a school district? In fact, these pupil-teacher ratios are a part of the bargaining process, thereby making it very difficult for school boards to operate and provide the necessary funding for the programs that the people of the community expect the school board to deliver.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would note that the method of bargaining is the method of bargaining introduced by that member's government, but we are again into the jurisdiction of local school boards, who are responsible for collective agreements with their teachers and other members of their staff. Those are entirely within the jurisdiction of local boards.

H. De Jong: Again, I'm not sure whether the minister understands my question correctly. Does the ministry feel that the negotiations between a school district and the teachers' association of that particular school district should be allowed to have the teacher ratio as a part of the bargaining process?

Hon. A. Hagen: I note that the scope of bargaining is a matter between the local school district and its employee groups.

The Chair: The point's well taken. Continue, hon. member.

H. De Jong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll get down to something else then.

As I said earlier about the block funding and the inequity in the administration of the block funding as it initially came about, where school boards had all kinds of staff and equipment and, on top of that.... Some districts, like District 34, are coping with very fast growth which really wasn't recognized in the block funding. Has the minister or the ministry done anything since last year to accommodate that inequity, which was very apparent between District 34 and other school districts within the province?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I will repeat that Abbotsford is a growing district and has therefore 

[ Page 827 ]

received some additional funds for its growth, for start-up costs of new schools, for its growing English-as-second-language programs, and for all of the new students who arrive in the district in September and further on. Let me just note that Abbotsford received $6.6 million more this school year ahead than last year -- it's a 9 percent increase. Over the last three years, Abbotsford has received 44 percent more funding with an enrolment increase of 21 percent.

[3:30]

H. De Jong: I thank the minister for those answers. I appreciate those moves.

One final question in relation to the independent schools. We have quite a number of independent schools within our constituency. They're well-run schools. They've enjoyed a substantial amount of support from the previous government, and, of course, the previous government had seen fit to increase the funding for independent schools from 30 percent to 50 percent of the cost that is being provided for each student within that particular school district. Is the minister continuing to provide the same level of funding within this budget to independent schools as was done last year?

Hon. A. Hagen: Before I respond, I should have noted this before: there are some, I believe, secondary school students in the gallery. I'm not sure whether they have been welcomed or not.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Hagen: May I just welcome you from wherever you are -- I'm not sure where you are. I'm delighted that you're here for part of the Education estimates today.

Let me turn, then, to the member's question and note that independent schools continue to be funded according to the School Act. In your particular school district, because there is an increase in funding, that increase flows through in a percentage way to the independent schools.

C. Serwa: It's a real pleasure to stand up on this side of the House and speak on the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I don't intend to take a lot of time. I think the debate has been fairly well canvassed with the broad spectrum. There are a few areas, though, that I have specific concern with. Unless the Chair rules me out of order, I intend to pursue them or structure my questions so that the questions are in fact in order. I'm a little bit concerned, too, with the restriction on latitude in some of the questions in sensitive areas; they're the areas that I particularly want to probe.

I'm very pleased that the former government had two individuals acting as Ministers of Education who had a great deal of commitment towards education. Certainly Tony Brummet was an outstanding gentleman whose total career was devoted to education and to young people. I was very pleased to know the former minister as a friend and as a dedicated individual who stood for the best interests of the learner and a standard of excellence in education. The last Minister of Education certainly earned a tremendous degree of respect in British Columbia for his commitment to advanced education and the opportunities that would allow a much higher number of our students graduating from grade 12 to go on through to college and university degrees because of the expanded opportunity throughout the entire province. Fundamentally I think that we're all well aware that lower than national averages in that transition from senior secondary to university were because of the difficulty of access to the three major universities, two of them on the lower mainland and one on Vancouver Island. I think that we made good progress.

The minister has indicated that education is fundamentally everyone's business. I agree wholeheartedly with that. My concern is that some single interest and special interest groups are trying to make education only their business, and perhaps I'll be asking some questions with respect to that.

Over the past five years -- this is the sixth year -- how would your global budget for the Ministry of Education stand in comparison to previous increases? Does it rank as the largest increase with your proposed commitment to education? Because I've heard you repeatedly talk about underfunding from the former administration, and at the present time you are talking of your deep-seated commitment to education, and you continue to refer to it. How does the increase in this budget over last year rank with the increases over the past five or six years?

Hon. A. Hagen: I think the member knows that he should be commenting about my actions as the Minister of Education in these estimates. I have no comment about previous administrations.

C. Serwa: I thought you would defer this question and a lot of my subsequent questions, but for the record I might as well tell the people of British Columbia and the BCTF, and whoever is interested in the matter, that this year's increase is the smallest in the Ministry of Education in six years. It is the smallest in the global budget. It's the smallest in the block increase. Undoubtedly the minister is very proud of that. It's also the lowest percentage of the total budget of the Ministry of Education over the past six years. The commitment of that particular minister to education is questionable. Those are the figures that I have, Mr. Chairman. I'll sit down if the minister would like to answer my statement, but as I have it, all of those statements that I've made are absolutely correct, and it shows no commitment on the part of this minister or on the part of this government towards education defined as education for the learner.

Hon. A. Hagen: That member was part of a government that left the people of British Columbia with a $2.5 billion deficit when it brought in a budget where it said it had a $495 million deficit, so we should not necessarily probe too deeply into records.

Let me repeat that the Ministry of Education is enriched this year by $300 million, by a $582 million 

[ Page 828 ]

capital funding budget and by an increase overall of 9.1 percent in a time when we are dealing with that member's government's deficit of $2.5 billion in the last year of their administration. I don't wish, though, to make any further comments about that sorry record. I really would prefer that we look at the commitment we have made in this year toward education.

C. Serwa: Certainly I can see why the minister would not want to look back at the underfunding statements of that commitment. I read her questions on the estimates last year, and I know that the Peat Marwick Thorne manifesto that they're utilizing this year as a basis for their whole political initiative is the basis of that ministry's statements with respect to funding.

The interesting thing with respect to the minister's statement.... Really, global funding is the issue, and we're talking about this year. It's a well-established fact, not disputed, that the performance of British Columbia under the former government was outstanding -- without peer and the lead in Canada itself.

While the minister talks about water under the bridge and the expanded deficit, which is playing very fast and loose with reality -- but the minister likes to do that -- the reality is that we're talking about this year. Deficits, real or imaginary, of past administrations have nothing to do with it. We're talking about revenue where British Columbia has been poised to take advantage of the opportunities in a strong economy. This government is doing everything it can to cool off the economy.

The minister knows full well that what we're talking about is a commitment on this year's funding, and this year's funding has taken the smallest percentage of the provincial budget for education. How do you justify that with your purported commitment?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have examined extensively the commitment of this government to education and education performance through increases in funding to school districts and to capital funds. It would be repetitious for me to repeat that information now.

The Chair: The member would please note the concern with repetition. However, the member may proceed.

C. Serwa: I think that the points were well made by me, and I don't have to really reinforce it, but the commitment has been very small indeed. One of the difficulties that we have right now is the recognition of the repeal of some of the regulations with Bill 82, which put a number of school districts in a particularly difficult bind. The accommodation has not been made by the ministry to relieve those pressures. Those pressures have reared their heads, certainly in School District No. 23, which is the school district that I am privileged to represent part of. Initially they came in with a $7.1 million deficit budget. All the professionals, the teachers, obviously the members of the school board, the superintendent, the employees, recognized that they could make a difference if they accepted greater obligations and worked harder.

I think the reality is that we can be very proud of what has been achieved in education in this province. Not too long ago the minister sent a news release to my office on the highlights of an international competition. I believe there were 20 countries involved, and British Columbia not only placed above the national average in Canada but placed exceedingly well with the age group of 13-year-olds in science and mathematics. So I think that our professionals, the teachers, are certainly doing a good job, the administrators are doing a good job, the trustees of school districts are doing a good job. I think that the system is filled with competent, dedicated people striving for a standard of excellence.

The challenge in that standard of excellence is the upper echelons of the BCTF. They have their own problems, and I lament the situation that we have right now, where it's apparent that there is a very close intertwined relationship between the party in power and the upper echelons of the BCTF, and every time, I know that the....

Mr. Chairman appears to keep correcting me.

The Chair: Hon. member, I appreciate the comments you made a little while ago about possibly being out of order. I think you are at this stage delving into matters which do not fall within the purview of the minister's office, and I would ask you to be guided by the specific responsibilities that fall within that ministry.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much. I appreciate and respect what you've said, Mr. Chairman, but without a shred of doubt the minister is not immune either directly or indirectly to the influence of the BCTF.

I regret that the questions that I'm putting forward are in fact very much part of the policy of the administration of the Ministry of Education. I will leave that topic, mindful of your concern, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to make it clear for the public record, and I want the public of British Columbia to recognize very well that there will be a theft from society at large, and that that theft will be orchestrated and organized by a government very sympathetic to the upper echelons of the BCTF, and it won't be for the advantage of the learners in society.

The Chair: Hon. member, I think I noted an unparliamentary expression. Did you make reference to theft in any way? If you did, I think you should consider that under our standing orders comments that impute an ulterior or disrespectful motive would be out of order. So if you did make such a comment, would you consider the significance of it and withdraw it.

[3:45]

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I didn't allude to any individual with respect to that comment. I will say that in my view, clearly, that will tend to occur. Whether I can lighten it up a little or perhaps choose some other less offensive word.... You may suggest a word. I'm concerned....

[ Page 829 ]

The Chair: In deference to the House and the standing orders, just as a matter of principle, if there's any question, I would hope that the hon. member would withdraw.

C. Serwa: In respect for the Chair, I will withdraw the remark.

The Chair: Thank you very much, hon. member.

C. Serwa: The minister had indicated that there was a substantial increase in the block, an increase of 6.5 percent. Reading through the debate on the estimates, rather than the 2.4 percent or 2.5 percent with respect to inflation, a figure of 6.5 percent came out in the later estimates. The minister has also been talking consistently about block-to-block. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me as to where the 6.5 percent came in, in the block.

Hon. A. Hagen: There are a lot of figures that we have been working with in respect to this. A number of factors go into the increase in funding that goes to education programs. There are increases for enrolment and for what we usually call the economic adjustment. There are increases that reflect improvements in funding for rapidly growing school districts, such as that member's school district. There are increases in capital funding. There is whole range of ways in which there are improvements that total that 6.5 percent block-to-block. All of them are targeted to school districts. In addition, there is the school meal program and additional funding for enrolment that comes later on. All of those come into that total.

C. Serwa: It's my information that the increase in the block was achieved, yes, by factoring in for inflation but also by factoring in a number of elements that were previously grants to school districts for specific purposes. Certainly one of those was the acquisition of computer technology, which is now in the block. Other aspects were with respect to planning for capital facilities and -- I've forgotten the other term -- with respect to reopening facilities. There are a number of elements that you've now included in the block that were formerly not included in the block. So when you talk about a direct block-to-block comparison, it's not a fair comparison, is it?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just deal with one element that I neglected to answer last time. There is an inclusion of computer funding in the block this year. Last year $1 million was targeted in computer funding; this year there's $10 million in the block. It will be there every year and will be increased by the economic adjustment and by changes in enrolment. It will be a committed amount of money, not an amount of money that can be played around with, as was the case in the former administration.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, minister, for the comment. Does the minister recognize what the ratio of students per computer is in British Columbia compared with other jurisdictions in Canada? This is as a result of former administrations playing around. Would the minister give us that figure?

Hon. A. Hagen: In a technological age we always have the challenge of educating our youngsters with the equipment, technology and training that is going to prepare them for their personal and work lives and for their further education. That's the goal of our government in providing resources for technology.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for that non-answer, minister. The figure is that we're number one in Canada. The arbitrary funding that you alluded to is not true. There was a major, significant contribution with respect to computers, and we're fully aware of the necessity and importance of that.

In spite of our position here, we're genuinely united in the concept of achieving a standard of excellence for the education of our young people that will really make us second to none. We may have differences in how to get there, though. During the last restraint period, when everyone in the education system had to roll up their sleeves and work together, there was a strong improvement in the display of knowledge gained by the students during that period. So money isn't the cure for everything. I'm not saying that we should throw more money at the system. While you're purporting to say that we're throwing a great deal of money and all of a sudden Valhalla is here, it is not. The harsh reality of being government is your responsibility at the present time, and you're well aware of it.

Most of the continuing responsibilities of your ministry are a result of the previous ministers of the former administration. I won't belabour the estimates here at this point. It would be most appropriate that you have the opportunity to influence the ministry on the tack that you take. I suspect that you will strive to get away with as much as you possibly can for the best interests of the BCTF, and I'm afraid of that. On the other side, I know your deep-seated commitment to education. I hope the minister has the strength to persevere for the best interests of the learners in the system. After all, that is who the system is for. We will be watching the activities of the Ministry of Education with respect to legislation and your departure from established commitments -- for example, the College of Teachers and your plans in that area.

I will end my comments. Once again, you've got a long way to go to justify what you said and where your commitment is. I wish you the best of luck in your future.

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for his comments. I would just like to note that the most fundamental principle of my working relationships with everyone in education is respect for everyone who works in education.

V. Anderson: I've been listening, and I appreciate the interest, desire and hard work that the minister has put through both before and during this.

[ Page 830 ]

One of the questions I would bring at this point, which has come out of the discussion, is the question of how, as the minister and a member of the Legislature.... We're all members here together, equally responsible to our constituents. At the moment I'm not thinking about the school boards or the teachers or the education, but about the families and the people within the community.

In my constituency office today I received 82 letters of concern about education, and those letters need to be responded to by a member of the Legislature. I would like to be able to respond to them as fairly, cooperatively and positively as possible -- not in a negative way but in a positive way. So I'm looking for some help at this point as to how the minister might give guidance to me and others -- because I'm sure others are receiving similar letters -- on how to respond at this moment.

Hon. A. Hagen: I do think the member asks more of the minister than might usually be expected. I have great faith that this member will listen to his constituents, be advised by them and advocate for them in this assembly and directly to the minister and ministry. That's your job, hon. member, and I respect the fact that you will do it well. I have every confidence in you.

V. Anderson: I'm not so concerned that they have confidence in me, but I am concerned that they have confidence in what we're about in the Legislative Assembly working together. And it's on that basis that I asked the question. I am concerned, as many have stated in this Legislature from all sides of the House, that there has been a feeling in the community at large that the politicians can't be trusted, to put it in the negative term. We've all said together that we wanted to change that image. There are probably few places where that touches people more than it does in Health, Education or Social Services. So I'm very sincerely asking how we can cooperatively -- out of all the discussion -- take a message back that says: "Yes, we have problems, but we are collectively working to solve those problems." Education is a key one for many of the people in the community.

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe that the estimates have provided members with a considerable amount of information. If there's specific information in respect to your own school district that would be helpful for you to have, we're more than happy to make that available to you. I thank the member for his approach to using the resources of the assembly. It's consistent with my own approach around collaborative and cooperative efforts. I believe there are ways in which we can work together, once we finish with some of the work that takes us into this forum -- a useful forum for all of us. But I anticipate that this new Legislature will find some of those ways and that you, as a member, will contribute to that process.

L. Reid: I have two questions, so I'm going to keep my remarks very brief. Why are Richmond taxpayers taxed at the fifth-highest rate in the province, but their students funded at the third-lowest rate? How can such a discrepancy be explained or justified?

Hon. A. Hagen: The matter of taxation is a complex one that involves the Minister of Finance. In respect to the specific funding for Richmond, it is based on the same funding formula that applies to all districts. In the case of Richmond, there have been increases in funding for the current year, because Richmond is a growing district. Some of the changes made in the funding formula were clearly targeted to Richmond. I'm sure the member is aware of those, both decisions I took last year and decisions this year. So there have been moves toward improved stability for districts like Richmond.

I'd like also to note again, just to repeat, that I really appreciated the input of boards, who have provided information about their districts, their programs and their needs, because that is helping to inform our funding and financial review. We've done a lot of the spadework on that, and boards like yours have significantly contributed to our understanding -- my understanding -- of those issues.

L. Reid: In the metro school zone, Richmond's per-pupil proportion of the block fund is almost $600 less than in the highest-funded metro district. Why is there such a wide range in the portion of the block allocated to metro districts which have essentially the same or similar needs? Why would such an obvious growth district such as Richmond be funded at the lowest per-pupil rate in the metro area?

Hon. A. Hagen: The method of funding for each district is based on quite a complex range of factors. The number of students is the fundamental one; but there is also the demographics, the mix of students, and that varies from district to district. The remuneration for staff also varies from district to district. Those factors fundamentally produce some of the variables that we find.

[4:00]

Richmond has a 4 percent increase this year over last year. Its enrolment growth appears perhaps to be settling down a little bit; there's an interesting pattern with some of the rapidly growing districts. But over the years, the funding has exceeded the rate of growth and inflation costs. If you're interested in knowing some of the factors over time, the ministry would be happy to help you know some of those variables. As we've noted, we want to review, through our funding and financial review, whether all of those systems are providing us with the best way of distributing. Because that's really what we're talking about: there's a block of funds, and we're talking about distributing them fairly and consistently to all boards in order for them to be able to provide the core services mandated by the provincial government.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments, hon. minister. To be more specific, we've been in discussions for many, many years in terms of how similar Richmond is to the school district of Burnaby, yet there still seems to be an 

[ Page 831 ]

incredible discrepancy there. I'd be most interested in how Burnaby is funded in relation to Richmond, and what we can do to hopefully resolve some of those issues. I appreciate the offer that you and I could sit down and work through some of these things; I'd be very interested in doing that. For now, I'm just interested in terms of how the decisions that affected Burnaby more positively than Richmond were reached.

Hon. A. Hagen: Both boards, Richmond and Burnaby, are in a similar situation in the history from which they've come. But it's not possible for me to really give you what I consider to be a properly informed answer on district-to-district comparisons. That's just an impossible approach to take in estimates. There is a variety of factors that play into that, some of them historical, some of them demographic. If you would like to look into that in more detail, I'd be very pleased to do that with you. As I say, I think that some of those discussions help to inform the longer-term move towards stability.

Richmond will have received additional funds for growth, because it does have new schools opening, so it can hire its staff early -- its administrative staff. There will also be some additional resources for its capital funding in order for it to be better able to manage what's a fairly significant capital envelope, because Richmond is still catching up. I've been looking with some interest at the fact, too, that there are some interesting configurations with your school district in secondary school as compared with others. There are quite a number of junior secondary schools, for example, in Richmond, which is a different pattern than exists in other school districts.

L. Reid: One other question in terms of an experience that a lot of hospitals have around the province, i.e., they have capital funds but they don't have operating dollars. Has any thought been given to dollars for education that are designated capital perhaps being used for operating in times where that's going to be essential? Certainly we have new schools in Richmond, but we're not sure we're going to have the dollars to staff them appropriately.

Hon. A. Hagen: Those are separate fundings. There's a B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority, and fundamentally those are flow-throughs. What the school district manages is the debt-servicing. They are entirely different budgets. It's oil and water; they are not mixable.

J. Dalton: I have one question on independent school funding. We appreciate -- and the minister already responded earlier today -- that the block funding for independent schools is the same as it was previously, but the federation has raised a concern about their funding for special-needs students. It's my understanding, from the information provided to me, that their budget for special needs has been cut. Of course, special needs is an important aspect of education, and the Minister has certainly acknowledged that. Would the minister care to comment on the special-needs funding for independent schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I have already responded to that question and noted that within the block there is funding for special needs and the independent schools have been funded according to the Independent School Act.

W. Hurd: I have a quick question pertaining to my own district, Surrey School District 36. If this question has already been asked during the debate on estimates, I apologize to the minister. I've tried my best to follow them, but haven't always been available. It pertains to the matter of referenda funding for additional funds for each school district. During the course of two meetings with members of the school trustees in Surrey, we've been advised that the board had considered referenda funding as an option to make up the shortfall. My question regarding the estimates is whether or not any instructions have been given to individual boards regarding referenda funding for the current school year and whether or not this particular method is going to continue into the next fiscal year.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, as a matter of information, all boards are informed about referenda information with the budget papers that go to them. To the best of my knowledge, no board has decided to go to a referendum, and it's my understanding that the date by which they must make that decision has passed.

J. Dalton: Mr. Chairman, we've had lengthy and overall fruitful discussions in these estimates. Certainly many members had opportunities to raise local concerns out of their districts; provincial concerns; concerns of a wide-ranging nature dealing with aboriginal education; special needs; independent school funding; and, of course, the most significant question of all, which we've all addressed in one way or another, of global funding and the block funding formula. We didn't always get the answers that we would have liked, but I think we could all recognize that the minister was certainly forthcoming in her remarks and helpful in the information that she was prepared to provide to this committee.

I also want to make sure, before I make any other comments, that I thank the two officials who have attended patiently through these hours. I know that they've been very helpful to the minister and certainly will be helpful to the process itself as we continue. All of us, obviously, express very real and genuine concerns for education, for the funding and -- as I think I said in one of my initial statements in these estimates -- for the overall investment in education. I know the two officials have been very useful in the information they're providing and will certainly be a very important part of the overall process as we attend to this very important government service that is provided.

As I say, we haven't always received the answers that we would have liked, but that's fine. We can appreciate that there is a certain economic reality, as I believe the minister has stated from time to time. It's unfortunate 

[ Page 832 ]

that the economic reality has had a real and difficult impact on school districts. We're not going to go back and canvass old ground; it has been fully documented.

Hopefully in the months and years ahead we can all collectively and individually address the real concerns that school districts are facing this year, and hopefully we can give some assurance to those districts that next year or in future years they will not be facing the same sort of difficult funding situations. It's not an easy thing to provide proper funding for education, because, like many other government services, it does demand a lot of money and doesn't necessarily justify every nickel and dime that could be found for it. But I think we all recognize in this committee -- and I know the minister does -- the importance of addressing the funding situation for education, the financing for education, the entire philosophy as to where we're going to head with the education funding and the other issues that come up.

On behalf of all members who've made comments and addressed this committee, I wish to thank the minister and her officials for their helpfulness and their patience. Certainly patience is a virtue, and I would say that the hon. minister and her officials have demonstrated that. We do appreciate the cooperation that you've demonstrated. Hopefully the future estimates debates that we will be going through in this committee will be as productive and as meaningful as these have been.

Vote 24 approved.

Hon. A. Hagen: Just before I call the vote on the other parts of the Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights ministry, I would like very much to thank the members -- the fledgling members and the experienced members -- for their questions. I look forward to working with all of you in the cause of education for our children in the months ahead.

Vote 25: ministry operations, $88,656,238 -- approved.

Vote 26: public schools education, $3,403,497,038 -- approved.

Vote 27: independent schools, $96,855,16 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $350,718 (continued).

V. Anderson: I would like to thank the minister for the beginning of this debate on the estimates which we had a few days ago, and as we move now, just to give her an idea of how I'm working at it. I work at this by going through the budget as it's printed in the estimates, and dealing with the different areas of concern that are there.

I notice that the increase in the total budget is $451 million this year, out of a total of $2.3 billion. I'm wondering, since the Housing portion was moved from this ministry, if there has been a reduction in staff within the minister's office to accommodate the portion of this ministry that was moved, and if so, what kind of reduction in staff it involved.

[4:15]

Hon. J. Smallwood: While we're waiting for our senior staff team to come over from the Belmont Building, I'll do my best to answer your questions. But I'll take on notice those questions that I'm unable to give specifics for.

As for the budget for the minister's office, I can't compare it to what the previous minister had in his office as far as staff resources are concerned, but I can tell you that ours is possibly one of the smallest of the 18 ministers' offices. I have an administrative assistant, a ministerial assistant and two clerical staff. We are grossly understaffed for the amount of work the office has to deal with. In particular, in response to quite a phenomenal increase in correspondence, the ministry itself, which provides briefing notes and some of the background on some of the case conferencing that we do, has had to hire an additional person just to help with that caseload. In the future I'll be looking for an additional staff person in my office, but at present we have very few staff for the work we do.

V. Anderson: I notice, by looking back over the records, that the minister's office budget was increased by $6,000 in 1991-92, and this year it was increased an additional $13,000. Despite your comments about the smallness of the staff and the fact that the at-home program and the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program have been moved out, and the Housing, the increase in the office part of the minister's budget was more than double that of the previous year. I'm just trying to understand how that might have taken place within that time-frame.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The component moved out of the ministry has to do with Housing, which was transferred to Municipal Affairs. I think it's fair to say that the bulk of the work is focused around both child protection and GAIN caseloads. That workload has not diminished. As a matter of fact, our feeling, as was reflected by increased staff in the ministry in order to respond to correspondence, is that it has indeed increased. The increase in the minister's office has to do with an executive assistant that was hired.

V. Anderson: I take from that that the executive assistant is a new position within the ministry itself.

Looking at the main part of the budgeting, we come to administration and support services. This particular part of the budget has increased by $9.5 million. What would be the main facets of that $9.5 million increase?

I might say that I'm used to working, as most of us are, with much smaller budgets, and it's taken me a little while to get around these figures. I want to take $9.5 thousand, or $9.5 hundred. But given that these are the figures we have to work with, and given that I'm used to being in community groups where they want to 

[ Page 833 ]

know where that $10 or $20 went, to some extent I would like to get some of the finer points out so that they might be understood by all of us as we go through the budgets. We can't go down to the tens and twenties. But on the $9.5 million, I wonder how that might have been proportioned within the administration and support services budget.

Hon. J. Smallwood: A significant portion of the overall budget has to do with the GAIN caseload increases and the predicted amount for the next year. You will recall that in our opening discussion I shared with you the fact that the previous administration purposefully underestimated the GAIN caseload increase for the previous year, and that's why we had to bring in a warrant at the end of the year. The increase for the budget this year has to do with our statutory requirement to meet that increased caseload. The administrative increase has to do with the administration needed for the additional predicted GAIN caseload management.

V. Anderson: In administration and support services -- as against the minister's office, which we were talking about before -- I would gather from what you're saying that there has been an increase in staff and an increase in office space and equipment in a variety of areas. I am wondering if you might share with us some of the areas in which the increase takes place within that budget itself.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have the figures here with me, but we will get you the exact figures as soon as staff arrive.

In addition to an increase in FTEs to manage the caseload, we have also approved a computer system to help manage our child protection services. This gives us the ability to meet some of the requirements that the ombudsman's office recommended when they were talking about child protection, licensing and information control. We are very happy that this year we will be able to put in place a computer system for the delivery of child protection, through our social workers component.

V. Anderson: I realize it's difficult when you don't have the staff support here. I am just wondering how we can best deal with it until they arrive, so that I don't try and put you on the spot unduly.

I understand about the computer system. Have there been extra programs for staff training or communication? Have there been extra offices or buildings included within that item itself?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't believe that there is any increased office space included in that amount.

I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the need for increased FTEs to manage that caseload. We talked earlier about the number of cases that financial assistance workers handle on a regular basis, and we talked about the ability of those financial assistance workers to function in the most supportive way and spend the amount of time that is needed with each of the families or individuals that came for assistance. I believe it was either you or one of the other members on your side who made the point that they felt that there wasn't enough time being spent, or that the workers on the front lines could be more supportive.

One of the things that we're hoping to be able to do with the increased FTEs, full-time-equivalents, is to ensure that our FAWs can spend a little more time to ensure that people qualify for income assistance -- to do the kind of testing once the client walks in the door to ensure that they are getting full benefits, that their families are being supported in the best way possible, and that we can make certain that the applications are processed in the best way possible so that we can in turn be accountable for the taxpayers' money.

While we're talking about the increase in caseloads, what flows from that is a need also to increase the administration capability of the ministry.

V. Anderson: We welcome the staff persons back again. We didn't get them up in the middle of the night this time, but we did run them across the street, so they will be out of wind at the moment.

Just to bring them up to where we are at the moment, we briefly discussed the minister's own office before you came in. Perhaps we can go back over that in a moment and just see if there's anything that needs to be added to that discussion.

[4:30]

I asked about a number of programs that have moved out of the ministry this year that were there the previous year: the at-home program, the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program. I noted that in spite of the moving out of those programs there was a $13,000 increase in the office part of the ministry itself. I was wondering why the office was increasing in cost, whereas the programs were decreasing, and the minister mentioned in that regard that there had been an executive assistant added to that office, which no doubt accounted for the $13,000 plus a little more.

We then moved on to the administration and support services, and I indicated that I would try and work through the budget in a systematic fashion at this point rather than wandering all over and back and forth, so that we might systematically work at it.

At this point we are just beginning to discuss the administration and support services part of the budget. There is a $9.5 million increase in that budget this year, and so I was asking what accounted for that increase and to what major portions of that administration support services budget this was allocated, to get some comparison of the direction in which the ministry was going. If I understand right, the minister said in part, Mr. Chairman, that part of that increase at least was taken up with getting extra support staff to undertake the support services for the other parts of the programs of the ministry. Also, she mentioned the computer service that was no doubt included in this part of the budget.

We are wondering if there were any other major items in that part of the budget that we need to take account of to understand the kind of support training. I noticed in the description that there's staff training and 

[ Page 834 ]

development. Are there are plans for increasing this part of the program? I asked if there was an increase in office communication services. What parts of the program have increased as a result of the $9.5 million increase?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to try to pick up a couple of little loose ends here. First, when you look at the costs of all ministry offices, our office is actually below average, which is significant considering that this is a direct-service ministry. I would bring the critic's attention to the caseloads that his own constituency office has to deal with. It's reflective of the work this ministry does generally. This is a very case-specific ministry and requires a great deal of commitment and hard work. It speaks very well of the people who are doing the work that we are staffed below average, yet they are able to turn out that kind of support for our clients.

As for the increase in the administrative budget.... This is the ministry budget, separate from the minister's office itself. In addition to the items that I brought to your attention, there is an increase in postal services. With more GAIN cheques there are increased costs for postal services. We have also included some additions in after-hour service. We have a small project that we will be bringing on-line soon: an information terminal to provide our clients with better access to information, which will better enable them to be consumers and understand both their rights and responsibilities.

V. Anderson: I would be concerned whether there is adequate support staff for the field staff. Maybe I ask a question that I might not be expected to ask. Does your budget for administration and support services, as lean as it is, really meet the need for this kind of program, or is it a make-do budget at that point? Would it be logical to expect that it would increase as funds are available?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I appreciate the critic's comments. We are of like mind. It's our responsibility to provide the kind of support, resources and tools necessary to do the job. We are coming from way behind in this ministry. This ministry has not been a priority for previous governments, so we have a lot of catch-up to do in just about every area that you can look at.

The caseloads that we talked about earlier are 270. With additional FTEs, that will bring the caseloads down to 261. The recommended caseload is 225, so we have a considerable way to go yet.

V. Anderson: I think it's important that we understand both the pluses and the minuses so that we get a sense of direction of where one is attempting to go, even if one can't get there at this point. If we know where the government is attempting to go, there may be a point at which we can make suggestions about other directions, or points which we can support. But it's important that we and the public understand where that is at.

Looking at some of the STOBs, particularly within the budget line, STOBs 25 and 68 deal with information systems and operating and asset acquisition, and there has been an increase in this area of $4.5 million. What brought this increase about? What is being done with the increase? What was happening before that made this increase necessary in those assets and information programs? What is happening as a result of that $4.5 million? In other words, why are they in that particular category? What does the category do, and why is it doing better now because of the $4.5 million?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Before we actually get to that question -- and I'll get some more information here -- I want to go back to your questions around the increase in staffing and the effect it would have on caseload management. I strongly believe that our front-line workers are doing just about an impossible job with the expectations that government has put on them, the expectations that communities have put on them and their desire to do a good job in a very supportive fashion to those in our society in most need.

I have two strategies in place. One, we are hoping to be able to affect the caseload, which will take some time because it costs a considerable amount of money. In addition to that, I am hopeful that we will be able to provide and develop an information system for community and clients to empower people to be effective consumers, to be able to ask the questions that need to be asked, to be informed and to be able to make some of the decisions surrounding their reality, acknowledging that they know best about their family needs. Our pilot project will begin to do that, along with our other communications strategies, in the next year to come.

As for STOB 68 -- the systems and equipment acquisition -- we talked about the computer system for social workers. This deals with a database for resources, as well as tracking placements for our clients and matching resources to the needs of clients. This kind of system has not been in place before. Most of that data collection and systems management has been done on a manual basis out of our front-line offices. It makes it very difficult for us to be able to track clients' needs. When we're dealing with such a huge system, it makes it very difficult for us to manage. With the onset of the freedom of information and the commitment that our government has made both to accessing clients' own files information and to being able to do some more sophisticated data collection and statistical analysis for administrative purposes, this system in and of itself will be a big asset to the field, a tool for them hopefully to diminish the amount of time they spend on paperwork -- streamlining that, making more time available to clients, as well as the other assets the system will provide.

Also included on the STOB 68 are: a disaster recovery plan development; a records management system, which will complement freedom of information; and a contract-management-system development. This again will help us manage and make us better able to account for taxpayers' money. There are a number of other smaller systems -- word-processing upgrading.

[ Page 835 ]

V. Anderson: Just while we're on that one -- the freedom of information, which you mentioned, and the ability of a person seeking assistance to be able to access their files, this came up in another discussion in Education estimates as well. The question was raised: when they access their files, will they be able to actually get copies of those files to take away with them so that they can have them in their own information files to use at home as well as in the office? The question being that what you can read under pressure in an office and look at a file.... When you go home, unless you actually have copies, it will be very difficult for you to remember in order to deal with it properly.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Currently there is some limited access to files. Under the new legislation, access will be increased, and there will be an ability, because the files are computerized, to give screen prints.

V. Anderson: Thank you very much for that. A lot of people out in the community will be delighted to know that. The only difficulty is that they'll all want it yesterday. In fairness to yourselves as well as to the people there, how long do you think it will take to get this process in place -- a month, six months, three months -- so that the anticipation can be relatively accurate?

[4:45]

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the process that the government is engaged in around the development of this legislation will help us better understand what government needs to be able to provide access -- the timing and all the rest of it. Currently around GAIN files, because that system is computerized, both the offices and therefore the clients can have immediate access. That will not be a problem. Historic files will take longer, and it will be the implementation of the legislation that will dictate how long. And of course it will depend on how old the files are and where they're stored as to how long it will take to access those files.

V. Anderson: Perhaps it has to do with the same area somewhat. I'm not sure. But in STOB 30, the office and business operating expenses, there is an increase of $2.3 million. I'm wondering what has accounted for this increase. Is this a yearly thing that one could expect to happen, or is it a one-time increase because you're setting up new systems at this point? While you're thinking about that, is there an indication that there would also be more community offices that would be more accessible than we have had in the past? Does that account for some of the increases that are being suggested?

Hon. J. Smallwood: At this point we are not predicting increased offices in the province. It's a matter of priorities with a limited budget. My very clear direction is that I want to see the money directed to communities and families. While I readily recognize that we have a responsibility to our employees and front-line workers, when it comes down to opening an additional office or providing a community service, at this point in time I will choose the community service.

V. Anderson: That answered the second part of my double question, and it was an important part to be answered. I would still ask about the increase of $2.3 million under STOB 30. That would give us some indication of the direction of the ministry.

Hon. J. Smallwood: This particular item is reflected by the increased pressure of the caseloads we talked about earlier.

V. Anderson: As mentioned earlier, there are some decreases. One wonders about the significance of areas that decrease in an increasing budget. Under STOB 82 is a $75,000 figure, and this is a decrease of 25 percent, or $25,000, from the previous year. What is reflected by that decrease? It's in contributions. What areas would not be receiving contributions? Of the $75,000 that is there, who would they be to and for what purpose? It's kind of a catch-all phrase, but I'm not sure what it means.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have to confess, with the member asking questions out of the blue book, that our extensive preparations are not in sync with the blue books. We're in the process of trying to translate our information. We could tell you just about anything there is to know about everything. It's just a matter of merging the systems at this point. If you'll go ahead and ask us another question....

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not asking political questions. We may do that later. At the moment I tend to read books for what they are. That's what I'm used to doing and usually I can get the answers better by looking at the figures themselves that are there.

STOB 95 will lead into the same kind of question -- perhaps difficulty. These are listed as "other expenditures" and amount to $1,168,000. Now any of the books that I am used to dealing with would say "miscellaneous" in that category rather than "other expenditures." Yet a miscellaneous of one million plus is a fairly large miscellaneous, so it would be interesting to know what's covered. What are the items that are covered by that miscellaneous item?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Maybe I can make a suggestion to the member. If you'd like to go on about some other specific issues, we'll get back to the specific items covered under the STOBs when we have that description of the budget here with us.

V. Anderson: I might just indicate that I'll be doing this through the whole process, so that would be something we'll have to deal with as we go along in it.

Let me ask a question which doesn't have to deal strictly with finances at this moment. Under this area comes staff training and development, and I'm wondering what new programs of staff training and development are going to be coming on stream that this budget 

[ Page 836 ]

allows for, since we've all agreed it is such a needed factor, both to enable the staff we now have to recover from the pressure they've been under and also for them to take some new client-centred orientations, rather than ministry-driven. I think they have been very much ministry-driven in the past, and I hope we are moving into the client-centred area. That will take a whole restructuring of the training process of the clients.

To me it is somewhat like a person who has learned to play an instrument one way and now they've got to change over so they both have to unlearn and learn, a much more difficult process.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There is ongoing training in a number of different areas. One of the things I'll do is pick out a couple of new programs. One is a mediation project we are doing that will not only use resources in the community but also provide training for child protection workers in the ministry around mediation and support as well as mediation training for our counsel. That is one project that we have identified a real need for in relation to issues of child protection and is commensurate with the review that is underway.

We also, again flowing from the review, have put together a committee of specialists within the ministry. These are current social workers in the ministry from a real diversity of multicultural backgrounds. They are in the process of putting together recommendations for my office as well as for the field and for the review around culturally appropriate services for our ministry. We're looking forward to their recommendations. I'm certain there will be considerable spinoffs from the work they're doing.

There is ongoing social work training. There is a process now underway for contract management training. I think the kind of work you are specifically talking about -- the client base -- will be reflected in the commitment our social workers bring to the job, and in our ability to free them up to do the job they've been trained to do.

V. Anderson: Let me follow up on that training question for a moment, and reorientation, if you like. One of the things I'm very aware of is that every profession has its own lingo, its own language and its own kind of thought processes. The other thing I'm very much aware of is that the -- using the term "clients" or "customers" -- persons using the services inevitably are not aware of any part of those language systems. I'm wondering what process you have in mind, which was hinted at previously when we discussed customers or clients -- whatever is the best terminology -- being part of the reorientation, the retraining and the re-language system, so that it's responsive to them instead of them having to be responsive to the system. There's a whole shift which you've hinted at, and I'm wondering how far this might be going because, again, if you open the doors in that regard you'll have a flood of applicants to train the specialists.

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member will recall our earlier discussion around the number of communication tools that are already in place around Punjabi and Cantonese, the development of communication tools, pamphlets, etc., is ongoing. One of the pamphlets in the process of making its way to the public was developed with a community called People First. It is a self-advocacy caucus of people with mental disabilities. The work being done around plain language has been a real asset to the development of that pamphlet; that work, as I said, is ongoing.

The information computer system we are developing is being done in consultation and with the support of client groups. They will tell us the language and the access that is needed.

V. Anderson: One of the concerns I hear very often out there is the multiplicity of people whom the persons who come for assistance have to deal with: the social worker, the financial management worker, the assistance worker, the rehabilitation officer, the family maintenance officers; they seem to go through so many people and fall between the cracks. Is there any way you might be planning to alter the system so that you can deal with one person for whatever your need is, rather than with a multitude of people? It would also cut down the paperwork, or shift the paperwork in some regards. I've had so many people say to me: "I tell the story here, and then I tell it there. They don't talk to each other and it falls apart in the middle, and I don't get the service and I get a headache and I go home more frustrated than when I came."

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are very different and very specialized areas in the ministry, and each one of the individuals or families seeking services from our ministry have, in themselves, very specialized needs. One of the commitments of our ministry is to professional service and professional support for individuals' needs, whether those needs are to the disabled community, to families and children or, as a number of clients who come to us have, for financial aid.

[5:00]

At this time that professional service is there, hopefully to aid people in the best way possible. At this point I am firmly committed that rather than having a one-stop specialist to provide all services, our best strategy is to empower the community and individuals seeking our support with information. We will be concentrating a fair amount of attention on empowering people to arrive at their own solutions rather than having them rely increasingly on administrative support or a bureaucracy.

V. Anderson: I think this is an important process discussion which has a bearing on how the budget is implemented, as you've indicated, and I would be interested -- perhaps not on this occasion but sometime -- to follow up with the community and yourselves a variety of models.

One model that comes to my mind is the general practitioner, as in the medical model, who is a specialist in dealing with the general items -- so it's a specialty within itself. When there is a particular need beyond that, the specialist enables the person to deal with their 

[ Page 837 ]

normal requirements. The only persons referred beyond that specialist are those with extraordinary requirements where a specialist is consulted. So I would agree that it be a combination of how that empowerment of the person is taking place, but I think we need to hear a little more about what that implies.

Hon. J. Smallwood: With all due respect to the member, our clients aren't sick. Our clients come to the Ministry of Social Services for financial assistance, and we provide that. Some of the families in the community come because they need some support and some information in keeping their families together, whether they have a severely disabled child and are looking for professional social work advice and support, or whether they have a troubled teen. So there are very distinct client groups or individual needs, if you will, coming to our ministry, and the fact that a person does not have enough income to be able to feed their children does not necessarily mean that they need social work assistance.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't mean to imply that they were sick. I was just referring to the model of approach of how you gather information about a concern you had, whether it be engineering, education or whatever else.

I'm not sure if you want to go back at this point to the other questions on the STOB lines. STOB 82, the question of the $75,000 and the 25 -- what is that money used for?

Hon. J. Smallwood: STOB 95 is for banking services, for chargebacks from the Ministry of Finance. STOB 82 is for a university co-op student program and program phasing out, which indicates that it is a one-time program.

V. Anderson: You mentioned the university co-op program and phasing out. Could you explain a little more about what those are?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This particular program was targeted to co-op students who were placed in the north. That program is being phased out, although we do have ongoing co-op social work students coming to the ministry.

V. Anderson: STOB 95, which was the other expenditure, I was wondering about what the $1 million, which had been increased $158,000, covered or included.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As I indicated to the member, this is banking services and the increases reflected in the increase in GAIN caseloads.

V. Anderson: Just for clarification -- STOB 95 is banking services or STOB 82 was the other program. Fine, thank you. I think I have that organized now.

In the focus that you're undertaking now for client-based services and front line workers, is there a shift at this point between the balance of management personnel and line workers? Does this increase, from what you're saying, mean that there will be a higher percentage of line workers and a lower percentage of management personnel at this point in the system?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I commend you.

I'd like to move to the direct community services program -- from the administration and support services to the direct community services. I see that this subvote has increased by $6.6 million over last year, of which $3.5 million -- half of this increase -- has gone to an increase in salaries. Could you tell us where the salaries, the increases, have taken place -- what kind of categories there are in which these new persons are to be found? Are they in central locations? Are they spread throughout the province? What is the breakdown of these staff increases under direct community services?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll give a brief summary. For social workers, and this is throughout all regions of the province, there is an increase of 72. For financial assistance workers there's an increase of 23 -- again throughout all regions of the province. In administrative support, and this is the support to those field workers, there's an increase of 32.

V. Anderson: Given the increase, would you be able to share with us how many there are in those categories in total in terms of the social workers, the financial workers and the family workers so we get a comparison between them?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The total, with the increase, for 1992-93 for social workers is 942.4; for financial assistance workers, 729; for rehab officers -- these are the employment officers -- 112; family maintenance workers, 77; administrative support, 838. Again, that administrative support is throughout each and every region of the province. Those are administrative supports to the front line workers.

V. Anderson: I notice that on STOB 25, information systems, there has been a decrease of $1.5 million. I'm always curious when there's a decrease in any system. Why the decrease in that particular system, and why that amount of funds?

Hon. J. Smallwood: While we're looking for that specific answer, perhaps it would be a better use of the House's time if we provided an overall administrative briefing to the member. Keeping in mind the hats we all wear and our accountability for taxpayers' dollars, we are hard-pressed to spend the time of this House trying to account for pencils and pens or telephone bills. If that's the choice of the member, I would make an offer to him to provide that kind of an in-depth briefing personally.

V. Anderson: I would appreciate the personal briefing -- that's not a problem -- but it seems to me that when we look at budgets in estimates, we're talking 

[ Page 838 ]

about a million dollars in a category. Considering the number of funds that we're talking about here, we're not talking about pencils and pens. That's what comes up in an audit. They look for pencils and pens and find out where they are. Figures indicate program trends or shifts in priorities. It's one way of getting at those priorities very specifically, rather than just asking philosophical questions. It's important that the community at large knows how these are accounted for. That's what I understand we're responsible for here.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The particular STOB that you referenced is an increase, not a decrease, over the previous year, and the increase has to do with increased telephone costs.

V. Anderson: In the STOB 50, which is utilities and vehicles, there's an increase of $450,000. Is this simply an increase in operating expenses, or are new equipment, supplies, materials and vehicles being supplied under these funds?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This item is reflected in the maintenance of the fleet and an increase in gas costs.

V. Anderson: Did I understand the minister to say that it's maintenance of the fleet? Approximately how large is the fleet of cars, buses or trucks, or whatever the ministry is operating?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be happy to get that if the member would like to continue questioning.

V. Anderson: Thank you. Again, under the office furniture and equipment acquisition -- and I assume this happens on a yearly basis -- there is a $1 million increase in this particular fund as well. Is this for replacement of material? Is this the kind of annual expenditure that takes place in this area?

I notice that for the last three years in this category, there has been $1 million each year. Does that mean we are purchasing $1 million worth of furniture and office equipment each year in this ministry?

[5:15]

Hon. J. Smallwood: For this particular vote, the member is indicating that it has gone up. That's not correct. It has gone down. This particular vote reflects furniture and support materials for the increased staff, as well as the replacement of very old furniture.

The answer to the question about the fleet is around 440 vehicles.

V. Anderson: In part, these have raised questions about the administration -- the nuts and bolts and the equipment -- and the kinds of support services in these two ministries, if I understand correctly.

We now move on to those programs which directly affect clients, rather than the support, the administration, and the nuts and bolts of it -- although they take about $250 million between them for those two support programs. The services for families and children would be the area that we would move into now. Here we may have not only financial questions but also other operating questions.

We notice that in the past two years expenditures in this section of the ministry have doubled, which may indicate one of a number of things. It may indicate that better services are being provided, that the need has risen considerably over this period of time or that there are inefficiencies. Or it may be a combination of all those. I'm asking what the increase in finances reflects over that period of time.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would remind the member of my opening statement, because at that time I shared a number of statistics about the increases in services. In services to support families there's an increase of $11.9 million; youth services, an increase of $6 million; adoption services, an increase of $1.4 million; services to natives, $3.4 million; wage parity, $1.2 million; family care, an increase of $7.2 million; residential care for children, $1.9 million; other children in care, $1.4 million -- again, a wage parity and a contract services increase.

What these service increases reflect is this government's commitment to supporting families, trying in some way to influence the flow towards crisis intervention to help support families before it gets to a point of the state having to intervene and actually apprehend a child. Not only does that not make sense to families and children, but as far as taxpayers are concerned, it's far more expensive for government to be involved in crisis intervention. It costs a lot more money to support children outside of their home. Keeping in mind that there will always be a need for child protection services and for the state to intervene and support children outside of their home, it is our hope that by supporting community services and the increases that we have indicated in these budget categories, we will begin to build a kind of support in communities for families, to keep them together and to reduce the number of children that are in need of protection.

V. Anderson: You mention crisis intervention. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I presume you were also implying -- and perhaps you could expand a little bit on it if I'm right in this -- that you would be working on some preventive services as well as crisis intervention. If so, it would be helpful if you could suggest to us what some of the preventive services are that you'd be working on as well as crisis intervention. I think the community at large is much more aware of crisis intervention than they are of prevention. That would be helpful for the new directions in that direction.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a number of services, and they span over a continuum of a family place or a seniors drop-in or a youth centre where people can actually get together and share some of their concerns. The example that is nearest to my heart is a situation where you have a young mother at home with an infant who won't stop crying, and the options sometimes build to actually taking out that hurt and frustration on the child, or taking that child and 

[ Page 839 ]

walking down the street to a family place drop-in and sitting there and talking to other parents. Often that's all that is needed to support that young family and that child and help them get through a very difficult time. That's on the softest end of prevention services.

Along that continuum we have respite care, we have home-support workers, we have child care workers that provide care and intervention and parenting skills.

V. Anderson: I understand as I read this and as I hear you that most of these are contract services. Is this correct, and is the number of contract services and the kind and variety of groups that are applying for contract services increasing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct that most of our community-based services are contracted, ranging from those that I outlined to foster care and group home care for the range of individuals who seek support. While we have had some increases in some of our services, which will provide more opportunities for contracted services and diminishing wait-lists for some specialized services, there is not a huge overall increase, although the member rightfully acknowledges that this ministry contracts more services than just about any other ministry in government.

V. Anderson: I noticed that there's a category of both grants and contributions. Those are the two areas in which most of the funds of this particular ministry are contracted out for family support services. Could you explain the differences between grants and contributions and the difference between the types of groups that receive or use them? Are they used in different ways, or are they two names for the same thing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The two categories reflect two different usages. The contributions are contracted services and the grants are our foster care network.

V. Anderson: The foster care would be child-in-care services, and the contributions under that would be grants to organizations. Is that right? What are the grants for in family support services? They wouldn't be foster care. That's the $313,000 as against the $85,000 in contributions.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The classification called contributions are actual contracted services. Those are the family support services that we talked about on that continuum where the grants are for training and support for the foster care network.

V. Anderson: There's a $24 million or 33 percent increase in this grant over the previous year in family support services. I know you've indicated that this is a focus in your ministry. Are you able to indicate to us how much of that increase is due to your focus of wanting to respond in a better way to this need and how much of it is in response to an increase in the need itself? It could be either. Is there some indication about which of these categories is predominant?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's very difficult for me to separate the issue of need from priority. As I've indicated, when you look at the shift in this ministry over the last ten years away from prevention and support to crisis intervention, it's very clear that there is a tremendous need in the community. So yes, we are responding to need, but to respond to that need is a priority of this government.

V. Anderson: You've listed a number of programs. Let me go down some of those that I think you've already referred to and ask if any have been particularly focused for increased attention, as against others that might be continuing.

There are the special services to children and family that you've mentioned. Family support homemakers, for instance: is there an increase of funds available, and therefore the programming available for family support homemakers, for homemakers to be able to go into the families' actual homes and work with them there? This should be an important thrust.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.

V. Anderson: Would you outline for us -- because it's always hard to deal from just the names; some of the programs I'm fairly well aware of -- a little more on the Families First program, and the kind of place it has in the focus of your ministry at this point?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The Families First program is a program that enjoys a considerable amount of support. It is targeting young families and has a focus on parenting development, and emphasizes local participation in service delivery and support to families.

V. Anderson: One of the questions that has been raised for clarification is the family maintenance program. What is the relationship of the family maintenance program -- that's the legal family maintenance program for spouses -- to this ministry? Because many of the people are caught between more than one ministry in these particular programs.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The AG actually does the enforcement. They have the enforcement program within their ministry. We get the orders for our clients and process them through the AG.

V. Anderson: One of the questions that arises there -- and this will come up later perhaps, but let me raise it now; it would come up on talking about GAIN services -- is the question of spouses, most of whom are women with children who are already receiving GAIN payments, receiving maintenance payments. There is a thrust there that they'd like to be able to keep more of those payments than they are presently doing. They would like to keep all of them, of course. But at least to move in the direction of keeping more than about the $200 that they're now allowed, because there's a strong feeling that these belong to the children. So I wanted to raise that question because that's one that we're often asked out there in the community.

[ Page 840 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: We're in the process of reviewing all of our GAIN programs, including this one.

[5:30]

V. Anderson: I'll take that as a hint that you might be moving in that direction, and hope that we're accurate. If not, we'll come back and ask you about that at another point.

For the child-in-care services program itself, there's an increase of $16 million. You've mentioned that $9 million is in grants and $5.5 million is in contributions. If I understood you correctly, the increase in grants is the foster care home portion of that. Does that indicate perhaps that there are more children now in foster care than there were previously, or are there better increases in finances and support to foster care parents than before?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There's actually a decreasing number of children in care in the province. The fact also is that those children in care have more severe problems, and because of the support those children need in care, the cost for supporting them is significantly higher.

V. Anderson: I would gather, then, from what you're saying that there might be an expectation that the number of children in care would continue to decrease with the extra services and programs that you're putting into place, but at the same time the quality of care, because of the special needs of the children still in care, may continue also to increase financially so that the financial figures may not adjust, which on their own indicate the real change that's taking place in the community.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think that it's accurate to identify that any transition period will be reflected in a need to invest in those children and in families. As for the number of children in care and the decreasing number of children in care, the demographics indicate that there are an increasing number of children, so we have our eye on that. The number of children in care in some ways is reflected by demographics, by the number of children and by the age of those children as they move through the population. We are hopeful that we will be able to monitor the investment we're making this year in families and in children to be able to prove that this new direction is a direction worth investing in.

I also believe quite strongly that the previous government's disinvestment in families and withdrawal of commitment from communities reflects very clearly in the number of children that are now, ten years later, in more severe need of care in fostering ten years later.

V. Anderson: One question that came up during the Education estimates -- and there was an indication we'd need to ask this in Health, Education and Social Services -- was the amount of cooperation between the educational system, Social Services and Health in dealing with families and children, many of whom are contacted and serviced through the educational programs, through multi-care workers and multicultural workers and other workers that are part of the school system or work in cooperation with the school system and are actually paid through Social Services.

Hon. J. Smallwood: A number of programs in this ministry are interministerial. One of the programs that was funded in this budget was the Sullivan protocol. Again, we are behind in the Sullivan protocol because the previous government chose not to fund it. We have the at-home support program for severely disabled children, a program that we support in cooperation with Health. A number of programs have interministerial involvement and cooperation.

V. Anderson: Would these interministerial programs be expected to continue both in relationship to, say, the educational system and the health system, and also in relationship to helping the families to integrate into the systems within their community like education and health? Would this be a major thrust in the area of crisis prevention?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The Sullivan protocol provides support for behavioural management and counselling of students. It is, I think, a prime example of a preventive program where our ministry is supporting the school system in ensuring that kids can stay in school, be productive and achieve along with their peers, even during difficult times for themselves. It's that kind of investment in those kids that is going to prevent a great deal of taxpayers' expense down the road.

V. Anderson: We often hear and see publicity about the need for foster parents. Is the need for foster parents still great even though the number of children who are in care seems to be decreasing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct. We are always in need of foster parents. In the next while, with the support of the expert multicultural team that I made reference to earlier and our increased emphasis on native child care, we hope to be able to encourage a multitude of fostering situations from a variety of communities in this province.

V. Anderson: One of the other questions that comes up regarding foster care is highlighted as care for native students or young people. Are these children now primarily put into foster care within their own cultural background? Would this also be true for other cultural groups? Are children placed primarily in cultural backgrounds with which they have some familiarity?

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to share a statistic with the member. Of the children who are in care in this province, 30 percent are from native families. As a priority in this ministry, we place those children in native placements. It's fair to say that we don't have enough of them, and we need to do better in 

[ Page 841 ]

that area. That is a priority, and it will be a focus in the work we will be doing in the next while.

The other statistic -- and it's not particularly relevant to the question that the member asked, but it's important in understanding the children who are in care in the province -- has to do with the number of children from single-parent families. You have to realize that the biggest category of children in care are classified as coming into care because of neglect and, in a significant number of those cases, poverty. The fact is that parents are unable to support their children, and therefore we're facing a situation of family breakdown. Those children come into the care of the province.

Just because I wanted to share that number with you, I don't have it. I will get you that number, because it is significant, and it is a major concern of mine. I believe that we can't lose track of the impact of poverty on children's lives and the ramifications of family breakdown because of poverty. 

V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister. I would be inclined to agree with the minister that poverty is the greatest obstacle that we need to overcome in order to provide the care or to prevent these youngsters from getting into care in the first place. One of the comments that we often hear is that if children are put into care in foster homes because their single-parent family, for instance, is not able to care for them because of finances, more money goes to the care of the foster home than to them in their own home. This has been true, I understand, and if it's still true, is there a process of rectifying that, so that children could have the funds to stay in their own home and be properly cared for, rather than having to be sent out in order to get the care they need? 

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll share some statistics with you -- in pretty rough terms, because I don't have them in front of me. Benefits to a family on income assistance, for a single child, are somewhere around $150 per child. If for some reason the family is unable to support that child and the child falls to a relative to be cared for in the relative's home, the relative will get approximately $400 for the care of the child. If there is no relative to care for the child, in a fostering situation it's approximately $800. If the family is able to maintain the child in the home, until such time as the child becomes severely damaged or in need of considerable support, the price tag can go up to almost $6,000 for a child in care, depending on the need for support for that individual.

So you can see very clearly that it costs the state a lot of money to support children in care, ranging from $400 all the way up to $6,000. By comparison, a child on income assistance is considerably less money but presents quite a problem for not only us in this House to deal with, but for society generally to deal with. I hope within the next short while to give that problem away so that it's no longer solely the problem of the Ministry of Social Services but indeed is a problem that people in British Columbia have to start to grapple with, because we're all too aware of the food bank lineups and the growing caseloads on income assistance.

I think it's about time we, as a society, began grappling with the issues around poverty and the implications of poverty. We need to present those figures and that information for communities to grapple with so they can begin to make some significant decisions. When we have a situation where the jobs created in this province are increasingly minimum wage jobs, it's pretty clear to me that at $5.50 an hour you not only cannot support yourself as an individual and pay rent, but you cannot support a child. As a society, we've got a significant issue to deal with, and it's not simply the solution of providing $400 for the child in the home of a relative to a person on income assistance. It begs the question about all those people working at minimum wage and their expectations of support to be able to feed their children.

[5:45] 

V. Anderson: I appreciate those comments very much and wonder if the ministry then might be giving some leadership to the community at large in looking at how we arrive at what some people have called a guaranteed adequate annual income, which takes into account wages that are enough that you can come at least to the poverty line and other support systems from the community at large. Is it a fact that the ministry, because of their experience in this area and awareness of it -- more so than others -- would be able to give some leadership in helping the community at large grapple with that total program, which is certainly an integration of labour, management and all the other things involved? Because that leadership would be very important and significant. 

Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is yes. I'd love to elaborate, but that's future policy.

V. Anderson: We will wait for the elaboration of that, because it's very significant and very important that this be undertaken.

Another area -- moving away from that particular one at the moment -- is the area of adoption services. In adoption services there has been a lot of discussion in a variety of areas recently. One of the concerns has been that there are not enough parents seeking adoption at one period of time, and that at another period of time there are not enough children for the parents who are seeking to adopt. Could the minister share with us what the situation is around adoptions -- children seeking to be adopted or placed for adoption and parents seeking to adopt? Both. Perhaps while you're on it, within British Columbia, Canada or internationally, since your ministry covers all of those. 

Hon. J. Smallwood: Again to tie up a loose end here, the statistic I wanted to share with you about the number of children in care coming from single-parent families: 47 percent. That's staggering, and it really leads us into our previous discussion around the 

[ Page 842 ]

impacts of poverty and the costs of poverty, both to families and to taxpayers.

Around the issue of adoption, we have far more requests than we do infants for adoption. The only area where we need more support is around special-needs adoption. We are currently looking at that whole area to provide better support and options to parents prepared to take on special-needs situations.

V. Anderson: What about the question of interprovincial adoptions and the question of international adoptions? That's one that's been raised. Also private adoptions, apart from the governmental adoption system.

Hon. J. Smallwood: International adoptions are the responsibility of the federal government; they go through Ottawa. Private adoptions are governed by legislation that the previous government brought in just at the end of the last session.

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I move that we rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Introduction of Bills

ENERGY COUNCIL ACT

Hon A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy Council Act.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's my pleasure to put before the Legislature a bill to create an energy council for B.C. This will establish an advisory body to help plan a sustainable energy future for British Columbia and ensure that the public is fully consulted on energy matters. The energy council bill authorizes the appointment of a council chairperson, temporary councillors and staff.

The B.C. energy council will serve two main functions: facilitate public consultation on comprehensive energy planning in British Columbia; conduct broadly based public consultation on key energy issues. The first task of the B.C. energy council will be to conduct a review of proposed long-term firm energy exports from projects dedicated solely to the export market. The B.C. energy council will also serve in an advisory capacity to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and will ensure that public consultation is an important element of energy decision-making in British Columbia.

Bill 18 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.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 18: minister's office, $386,191 (continued).

A. Warnke: It has been a long weekend in terms of being away from our responsibilities. Actually, it has been almost a week. As a matter of fact, I had to look at Hansard to make sure that we do not become redundant in the series of questions that we want to raise. The layover is kind of interesting, but hopefully we are all refreshed and ready to go again.

Where we left off last day was with our general discussion of police matters. As a matter of fact, it is interesting to refer to the record once again. What we had agreed to do was proceed through a number of areas seriatim, and then, toward the end of the day -- once we had dealt with a number of these areas -- open it up to other areas. I believe that on the last day there was mention of our raising some questions about the Election Act and maybe other aspects or issues as well that are relevant to the estimates presented here.

At the point of adjournment on the last day, we were addressing some aspects of police services. It is here that we can perhaps resume where we left off and go through a very quick warmup. We won't waste too much time. I'll pose one concern that has been drawn to my attention over the weekend. I think that it's an extremely important concern -- that is, with regard to police services. What sort of moneys are being allocated to dealing with different types of crimes? I believe my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena has a couple of questions that may be relevant to criminal justice in regard to gang violence and so forth. I appreciate what the minister presented to us last day, but there are still some aspects of that that we want to inquire into. There is something with regard to police matters and to 

[ Page 843 ]

criminal justice, and whether there's a blurring. Perhaps we'll leave some of these matters to criminal justice.

As for policing, we had not really gotten into the area of how funds for this coming year are to be allocated toward the Vancouver city police. Before we get into some aspects involving criminal justice, it is perhaps worth reviewing where funds are being allocated toward the Vancouver city police. I think it's entirely appropriate, in line with what we discussed last day, to briefly describe and outline the relationship between the costs of administering and policing in the city of Vancouver -- considering that it is the largest city in our province -- and, if it's relevant and if we have time for it, the Victoria city police and other city police forces.

There is also a problem in terms of the challenges of allocating moneys to city police, and how the province is to be involved in that. I think it's not a bad place to begin reviewing that, as I'm sure the public is interested in it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, but if the question is how much provincial contribution there is to policing in the city of Vancouver, I'm sure members know that the overwhelming portion of moneys spent on city policing is raised through city taxes. It's a budget item for the Vancouver City Council. We have a particular program that provides assistance in varying amounts to the 12 municipalities with municipal police forces. In the case of the city of Vancouver, if my memory is correct, that amount is in the $800,000 range. You need to remember, in respect of city policing, that a fair amount of other activity goes on beyond the city boundaries. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit is active in many issues in the city and outside the city, and funding for that is in large measure from the province. The Vancouver city policing itself is a municipal responsibility, and they bear the burden of the cost.

A. Warnke: I thank the minister for that brief description, as I think it is necessary from the public's point of view to get some sort of concise impression of the province's role in that. I fully agree with the minister.

The Attorney General raises another important point in this context: overriding jurisdiction -- or at least the impression of overriding jurisdiction, from the public's point of view -- especially where there are different jurisdictions involved in a similar case. The most spectacular is the car chase from Vancouver to other jurisdictions, where other police forces have to take over. I'm wondering whether, as a matter of policy, the government is having a look at that, and whether there are any financial implications as to how to coordinate various jurisdictions on a case.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try to answer two issues. First, the funding provided to municipalities: there is a review now of those funding arrangements. The UBCM is involved with the ministry and the police forces in looking at this whole issue, so that is ongoing.

In respect to what we might describe as regionalization issues -- the member mentioned car chases -- there is a variety of other communications and cross-boundary issues. We think it is important that we pursue more vigorously with the various municipal forces and the RCMP the whole question of developing a more comprehensive and unified regional responsibility -- that is, response ability. That's very much on the agenda for discussions with the various municipalities and police boards.

A. Warnke: There are some issues within the ministry with regard to policing which sort of dovetail into corrections, and I'd like to leave them for the time being. I'm sure that there are others who may also have questions with regard to policing, and I'll raise a couple more later on. For the time being I would defer to those other members who might also have questions with regard to police matters.

D. Jarvis: I have several questions on a completely different train of thought with regard to your establishment of a commission or inquiry into compensation for holders of minerals and forests interests. Why is the decision being taken out of the courts? As you say, it's ostensibly for costs, less the time element, and all the rest of it. If that was the premise, then, has the government decided already that it is going to compensate for the tenure? Is the commission just to establish how you ascertain what the value is, or just how do you prepare to go about that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, just some background for members. This commission was established to examine the principles and the processes by which we would determine a value, if one existed, for what are described as "taken resources" in two areas: minerals and mining on the one hand and forestry on the other hand, where licenses or licenses of occupation or tenures have been granted, but then, for some reason or other, government policy dictated that that licence was terminated. I cite the example of the part of South Moresby that went into the federal park as a result of some initiatives in the last few years.

There have not really been any appropriate examinations, in our view, of how we make determinations of the value, if one exists, to the tenure-holder or licence-holder. So Dr. Richard Schwindt from Simon Fraser University was retained under the Inquiry Act to do a report for us this spring, with a view to examining what the principles and processes should be. At the same time, we indicated that freeze legislation would come in to put on hold all of the existing claims -- there aren't many, but there are a handful -- that fit into this particular category.

We have an expropriation commissioner and board in this province that is available as a "court" to people who have "expropriated property." That process is in existence and continues, but we have separated, for further public policy determination, the question of resources held by licence, tenure or some form like that.

[ Page 844 ]

A. Cowie: Is it the commissioner's decision to decide who is going to have tenure and who is not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all. First of all, I should make clear that the commissioner is not looking at any individual licence, individual claim or individual case. The commissioner is simply looking at giving the government advice about the principles that should be used in determining if value exists and, if value does exist, what kind of processes should be in place to determine the appropriate compensation. We expect that out of his report, which he's just in the process of doing, some legislation or some legislative remedy will be required.

This is not particularly radical or particularly new. The province of Alberta has had a similar kind of process in place now -- I don't know for how long -- for some time, where they have legislation on the books to deal with this question which is sometimes referred to as "taken resources."

A. Warnke: In the particular area of police matters, I have one more question with regard to the Justice Institute of British Columbia, which I think we're putting in the context of management services under police services. Perhaps it's out of context here, but there has been some discussion lately on the Justice Institute, its future, the allocation of funds and that sort of thing. I would appreciate it if the Attorney General would give a quick assessment of the state of the Justice Institute of B.C., and where we're going.

[3:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Sometimes we all have trouble keeping up with where things are in government, because in the last few years a lot of things moved, and they moved frequently. All of us as members sometimes have trouble remembering which institution or which part of government is in which area.

The Justice Institute is in the Ministry of Advanced Education and has been there for some time now. Our ministry, as do other ministries, contracts some services from the Justice Institute, but it is entirely a creature of and an agency of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

A. Warnke: Since there are no other questions dealing with police matters, we could move very quickly on to corrections and deal with that. In particular, one question seems to have come up many different times from the public that I've been in contact with. It is a matter of policy, or of where we're going. I notice that in terms of adult correctional centres, there are questions about the work program, what inmates do, what kinds of skills they acquire and how we go about encouraging inmates to acquire and develop skills. Many members of the public have impressed on me that we ought to encourage more of that. I recognize the restrictions placed on the ministry in terms of allocating funds; I think we all recognize that. 

[Mr. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Nonetheless, it is a question I want to raise with the Attorney General or with the Solicitor General. He used to be in charge of this, and now it's both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. What is the state of the corrections work program? Are we allocating funds specifically for inmates and the acquisition and development of skills? Does the Attorney General, in his assessment, believe that we're making some progress here, and is it having some impact on the community? Is it really contributing to the rehabilitation of inmates? For the most part, I suppose it would be fair to say that these kinds of inmates are quite unlike some other segments of the prison population that are involved in extremely serious crimes.

Perhaps the minister would make some assessment as to where we are with regard to adult correctional centres, their contribution and whether we're making progress there. Is he confident that the funds that are being allocated are sufficient, or are there any problems that he sees?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thought I would take advantage of the question to talk a little about the variety of work-related programs that exist in adult correctional centres. This is not an exclusive list; this is just some of the things that happen.

In some instances, obviously depending on location, there are farming and cattle-ranching activities, which produce food for inmate consumption but are also work-training-related.

There are woods operations in forestry, land-clearing, fish enhancement, woodworking, metalworking and paint shops, production of ceramic greenware for use by inmates in their hobbies, hose-drying -- this is in terms of firefighting and forestry firefighting -- park maintenance, and tailor shops for producing inmates' clothing. There is an interesting program: floral design, where the contractor actually comes in, and floral bouquets and other items are manufactured for sale. So there is a whole variety of programs designed to teach skills, to create a closer attachment to work. This part of correctional.... I guess the word "corrections" implies that you're trying, in some way, to help people correct previous behaviour, and through these kind of work-related programs we are doing that.

I haven't been in this position long enough to get a good sense of how this is working in personal terms. I've been stuck here trying to learn my way through this ministry, and I haven't had a chance to tour the adult facilities yet. I have been to a couple of youth facilities, but not the adult. As a result, I don't have a personal feel for how these programs work. But I know that the people who work in the corrections branch are enthused about them. The response has been good, and they seem to have had the desired effect.

A. Warnke: I have a question I'd like to pose to get your impression. Since the Solicitor General's department and the Attorney General's department have been amalgamated -- and I think we discussed this a little bit last day in terms of the difficulty and your description of bringing these two together in a specific context of corrections -- has the minister seen some problems 

[ Page 845 ]

with the amalgamation and its concrete application to corrections and so forth?

I would appreciate it if the Attorney General could give us an impression of where there have been problems and, on the other hand, where there have been improvements. I realize it is less than a year since the minister received his appointment. Has he been able to detect definite improvements in terms of this adjustment?

I commend the minister for some of the actions. I think it is entirely appropriate to also commend the public service for concentrating on concrete skills as outlined and described by the minister. I think this is a tremendous contribution, rather than just focusing in on some sort of general education or encouraging people to take up an arts program in university or college -- which may have helped my old career. I'm very impressed with the attempt to see inmates acquire concrete skills.

I'd like to get some general impression as to where we've come, where we are going and the minister's impressions of some of the challenges and some of the problems -- or where there have been problems and improvements that he has seen.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wouldn't be too hard on arts programs. It has meant that the two of us are here. It's one form of institutionalization that results from training in the liberal arts, perhaps.

The amalgamation issue is one that we talked about last week, as the member indicated. Everyone in this ministry finds it appropriate -- and I'm sure every member of this House would agree -- that the justice system is delivered within one ministry and responsible to one minister. A concrete example of a benefit in respect of the re-merging of Solicitor General and Attorney General is the relationship between Crown counsel and the correctional system, where there needs to be a very direct and continuing relationship. The merger very much helps that particular process. I think that's probably the best example of the value of having merged.

A. Warnke: The minister also referred very briefly to youth and the application of programs towards youth. Could the minister give a similar assessment on youth custody centres and what the ministry intends to do to address some of the problems regarding youth custody programs?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would be kind enough to briefly repeat that. I was dealing with issues raised by some other opposition members that I just wanted to sort out.

A. Warnke: Out of the corner of my eye, I thought maybe the minister was just slightly distracted, and I appreciate the problem. Sometimes I am distracted as well in posing the question. Could the minister provide some assessment of youth custody programs and services that are provided, making the distinction that the nature of adult corrections is far different from that of youth custody? I would appreciate it if the minister could elaborate on that a bit.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The primary focus of youth custody is.... I'd better rephrase that; I suddenly realized where that sentence was taking me. The primary activity within youth facilities is, in fact, educational. The corrections branch and the ministry feel it important -- in fact, essential -- that kids of that age upgrade their educational skills. I would welcome the member to have a look at the kinds of educational activities that take place in these facilities. There is clearly an educational component to the facility that is un-jail-like, if I may put it that way. It is clearly a school and is seen as such. While it is contained physically in the same centre, it is designed to be a separate and different place, where education is provided by regular schoolteachers from the local school district. Some of the work that goes on in upgrading the education of these young people is really quite remarkable. A very excellent job is done.

I am familiar with the Lakeview facility, which is just outside of Campbell River. A number of people that I know are involved in teaching at that facility. In many ways it is the most important thing that happens at that facility.

A. Warnke: I am encouraged very much by the minister's remarks. Since the invitation has been extended to me, I'd like to respond positively to it. One of my objectives has been to see some of these institutions for myself.

If the Attorney General would not mind.... I realize it's jumping around a little bit. We talked on the last day about aboriginal affairs. Given the level of incarceration of natives in our prison population, our leader is also extremely interested in this subject. If you wouldn't mind, I would prefer at this point to defer to the leader, who has some questions with regard to aboriginal affairs. Perhaps at some point we could come back to corrections and criminal justice or whatever, as the time goes.

G. Wilson: My questions have to do specifically with justice and native people in British Columbia. In my critic portfolio, which is Aboriginal Affairs, it becomes obvious that many of the questions I seek answers to cannot be found within the ministry but are found within Education, Social Services or the Attorney General's office.

[3:15]

My questions are directed very specifically to the matter of justice and aboriginal people. My opening question would be in relation to a comparative analysis between other jurisdictions in Canada, namely New Brunswick and Manitoba. There has been a fairly substantial commitment of resources, energy, time and some of the better minds in those provinces to seek out new information with respect to how aboriginal people are faring in a justice system that is directed by common law, which is often very difficult to apply in matters relating to people who quite frequently prefer to be regulated and governed under tribal law. I wonder if 

[ Page 846 ]

the minister could tell me what kind of commitment there may be in British Columbia this year. If there are any dollars allocated to aboriginal justice, where may they be found? As a general strategy, to what extent is this ministry going to try and address some of the very urgent problems that are faced by many aboriginal people with respect to their interface with law enforcement?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members who were here last week will know -- I won't repeat all of that -- I have a deep commitment to dealing with this particular issue. It's one of the issues that require our most urgent attention in this province, not just in this ministry but also in other ministries such as Social Services, Health and Education.

Let me just say that we are spending too much money on native incarceration at the moment, because too many natives are incarcerated. The notes I have today are slightly different, but I think it's accounted for from year to year. The figures I used last week were that approximately 5 or 6 percent of our population is native and approximately 16 or 17 percent of our incarcerated citizens are native. At the end of the line we have a really serious problem with the levels of incarceration.

I'll just give a bunch of numbers now so they're on the record. Some of these I may have given last week, but I don't mind doing it again. The ministry spends about $6 million in programs designed to reduce the number of aboriginals incarcerated. It provides legal aid and education for court-worker services and financial assistance for policing on reserves. The corrections branch is now involved in the development and supervision of a number of programs throughout the province using funding identified from the native justice consultation, which is $428,000, and another $300,000 from ministry sources. Programs range from community service and recreation to native drop-in-centres and residential attendants' beds. In the corrections branch, the cost of housing and supervising natives is approximately $30 million a year. Corrections has about 46 contracts with aboriginal communities and organizations valued at somewhere over $800,000 to provide community-based services.

Those are last year's numbers. Let me give you a breakdown on that. The $800,000 I mentioned is actually $831,000. Almost $50,000 of that goes to native-managed community work service, and there are 19 contracts. Another $242,000 goes to native liaison workers with eight contracts. Then $190,000 goes to native justice workers with five contracts. Another $180,000 goes to youth community programs with a total of eight contracts, another $80,000-plus goes to adult community programs with four contracts. Another $79,000 goes to youth institutional programs with two contracts. Finally, $17,000-plus goes to adult residential programs with a total of one contract.

We have added $740,000 this year to these initiatives, and the majority of this funding -- about $600,000 -- is intended to be used for a youth residential program in the north and in the interior. The remainder will be used to expand community-based programs throughout the province. The detailed list I gave you was, in effect, the previous year's expenditure; the $740,000 is added to upgrade our efforts in this regard.

Those are the numbers. What is important is the philosophy and the commitment; it goes beyond simply dealing with people in the system, as we talked about here last week. We had a good discussion about issues related to finding ways to integrate better our system and traditional native systems so that we can take advantage of elders in many bands who could provide the kind of supervision that may be more effective, more appropriate and more useful in the long term.

We are developing a variety of other programs -- a pilot project with the South Island Tribal Council, the South Island project -- to try to find ways to deal with native justice issues, not just at the correctional end but at the beginning.

There is a lot of work to do, and it is not all to be done simply in Attorney General. I will conclude by saying it's a priority; it's an issue that we think is very important, not just for native people but for the whole of our society.

G. Wilson: Of the dollars you have just outlined, is all of that money provincial money or is a proportion shared federal money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The money I talked about is all provincial money.

G. Wilson: I know that in the other jurisdictions we've mentioned -- in Education, Health, and Social Services -- there is a considerable amount of money that comes in through federal shared programs administered in British Columbia through agencies in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could comment on the extent to which those dollars that come in are administered through his ministry and to what extent they are tied to aboriginal people who are reserve status and urban.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the way that status Indians are covered by federal legislation and federal programs, perhaps what the member is suggesting by extension is, does that mean the federal government ends up paying for incarceration of status Indians in our jails? The answer is no. There is no particular costing out for that purpose. B.C. does not receive federal money to pay for the housing for a particular individual who may be a status Indian, as I understand it.

G. Wilson: Further to that, the question I am leading to is in two general areas of discussion that have been brought to my attention. It has to do with the growing number of aboriginal people moving into and living in urban areas who end up needing assistance within the social service network. They do run into difficulties with the legal system and require assistance in the city as well. I wonder to what extent the dollars we've talked about, which seem to be reserve-based, can also apply to organizations such as the United 

[ Page 847 ]

Native Nations and organizations that look after the interest of urban-based aboriginal people.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The real answer is that we are working on that problem. It's one that has been identified by not only Corrections people but also others in the justice system. I don't think I can give any particular answer to that question as I understand it, other than to say that it's a problem which has been identified and is being addressed internally in the ministry.

G. Wilson: I'm encouraged to know that the problem is being addressed. With respect to the urban population, we certainly look forward to whatever provisions the government might bring.

I'd like to come back and talk a bit more about some specifics with respect to the corrections program for non-reserve-based aboriginal people. But the second general area is with respect to justice and the law as they apply to aboriginal women. This is an area that I think requires a great deal of attention and sensitivity. Basically I think one would argue, if we look at the whole matter of the constitutional question that arises around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the difficulty that some aboriginal groups have with adopting and accepting Charter provisions because of their own cultural and tribal background.... I wonder what the minister can tell us in terms of the dollars that may be available with respect to aboriginal women. Or is this one area where I'm going to have to go to the estimates for the new ministry responsible for women's programs?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: You could identify some programs as being particularly directed at native women. We participate financially in the women's centre. Not only do we participate, but we pay for all of it -- which I didn't know until this very minute. We also are developing special native programs for women that deal with elders. I am sorry that I am not as familiar with this as I will be next year and the year after, but these are early days and I haven't had a chance yet, as members can imagine, to become completely familiar with all of these programs. In respect of native women's programs, there are a couple of particular initiatives: one with elders, where programs are being developed; and with a sweat-lodge initiative. The Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women is where the sweat-lodge program is being undertaken.

G. Wilson: I understand the complexity of the subject. In the critic portfolio, it is indeed difficult to try to ferret out a lot of this information, because it is not only joint jurisdiction -- federal and provincial -- but in the way it's set up provincially, it lies within five different line ministries and some subministries. I'm certainly not trying to put you on the spot or cause you any undue concern. I'm actually trying to track down whether or not the ministry is now starting to focus on matters of prevention -- treatment of victims -- as well as matters relating to corrections for aboriginal women.

[3:30]

Statistically -- I don't want to be tied to the statistics, because we are now trying to verify some sources -- it would indicate that the percentage on a per capita basis.... Aboriginal women, it would seem, are victims of violent crime at a very much higher percentage than non-aboriginal women. As a percentage of aboriginal people incarcerated.... If one looks at it in comparison to non-aboriginal society, there is much higher number of convictions for aboriginal women with respect to matters in which there has been violent crime. Some would argue -- certainly this is what I'm hearing as I travel around the province and meet with aboriginal people -- that the victim is often also the person who ends up being incarcerated, because of the difficulty in the interface between aboriginal people and the justice system.

It's an area that requires our urgent attention. I just wonder what the minister may have to offer with respect to what we can do immediately on that question.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I agree that it's a matter for urgent attention. For the most part, violence against native women as a particular issue is dealt with in the mainstream of services available either to natives or to the community at large. However, there is a recognition that we need to go beyond that. There is now in place a contract with the Saanich band to deal with the issue of violence against native women -- as you say, from the beginning through the whole system, so that you don't just deal with the end result, but try to develop programs that will help to reduce and eventually eliminate violence against women, and in this case against native women in particular.

G. Wilson: I am sensitive about moving into areas of future policy and pinning the minister down. I wonder if there is any consideration given, then, to some form of.... I shudder to use the words "royal commission," because we tend to get those things done to death; they often take a long time, are expensive and don't correct the problem. But I wonder if there is a commitment to doing some detailed analysis and research on the question not only of crime against aboriginal women but in general the difficulties that there seem to be with respect to aboriginal people and the law in British Columbia, in a manner similar to that which has been done in Manitoba -- fairly successfully, I would argue -- and also in New Brunswick. I believe there has been work done in Nova Scotia also. Are there dollars earmarked within this set of estimates for such an analysis? If so, when might we expect to see that undertaken?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There isn't money set aside for a comprehensive analysis such as the ones done in the other provinces referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. However, there is ongoing program money available for dealing with and advancing these particular issues. In particular, violence against native women is an issue that is very much in the forefront of that kind of ongoing analysis and review. The short answer is that there is not a commission of inquiry, and certainly not a 

[ Page 848 ]

royal commission. I'm not certain at this stage whether that would be the most productive way for us to deal with the issue and to advance the cause. In every level of the ministry we are working with the native bands, native groups, and individual native people involved in the system to try to identify problems and solutions. Where there are particular issues that require particular attention in a community, we'll deal with that in that community around that issue. At this point, there has been no thought given by me and no money directed to an overall commission of inquiry of whatever type.

G. Wilson: If I could be so bold as to offer that as a suggestion that you might want to consider, I think it might be well worthwhile. It's long overdue in the province.

I wonder if I could maybe just move to the matter of justice and youth. I guess this comes under the whole concept of family law with respect to aboriginal people. We know there have been difficulties associated with child adoption and matters of maintenance of young people who have been returned to aboriginal families. History is somewhat replete with examples. I wonder if the minister could tell me if it lies within his ministry or if it's a joint or shared jurisdiction with the Social Services ministry. How do we look after the legal complications -- and I'm not speaking now about child support -- that have arisen with respect to child adoption and the legal rights that run with the individual vis-�-vis their status? Where there has been re-integration into the aboriginal community, how are legal rights that the individual may have looked after by the ministry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish I could give more of an answer. First of all, adoptions -- as the member notes -- are within Social Services and not within this ministry.

The question of providing legal counsel or legal advice or assistance in one form or another to native kids who may have been adopted off their reserve to a non-native family and then want to come back, or any of those kinds of questions, I can't at this point offer any further answer on, other than to say that I will sort out, through the ministry, whether there are any kinds of programs, if they do or don't exist, and if they don't, how that service might be provided at the present time. I will communicate to the Leader of the Opposition by letter on that particular issue.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that. Where we're seeking clarification -- and if you can use your offices to help, I would greatly appreciate it -- is with respect to the joint jurisdiction that seems to be shared between DIA and the provincial Ministry of Social Services. There are some real grey areas there where an awful lot of children fall through the cracks and simply get returned to families. There are legal matters that need to be addressed and looked after, and there is no provision for funds. It would be well worth getting some answers to that.

Staying with this matter of family law with respect to legal counsel and advice on matters affecting aboriginal youth where matters of abuse are identified, does the ministry have any ability to intervene on matters of abuse? Is this something the ministry sees as a potential with respect to matters of child abuse? To what extent do you see that as a role that your ministry should play with respect to law enforcement? To what extent do you see that as strictly a federal jurisdiction and a federal matter that needs to be administered through the Department of Indian Affairs? 

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members will remember, in the last few weeks an announcement was made from several ministries that government will be providing counselling to people who were involved in institutions that were the responsibility of the province. So what we're saying is that we accept our responsibility for previous apparent wrongdoing, and we'll provide counselling programs in those cases. I heard, I thought at the beginning of the question, a reference to issues that may well be more the subject of legal aid in respect of a particular individual's brush with the law and need for legal counsel. There are, within legal aid, programs that the Legal Services Society provides that are available in those instances. It may be that I haven't fully picked up on the question, but that's part of it anyway.

G. Wilson: You've certainly answered half, and maybe I can just flesh out the other half. What I'm attempting to get at is with respect to not only counselling services but legal services to families where child abuse is a concern -- ongoing or in the past -- and legal action needs to be taken with respect to restraining orders, restriction against exposure to one or both parents or what have you. To what extent does your ministry see itself in an advocacy position for these kinds of services? To what extent do you believe that that should in fact more correctly be a matter which is strictly federal with respect to the fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal people under the DIA?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to pass on that question at the moment, and again undertake to deal with it in a more comprehensive fashion by way of letter. It's a question that I have not dealt with, have not been briefed on in any way, and I'm not familiar at all with how the responsibilities are shared between the feds and the province in those matters of status Indians. And in this very difficult and complex area of abuse.... I'd like to undertake to give the member a fuller report by way of letter.

G. Wilson: Maybe to facilitate, what I might do is to provide you some cases -- on the provision that confidentiality is maintained -- so that you can understand more fully what I'm getting at.

Perhaps we can move on to a broader issue with respect to aboriginal people and their need for legal assistance. I'm making reference to those instances where legal counsel may be required in order for bands to take up a defence against what they may see as a loss 

[ Page 849 ]

of income due to matters of, for example, pollution or diversion. I can think of one in particular with respect to the Nechako and the Alcan situation, where there is a need for some work to be done on environmental considerations and legal counsel. Another one closer to home is with respect to the Sliammon people and their desire to have some kind of counsel available to assist in trying to develop a case that might argue that the MacMillan Bloedel mill has been responsible for shellfish closures and a loss of income. To what extent is the ministry dedicating some dollars in that assistance? Does the minister once again not see that as the purview of this ministry, and thus put it squarely in the federal scene?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The practice has been and continues to be that any legal defence or legal action that may be undertaken by a band is funded through the DIA, through their own resources. The province has not contributed and does not contribute to those legal actions. There is under review the whole question of what some people refer to as intervener funding in particular cases. Government has not made a decision yet about that question, but it's entirely conceivable -- and in fact it would happen -- that if intervener funding were made available in particular cases and situations through whatever mechanism, native communities or band councils could involve themselves in that intervener funding, as could any other environmental group or community group or village council or whoever else may feel that their intervention is required at a particular hearing. But as I say, that decision has not.... What I'm trying to say is that there would be no separation out of natives from any other appropriate interveners. However, all of that is dependent upon the government determining what the policy will be in respect of intervener funding.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: You started off and I thought, that's great, we've got intervener funding established. Then I think I heard you say at the end that that would depend on what the policy is with respect to intervener funding.

My question is.... I don't wish to entrap the minister, so let me show you the snare before I ask the question. The difficulty that we're likely to run into on the question of intervener funding -- and I'd be most anxious to find out the minister's policy on it -- is that in the provision of intervener funding you may have the government fund legal counsel to take action not only against a private company but maybe even against the provincial government itself, especially with respect to permits issued that have been "responsible" for any kind of lost income through pollution or whatever. In the case of the Sliammon, which is an interesting one with respect to the loss of shellfish and MacMillan Bloedel's willingness to sit down and negotiate some kind of cleanup and rehabilitation program, there is no provision for income loss to the aboriginal people, the Sliammon people, without actively taking on the case. Now if that were to be done, I think an argument might be mounted that, because permits had been issued and there had been variances provided, essentially there is a situation where the provincial government or previous governments -- yours excluded so far -- are in fact, and at least in part, responsible for the problem. So I wonder what the feeling is with respect to the provision of that kind of money, and to what extent you might find yourself in a difficult position legally.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me clarify first of all in respect of intervener funding on the other issue, because I see that these are separate issues. The government has not yet made a policy determination. The question of intervener funding is under review, so I'll leave it at that.

The Sliammon band in question is a different kind of issue, as I see it. Intervener funding generally is considered to be available -- where it is available -- in situations where a particular project may be on the drawing boards and where a pulp mill may be being built, and prior to that groups claim to be affected by it in a negative way, and then have an opportunity to voice their concerns in front of the appropriate board.

The question you're describing is different in that it's a retrospective look at damages that may or may not have occurred in the waters surrounding Sliammon territory. Funding for the kind of legal action that may be taken, or the legal advice that the band may seek, is not part of any program we have, and that would continue to be a federal responsibility.

G. Wilson: Thank you for that clarification. In the event of a situation such as Alcan and, for example, Chief Peter Quaw, who has been actively working on matters with respect to the Nechako and doing environmental work to try and establish a case, you would argue then that the provincial government has no obligation in the provision of any assistance for that group; that should be done and financed exclusively out of federal funds. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the Alcan proposal, you've got both an established project and you've also got a proposal for embellishments to the established project, and therefore again I see a distinction between the two. It may be that the government, in formulating its policy, doesn't see a distinction between the two. That's yet to be determined, but in redressing old wrongs, which I think is the point that you're describing, the government is not now considering.... There is no active review of providing financial assistance for legal assistance to bands to redress the "old wrongs." That is very much part of the federal government's responsibility, through the DIA and through the clear constitutional obligation the federal government has in this respect.

G. Wilson: Fair enough. We'll wait with bated breath to see what government policy is. Hopefully it will be this year. We'll see.

Let me move on to the last general set of questions that I have with respect to your ministry. It has to do essentially with corrections and the degree to which programs and educational programs are involved in 

[ Page 850 ]

corrections. In relation to that I don't really make a distinction between corrections and prevention, because I think the two obviously are linked.

One of the things that I would like to ask you about is the whole question of substance abuse, and how your ministry is approaching that. I realize that that's a more pervasive question, which society generally doesn't just specifically apply to aboriginal people by any stretch of the imagination. I wonder if you might tell me, with respect to reserve-based programs, the degree to which preventive programs may be financed or funded with respect to questions of substance abuse. In particular, I am referring to legally available substances such as alcohol. Could you also talk about what provisions may be in place with respect to the corrections program in order to assist people who have the illness of alcoholism -- in terms of rehabilitation and in terms of maintaining a more sustainable level of life?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, separating people who are incarcerated from people who are at large as it were -- people who are in their own community -- the Ministry of Health is the lead ministry for substance abuse programs and provides all of those initiatives and the substantial funding that is available. For native people in provincial institutions, there is no separate funding for substance abuse programs designed directly for native people; it is available for the whole population in the institution. Anyone of whatever background with a substance abuse problem can take advantage of the substance abuse programs existing in the correctional facility. It is not segregated within the institution.

G. Wilson: I was talking specifically about those people who are incarcerated. When we get to Health estimates, I'll be able to ask my questions there.

I'm concerned because, as I had alluded to earlier, it would seem -- and statistically there is some evidence to suggest -- that where alcohol abuse involves aboriginal people, the level and percentage of incarceration coming out of that is far higher than when the same substance abuse happens in non-aboriginal people. That is of concern to me and to members of the Liberal opposition.

In terms of the kind of facility to carry on follow-up care of this illness -- I believe we should consider that to be an illness -- to what extent is your ministry involved in financing in correctional and in post-correctional institutions some programs to provide ongoing care for aboriginal people? I'm well aware that this affects all people, and I'm not trying to single out aboriginal people in that sense. There are different circumstances for somebody returning to an urban centre where there is an availability of facilities, as opposed to somebody who may be returning to a on-reserve situation, where follow-up and those kinds of programs may be more difficult. To what extent are those available, and to what extent is there funding for those kinds of provisions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I understand that somewhere around 98 percent of all people in our institutions -- in jail -- have some problems with abuse of alcohol. This problem is not peculiar or unique to native people; this problem exists in the entire corrections system. We really need to deal with that. I don't think the member was suggesting that there was a greater problem among native people. The problem exists, as you identify, in going back to the reserve and in seeing where the programs are available on a continuing basis. In order to deal with that, alcohol and drug programs within institutions and jails are run by the Ministry of Health in order that there can be a continuum post-incarceration. It might be useful to pursue some of those questions with the Minister of Health, who runs programs within the jails and then hopefully continues to run the programs in the community in a way that is consistent for the particular individual.

I would concede that in many parts of British Columbia and in small communities where native people live, the level of appropriate alcohol and drug programs may not be up to the standards we would all wish. I know that's certainly true in my own constituency, where someone may go back to their own community and not have a sufficiently developed level of alcohol and drug counselling. That's one of the many problems that governments have to deal with in a serious way. In any event, that would be an issue that the Ministry of Health would follow up on.

G. Wilson: I was once told by a noted lawyer that if we were to remove alcohol-related incidents of crime, we would remove 98 percent of crime. Mind you, he was an abolitionist of alcohol -- a prohibitionist; maybe that's a better word -- so slightly biased.

My last set of questions comes down to probation services, in particular, available to aboriginal people involving officers of aboriginal origin, and where those services can be reserve-based and available in communities in the province. Certainly from many of the discussions I have had around the province, that is an area of urgent need and urgent concern, so that there can be both peer counselling in a probation system and greater provision for probation services to be available on reserve. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think it's fair to say that our society in this province hasn't done nearly enough in respect of providing probation or equivalent-to-probation resources in native communities delivered by natives themselves.

I told a story last week of a particular instance in my own constituency where a couple of native kids ended up in jail for a few weeks, rather than going back to their own community, because there was no supervision in their own community. We have started, through the corrections branch, a program of developing probation capability among native people in native communities. In fact, the first native probation officer and office are now located at Kitwanga.

The Leader of the Opposition is raising the questions with good reason. It's an important issue, and one where I think we can provide in the long term a far 

[ Page 851 ]

better level of justice and far better rehabilitation if we can integrate the supervision of probation into more traditional native methods. I mentioned earlier using elders and other community resources that exist; that's one way. Another way is the direct hiring of native people as probation officers, and having them work where they live in their own communities -- again, where the numbers are appropriate. Obviously we can do a variety of things in that regard. The commitment is there, especially now, to do that kind of thing.

G. Wilson: Before I ask my final question, I'd like to thank the minister for his frank and forthright answers to the questions which could be answered; where they couldn't, I look forward to getting a written response. I'll also provide some detail on the questions that need it.

My final question is with respect to native policing and the extent to which there may be a commitment within the ministry to move away from contracted RCMP policing in the interior and towards native policing as part of a provincial police service. I wonder if, within the estimates we're dealing with today and the votes on native policing, dollars have been directed specifically towards that. Is that again something that you see as lying more closely and directly with the DIA or the federal Department of Justice? I wonder -- without tipping the hand on future policy -- if there might not be some thought given to the financial benefit that might be provided to the people of British Columbia in a general sense if we were to start to move toward the establishment of a provincial police service.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If these estimates had been a few months later, I might have been able to give a fuller answer to that question. This is a priority for us too; unfortunately, I'm not yet able to give an answer to the way in which we handle the issue of native policing. We intend to deal with it; it's imminent -- and I mean that. It's not something that's months away; we're hoping to get at it fairly quickly. It's so far along that the financing issue with the federal government is fairly well ascertained. I think the numbers are 52 percent federal and 48 percent provincial in terms of cost-sharing, which is obviously a better arrangement than we have in the majority of our other policing activities in the province. So there are plans being developed, programs being proposed and decisions to be made soon, I hope.

A. Warnke: I have a number of questions in the concrete sense with regard to corrections, but I think to a certain extent they follow naturally from another series of questions by the member for Prince George-Omineca. If the minister wouldn't mind.... It's jumping around a little bit, but I believe the member was not around earlier, so I would like to defer to him.

L. Fox: I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for giving me this opportunity. It's extremely difficult to be in two places at one time, not having the ability to follow the dialogue as to exactly what the appropriate time is to come in. My questions are specifically to do with police costs. I hope it's not too late to address some of these concerns. I take it you've been through it at some length.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, carry on.

L. Fox: I apologize if any of my questions are repetitious. I hope they're not.

I'm specifically concerned about the ratio of costs that communities over 5,000 are being asked to bear, and where that is all going. A lot of the crime is coming in from outside these communities, and the burden appears to be increasingly heavy on municipalities, many of which do not have a tax base to carry this. A lot of them are liquor-related, as we heard earlier in the discussions, and the municipality in no way controls liquor sales. Has there been any consideration in this budget to address those concerns?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all I should assure the member that I wasn't smiling at him or at his question or at any of that; it was the musical chairs we were playing here as we tried to make sure I have some appropriate advice close to me rather than at the back of the room.

We did deal with the issue last Wednesday. The member may want to -- I will answer it again generally -- refer to Hansard to pick up some of the exchange that took place at that time. I think as we grapple with this two-committee system, we're going to have this kind of duplication. That's fine; we just have to accept that as one of the realities of having this system. I can tell members from experience that it used to happen when we had only one House too, because members would be out for a while and then would come back in and open a discussion that had been fully canvassed only hours before. So it's not anything new, and we should be quite happy to accommodate that.

The whole question of cost-sharing for police services with municipalities is under review at the present time. There is a committee comprised of ministry people and UBCM representatives which is actually looking at that particular issue now. There are a number of issues raised by municipalities. I can tell the member that just about every municipality comes in with a concern of one kind or another. Whether it's the kind of concern that we hear often, which is that the urban community pays for policing which they say is really more properly the responsibility of the neighbouring unorganized communities, because the crime gets committed close to the bars -- which is the general pattern.... It's an issue that I'm well aware of and which has been raised by many municipalities, including some in the member's constituency. It's an issue raised most prominently over the years by Williams Lake -- at least in terms of my hearing of the issue. Williams Lake is certainly always concerned about that. Clearly there is always a concern on the part of those municipalities as they approach the 5,000 level. They have to move into their share of policing costs once they are at the 5,000 through to the -- I think -- 15,000 level.

[ Page 852 ]

I know I have the problem in my constituency. The Leader of the Opposition has it in his constituency, and others do in theirs. As a result, we wanted to do this review to see whether there could be different ways of dealing with those kinds of financial arrangements and also with the assistance that is made to communities which have municipal police forces. All of those issues are being considered at this point.

I am not going to suggest that there are any magic answers or obvious solutions to it. In any system, there will always be winners and losers in the sense that you can't design a program that works for every community. On the other hand, you cannot design a program which is so subjective that you have to make a different decision in each community. You can imagine the kind of lobbying that would result from a formula which was dependent upon a particular case being made by a particular community. There need to be objective standards, and whenever you have objective standards you are going to have some disparity. However, we are looking at it.

L. Fox: In the present formula, in order to put in place the costs on municipalities when they reach 5,000 people, it's my understanding that there is a five-year phase-in program. There are a couple of factors that I'd like to see considered within this review process. I'm sure, having been a member of the UBCM, that they will definitely bring them forward. They are not new issues; in fact, they have been dealt with and brought to administrations in the past.

One of those is extending the phase-in period to ten years. The other major factor -- and I think it really comes to focus now, more so than in the past -- is that given that this government has just recently increased the fines for traffic offences, there has been a legitimate argument made that the fines collected within municipal boundaries should be given back to the municipalities in order to offset the policing costs or increases that they are facing. Will this committee be considering either of these initiatives?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: So we don't prolong it: the fines revenue will continue to come to the province, will not be available to the municipalities and is not the subject of these discussions.

L. Fox: I'm rather disappointed. I was thinking that perhaps the minister would have some innovative ways of addressing the police costing. He obviously has it in terms of the province's perspective, and I would have hoped that some of that would have gone into the municipal perspective.

However, one final question that I have is with respect to a capital project in Prince George. It is the courthouse which was started in partnership with the city a year and a half or two years ago and which has been put on hold. It's my understanding that the reason -- at least, the official reason -- was that the land is now in a floodplain, something that was recognized by the municipality even before they bought the land. What is the exact status of this, and when are we going to see it move forward?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're proceeding. There are some minor issues being worked on at the present time, but as far as we're concerned the project is on course, and we will see it completed before too long.

L. Fox: May I just ask that you clarify what "before too long" means?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't have the proposed completion date with us, but I'll get that to the member by way of letter, if that would be satisfactory.

L. Fox: I thank the minister for his indulgence.

K. Jones: Mr. Minister, I'm a little concerned about your tabling letters in response to questions by individual members of this committee. I would hope that those letters would be tabled to this committee, so that we would all be aware of your responses, rather than just the individuals receiving responses to questions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a time-honoured tradition, but if we want to start a new tradition, we can. I can carbon-copy other members, if they wish. In fact, I could go so far as to carbon-copy every member of the House, if that is the wish of members. The tradition has been, on more technical questions, to provide a fuller answer by way of correspondence, which members can then do with what they want; it's public information. Maybe the simple way of dealing with this would be to ensure that the critic in each caucus gets copies of any letters I am promising to send. Then if the caucuses want to deal with it further, they would be able to.

K. Jones: I would think it would be more appropriate if the responses were actually given through Hansard, so that the public knows what they are rather than just a few members of the House knowing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand the point. It's a bit of a trade-off. We can provide general answers here; in fact, on the answer to the member for Prince George-Omineca, I intend before the day is out to give a specific completion date on that courthouse, as we get the right piece of paper. But the trade-off is that by doing it by way of letter to the member.... We are able to provide far more detailed, comprehensive information -- and in many ways, far more useful -- if we are able to do the kind of research that can be done in the ministry to answer, in particular, the detailed questions the Leader of the Opposition was asking earlier. When it's a simple matter like a courthouse completion date, my undertaking would be to try to get it while the estimates continue and to make it clear then.

It's a trade-off. You can trade off earlier, more general, answers, or you can have a little bit of that and a really comprehensive answer by way of letter later on. But that's for each member to determine.

[4:15]

K. Jones: I appreciate the forthrightness and openness of the minister in recognizing that this is a very important issue to everyone.

[ Page 853 ]

I'd like to just carry on a bit on police funding. I'd like to ask whether the minister has provided funding for a task force on policing of resort areas -- small communities such as White Rock or Kelowna, and other areas that have had similar problems with additional policing as a result of their being resort communities.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The White Rock issue, the Penticton issue and the community festivities problems were dealt with by the Snowdon report. The Snowdon report is now available; it was released last week. If members want to peruse it, copies are available through my office. I can say to the members that we intend to proceed with dealing with the recommendations made by Mr. Snowdon in a way that.... Hopefully some of these can be dealt with in advance of this season's festivals.

K. Jones: Further on that, do you have sufficient funds in your budget to meet the extra needs and responses recommended in the Snowdon report?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Most of the recommendations in the report actually deal with legislative initiatives or policy initiatives, which can be done without spending money. I read the report very quickly last week or the week before -- I'm losing track of time -- when it came in. One of the recommendations is that municipalities that put on these events should be responsible for the consequences that come from the events in terms of costs, and it should not be a provincial responsibility per se, beyond the already large provincial contribution towards policing. There are no significant financial implications for us in implementing the report that Mr. Snowdon presented.

K. Jones: I'm rather shocked to hear that the minister is going to place a greater burden on the communities that happen to hold a community event or that happen to have a special area, such as a beach resort, that draws people from all over this province. They are going to be saddled with additional taxation. We've already increased taxation because of this budget, but to have you now place that heavy load of extra policing costs.... It is required not because the people in that community are participating in that activity, but because people are coming from all over the province and even out of the province, such as occurs in the White Rock area. They are coming in from Bellingham and south in the United States. Surely the people of these communities shouldn't have to pick up the extra costs that result in $40,000 or $50,000 -- maybe as much as $100,000 -- in additional policing costs, costs of overtime required by police, bringing in police from other communities to be able to provide sufficient staffing. The municipal costs of putting up barricades and bringing out staff from the municipality is also an extra cost that is faced by these people. Surely they shouldn't have to have the policing responsibilities as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the member should remember that what I said was that the Snowdon report recommended.... I didn't say that we had adopted a policy in respect to that recommendation yet. What I said we would do in response to the specific recommendations for legislative action was deal with those as best we could as quickly as we could.

The question of policing costs.... If a community holds an event, it is going to be the recipient of increased taxes, increased employment, increased revenue to businesses and a whole variety of other positive economic spinoffs, whether it's the Kelowna International Regatta, the Peach Festival in Penticton, the White Rock sandcastle contest, or any number of other community events. Whenever a community holds those events, there is increased economic activity in that community as a result. One of the consequences to a community that chooses to have that kind of festivity is that they have to pay the costs of hosting it. One of the inevitable costs of hosting an event of that kind is policing costs.

The member's suggestion is that taxpayers in Pouce Coupe should pay for the policing costs of an event in White Rock that benefits the businesses in the community of White Rock. I'm not so sure that the people in Pouce Coupe would agree with that.

It seems to me that communities have a responsibility themselves to deal with those kinds of issues, and that's what Snowdon recommends. The government has not taken a policy decision on that, and clearly we don't have in our budget allocations to provide additional police funding for overtime and all the attendant costs to police community festivities around this province. If communities are going to hold the events -- and I hope they do and that they feel comfortable in doing so -- they need to be aware that there is a variety of costs involved, and one of them is policing costs. They have to bear those responsibilities.

K. Jones: Surely your ministry must be providing funding to the Commonwealth Games in Victoria when they are being held. That is an expense that is being charged to the people of British Columbia, not to the people of Victoria, specifically, in regard to your policing costs. Surely you're not going to give them the full responsibility for all of their policing costs, are you?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As with Expo 86, I guess the province is going to pay additional policing costs for an international event such as the Commonwealth Games. I suspect that if we were to hold the Olympic Games in Vancouver some year, or the Winter Games at Whistler, the province would pay additional policing costs for that kind of event. I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate the Kelowna International Regatta or the Penticton Peach Festival with the Commonwealth Games, but maybe the member wants to make that equation. I don't think I could.

K. Jones: I certainly would like to make that equation. The sandcastle competition in White Rock was an international competition where people came from all over the world. People do go internationally to the Penticton Peach Festival and to the Kelowna International Regatta. They are on a smaller scale, but 

[ Page 854 ]

not necessarily any different from the large ones. Just the fact that the metro centres can have their free policing while the smaller communities have to pay the full costs is not very equitable.

I think it's about time we got some equity and started.... I not saying that the person in Pouce Coupe should have to pay that cost, but you said you have a large amount of money going into general revenue. All of your fines are going into general revenue. Surely that's not coming out of individual taxpayers; that's coming out of an enforcement program. That's the kind of money that we expect to have fairly shared around this province.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We spend more on policing than we collect in fines. The money has to come from somewhere. I suppose we could have not given Education a 9.1 percent increase and we could have diverted more to our policing so that the White Rock festival could have some overtime costs paid. You have to make choices when you are in government, as the member needs to learn. I'm not sure that he will ever have to experience it, but he needs to understand. And one of the choices we're making in this kind of situation is that with an international event of the magnitude of the Commonwealth Games, the province is, in fact, involved one way or another; in a variety of ways the province is clearly involved. We have a significant financial contribution to the Games. The federal government has a significant financial contribution to the Games. Part of our obligation to ensure its success is to ensure safety, and we will be doing that by making some additional funding available for policing. Don't think that it's, to quote you, "...free policing for the municipalities in the neighbourhood." A great deal of their resources are going to have to be directed toward the events. Money, policing time and costs that would otherwise have been available for more traditional policing activities are going to have to be directed toward fallout from the Commonwealth Games. So the municipalities involved are going to have a significant cost as well.

Even people in White Rock would agree that the Commonwealth Games are in fact on a significantly different scale and are a different kind of event than community festivals. We don't in Victoria, for example, pay additional policing costs for other events that Victoria might put on, such as the Swiftsure race, when people from other communities -- even other countries -- are attracted here for that particular event. That's a community event and the community bears the costs of putting it on. But surely members would agree that the Commonwealth Games are slightly different.

A. Warnke: While we're on the subject of policing -- and we've gone backward rather than forward -- there are a couple of members, Mr. Chairman, who would also like to ask questions. I would like to ask the Attorney General if he could respond to one question from my colleague for Vancouver-Quilchena. Despite the fact that it may overlap with criminal justice, perhaps it is relevant to police matters. There is also the member for Burnaby North who may want to pose a question to the minister. First of all, if I could, I'd like to defer to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

A. Cowie: To the minister: I have a few general questions, and one has to do with policing and immigration. I realize immigration is a federal responsibility, but there are links with the province. It has to do with the Asian gang situation in Vancouver and in Richmond and spreading into other areas. The police force in Vancouver has said that the gang situation is basically out of control. I wonder what provisions the provincial government has to help out with that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing I want to say is that the reference to "Asian" gangs is troubling, and we don't use it as a term. I, in particular, am offended by that. We don't talk about Caucasian gangs; we don't talk about gangs from any other part of the world. Many of the people involved in gang activity and identified by their racial background are in fact Canadians and have citizenship in this country. I think we need to be very careful about the racial characterization of any activity.

So we deal with gang issues, and the coordinated law enforcement unit has a very active program dealing with gangs. It's funded by the province, and I think we put in $834,000 to CLEU to deal with special prosecution units that deal with gang activity; that's a significant contribution. In fact, the consensus among police agencies around the continent is that our activities in British Columbia are so much in advance that other police forces, including the FBI, come to us for advice, assistance and guidance as to how to deal with some of the gang issues.

[4:30]

There are other significant programs in terms of prevention and deterrence. Let me just back up. On prosecution, I used the wrong line. The special prosecution units in the criminal justice branch are in fact $1.3 million -- almost $1.4 million. And the $834,000 I mentioned in CLEU is for gang research and to assist with their "gang squad." So we're looking at some $800,000 to CLUE for their activities, and we're looking at another almost $1.4 million for special prosecution units in the criminal justice branch. We have additional programs: some dealing with prevention and deterrence; some dealing with victim supports. The total contribution that can be identified as provincial moneys in this year's budget dealing with gang-related issues is $6.7 million plus. It's a significant contribution. Just to give you the other numbers, in global terms: $1.5 million for prevention and deterrence programs and almost $3 million for victim support programs.

A. Cowie: I appreciate the sensitivity. I'm not one to be an alarmist or to point a finger at any particular group; that wasn't my intent. It just so happens that the programs are referred to as that in Vancouver, so I'm referring to them as that. The police themselves refer to "Asian gang squads." That encompasses a broad segment of people from different backgrounds.

The reason I brought this up is that a great number of people in Vancouver, and in my constituency in 

[ Page 855 ]

particular, are concerned about a couple of things. One is that these people who come in as immigrants or as illegal immigrants tend to concentrate their crimes on people of their own country -- I can put it that way. For instance, over the last two years or so in Quilchena, there have been people who have refused to come to the door. There have been many cases where small gangs will burst in, tie the people up, take what belongings they have and leave. People in the area are terrified. The other thing is that they tend to concentrate on particular restaurants. Again, I will be careful not to name the restaurants, if that's the way we want to do that. But it is a known fact.

The reason I link it with immigration -- and I don't want to imply anything else -- is that it costs a great deal if people are coming in illegally or under false pretenses, because this is an area where it is easy to have crime of this sort. The police themselves say it is out of control. If people are prosecuted and they are not immigrants, then I personally believe they should be packed up and sent home. It is reaching a state where something drastic has to happen. What involvement does the province have with this, which tends to be going on at an increasing rate?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, in general terms we agree with the comments made by the member about problems associated with illegal immigration, landed immigrant status being granted to people who have criminal backgrounds elsewhere and those kinds of issues. Extensive representation is being made to the federal government about this particular issue. Let's put that in the past tense: this is something that we have been doing and will continue to do. It's a very real concern. I don't in any way want to minimize what the member is saying about those aspects of the problem that relate to non-Canadians coming in and taking advantage of what we have in this country.

I want to elaborate a little more on my previous answer. There was the Youth at Risk conference in Vancouver at the beginning of April, which brought the community together to deal with the issue of criminal gangs. There has been some attention to that conference. The recommendations from the conference have been received by the ministry, and we are looking at some of the recommendations and the innovative solutions to some of the suggestions made by this conference.

It is clear that the solutions cross many ministries of our government and also cross the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictional lines. We all need to work together. One of the purposes of the conference was to pull all the diverse groups together to try to deal with the question of criminal gangs. You've raised a couple of issues, and we're quite actively pursuing both of them.

B. Jones: I thank the member for Richmond-Steveston who has allowed me to slip in here.

While I think of it, I had a conversation with that member last week. One of the issues that I thought was important to raise in these discussions was the case of aboriginal justice and our aboriginal people's part in being incarcerated as part of our justice system. That member assured me that the topic was well covered and that the Attorney General certainly has it on his mind and has plans underway to address this serious issue.

The other one that I want to mention strikes at the heart of our justice system -- our justice system being composed of people, and people being human, and humans making errors. Those errors can go both ways. There happened to be a movie on television last night aimed at those who had gotten off on a technicality, and some rough justice was brought to bear on them. While there are errors on the side of guilty people going free, there is also the other side. I'm sure most of those who are incarcerated in our prison system would say they are innocent. In fact, some of them are, and I think wrongful incarceration is an important topic in Canada today. We've had the Donald Marshall case. I don't know if the David Milgaard case fits into that because of the decision of the Supreme Court, but there is the Napoose case and the Norman Fox case.

One that is relative to this province is the Wesley Evans case. Wesley Evans is a young man who was ordered released by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 1991. The basis of that decision was that his rights as a citizen of this country were violated as part of his process of experiencing the justice system. This case involves the Matsqui police department. I might mention, for the Attorney's information, that Mr. Evans is, I think, considered a borderline mental defective, and very clearly there was a miscarriage of justice in this instance. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that was their position.

When a case goes all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and it says there has been a miscarriage of justice and that an individual's rights were violated, it would seem to me that we have a body to assist so that we might learn from this experience. That body, as I understand it, is the B.C. Police Commission. To my knowledge, the B.C. Police Commission has declined their opportunity to investigate this case. I appreciate that this question is one the Attorney General may not be able to answer with any degree of specificity at this point, but I think it's a question that deserves asking.

I think an important point is, first, the whole business of those who are wrongfully incarcerated. I think a responsibility of our justice system is to look at ways of reducing the numbers that experience wrongful incarceration. Secondly, with respect to this case, it seems very appropriate to me that the B.C. Police Commission does investigate the circumstances around the violation of Wesley Evans's rights. I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he would find out why the B.C. Police Commission has chosen not to investigate this case and whether he feels it's appropriate, in circumstances where the Supreme Court of Canada tells us that something has gone awry with our system, that that body investigate those circumstances.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that the Matsqui police are in fact conducting an internal review into that particular issue. That's one of the levels of review of police activity that is available. Obviously another level of review is through the B.C. Police 

[ Page 856 ]

Commission, and that can be activated by a particular process as well. As long as the Matsqui police are looking at it, at this stage I think that's the appropriate level. I don't really want to say anything beyond that while they do their investigation.

The other issue that I hear being raised is "wrongful incarceration." Frequently people are arrested and held in jail pending trial. Often -- occasionally -- those people who have been in jail for awhile pending trial will be acquitted. They are not found innocent in our system, as perhaps happens in France or some other countries, but in fact are found not guilty and then released. There is no provision for reparation for time spent in jail between arrest and the day of the judgment.

The same principle applies if a conviction was ordered in the trial court and then appealed, and at the appeal court level the conviction was overturned. There is no reparation for that longer period in jail. The same principle applies if the judgment is appealed all the way through to the Supreme Court of Canada: no reparation, to use that word, is provided for people who have been in jail pending the court decision. That's significantly different, I think, from the Donald Marshall kind of case.

[4:45]

I'm aware that the Wesley Evans case has a lot of other difficult issues associated with it, but I think we need to deal with those in isolation from the general principle of not providing any kind of financial reparation for people who have been held pending trial.

A. Warnke: I want to turn back to the subject of corrections. At the same time, I am looking at the clock. I'll ask a few questions that the Attorney General could respond to, but looking at the clock, I believe we are beginning to run out of time. I was wondering whether the Attorney General would mind, given what we discussed earlier, if we turn to liquor licensing after we have finished a few questions on corrections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It would be very convenient if members of the committee and anyone listening to us on channel 59 who is a member of the House and may want to come in to deal with liquor licensing issues prior to adjournment this afternoon, would all agree in terms of scheduling some staff time. I would like to move on to liquor licensing, if we could, but perhaps the corrections questions first. That's fine, too.

The Chair: Hon. members, keep in mind, with that public service announcement, the necessity of the rules around substitution.

A. Warnke: I would like to move on to the subject of corrections. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think there is one more question from the member for Chilliwack that we could address, and then we'll move on to the subject. Once again, I'll defer to the member for Chilliwack, if that's all right with the Chair.

R. Chisholm: I came in partly through a reference to police cost to municipalities. I understand what you are saying about anything that is a function of the municipality. I'm curious about a place like Chilliwack, where you have a provincial park at Cultus Lake. During the summer months there is 24-hour police service to that lake out of Chilliwack due to the influx of teenagers and the drinking and whatever that goes on. I'm wondering who is going to bear the costs of this. Is this going to be turned over to the municipality, or is the province going to maintain the police services to these provincial parks which are, basically, within the boundaries of the city?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Cultus Lake Provincial Park, or any other provincial parks, generally the provincially funded RCMP officers attend to problems in those parks. The RCMP officers who are paid for by the taxpayers of the city of Chilliwack would not, generally speaking, be involved at Cultus Lake. The provincial force would be involved in that.

Clearly, there is always some overlap. Again, I think back to my local communities, because sometimes you can relate these issues; if I compare Campbell River to Chilliwack, we've got similar kinds of issues. No doubt there will be overlap, as there always is between the provincial and the municipal components of the RCMP. It is, in general terms, the provincial responsibility in provincial parks.

A. Warnke: Just to continue with the subject of corrections, the member for Burnaby North raised an interesting point that I thought dovetailed with one question I want to put forward. That is the reference here to mentally disordered offenders and that sort of thing. I want to follow up a little as to what the ministry sees in terms of allocations of funds and programs in this particular area, and what sort of progress and development we're making here. 

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would be kind enough to help me be more focused. Are you talking about the mental patients review board process that's now in place as a result of the federal Criminal Code changes?

A. Warnke: That's correct.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On February 5 of this year -- I've forgotten the exact date, but earlier this year -- the changes to the federal legislation took effect. As a result, we now have a far more elaborate comprehensive review of mental patients who are involved in the justice system. That review is, of necessity, more expensive now than it was before. I'm just trying to remember. In the back of my mind I have this figure of $800,000, which is close to being the budget item for that particular initiative.

The review that will take place now will be more comprehensive and will take place periodically by different members of the board in order to ensure that we are really on top of the decision-making and to take away from cabinet, frankly, another very important element of this whole issue: the decision about whether 

[ Page 857 ]

somebody should be released or be put away for some indefinite period. I think it was -- and any former cabinet member will tell you -- not a very worthwhile way of dealing with that issue. We hope this new procedure is going to work much better, and I fully expect it will.

A. Warnke: The minister responded specifically to what I had in mind, and it's certainly a most satisfactory answer.

I want to touch on another group of offenders that has come to the public fore recently -- as a matter of fact, as recent as this past weekend -- and that concerns sexual offenders.

I touched on this briefly last day, but it's not an area that I'm familiar with, and I hope I'm among many Canadians who are having some difficulty coming to terms with a heinous crime. But it is becoming more in the public focus and attention, and it is certainly good that these kinds of offences are becoming more public. At the same time, some of the public is concerned about the question of some sort of registry. Indeed, it has come up over the weekend, but it's not for the first time. It has been suggested for several months now that what we need is a revamping or reanalysis of something called a registry, which essentially lists sex offenders of many different types and makes this known to the community. 

[Mr. Streifel in the chair.]

I'm wondering whether the minister could outline if this is a new development that demands more new moneys and perhaps a new focus, whether new programs and policies have to be introduced and whether this is going to be manifested in the coming fiscal year.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is one of those classic issues that doesn't have any magic answer or simple solution to it. Where you weigh on one hand the protection of society and on the other hand the protection of the individual with a presumption of innocence, you have to strike a delicate balance in all of that.

The issue that came up recently was the North Vancouver situation. My response to the media at the time was that it bothered me that someone who was convicted more than a decade ago and who had served his time and paid his debt to society could be the subject of a campaign in a neighbourhood where a photograph and description was circulated.

On the other hand, we also have the responsibility -- the police and society -- to protect children in particular from known predators. In this society we try to strike some balance between those two principles. The police on occasion will notify school principals about the existence in the neighbourhood or the community of someone who they feel may pose a threat, and the principal can deal with that in terms of the kids in the school. The most recent example of that was the suggestion in the media that the police had circulated a description to the community. In fact, that had not happened. The police provided the school with a description, and the school decided to circulate it within the community.

It strikes at the heart of the principle of presumed innocence. I mean, there's no suggestion of a crime in this case, much less the presumption of innocence. We really have to be very careful about how we handle those situations. But on the other hand, there is a fairly widespread community view that we have to protect our kids against possible predation, so we constantly walk this balance.

At the moment, we try to do it in a way that allows the police to discreetly notify schools if there's a particular problem. We hope that -- when I say "we," I mean society, because we all bear responsibility in these issues -- we make the right decisions and the right balance to protect both the children in our communities and also the rights of individual citizens against that kind of potential harassment.

A. Warnke: I certainly appreciate the minister's concerns here. For what it's worth, Mr. Chair, I realize one should not try to put one's self on an extra pedestal of some sort. But all my life -- certainly my adult life and to a certain extent my youth as well -- I've been a very strong proponent of civil liberties. I have been one of those individuals who is so sensitive about the intrusion of institutions, in a general sense -- and government and the state -- in the affairs of the individual. I've been very strong in sticking up for the rights of the individual and individual liberties and so forth.

But there are occasions where, I suppose, civil libertarians -- or whatever we want to be called -- have to draw the line and appreciate the sensitivity of some of the problems and issues before us. In that context, I would like to extend to the Attorney General an endorsement of the sensitivity that he has described. For what its worth, if he gets an endorsement from someone who is so strongly adamant in support of individualism, freedom of the individual and civil liberties and so forth.... I would like to extend that support to the minister, and I think he's definitely on the right track. He recognizes the sensitivity of this question. I would certainly like to encourage the minister accordingly.

[5:00]

I have some nuts-and-bolts questions -- some basic questions -- with regard to corrections that perhaps we can get through very quickly. Perhaps I'll just toss out a number of ideas here and allow the minister to respond the best he can. I am interested in following the ratio of staff to inmates, staff to youth and that sort of thing. As to the staffing, has the ratio increased between prison population or inmates on one hand -- in a correctional context, on one hand -- and the staff.

We have discussed a little about new programs, both for adult corrections and youth custody services and so forth, but I would like to provide the opportunity to the minister to elaborate on any programs that are planned for the coming year.

Is there anything in the way of studies or programs that the Attorney General sees we can address in terms of social problems or issues with regard to deviant 

[ Page 858 ]

behaviour -- crimes and so forth? Is that earmarked in this particular budget as well?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On the ratio. First of all, in the youth facilities the ratio is 1 to 5. We have about 306 youths in our institutions. In the adult system, there are 1,231.6 full-time-equivalent people and about 2,000 inmates. So the ratio there is -- well, you can do the arithmetic.

I think members should know that beyond the raw numbers, there is a considerably different ratio involved in older facilities as compared to newer ones. It takes more people to administer and just look after the day-to-day activities in a badly designed old facility than it does in a properly designed new facility. As we increasingly move to upgrade our correctional centres, we will be able to handle -- to use that word -- the inmate population with fewer people doing the supervisory activity. In my own mind this means that we will be able to free up more resources to provide community supervision, enhanced probation and that kind of activity. It is far more productive to spend that money in the community and in rehabilitation programs than it is to keep people locked up in jail.

A. Warnke: At this stage I have one more question with regard to corrections. Since we are proceeding ad seriatim through these, I'd like to ask whether any other member has a question with regard to corrections, and I'll defer to that member. If not, I'd like to move on to the next subject.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before anyone else does, Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure that I didn't mislead members in the previous answer. In the youth facilities, there is one guard to five inmates, as it were. The number I gave for the adult corrections systems is the total number, so in a sense we really are comparing apples and oranges. For the member's information -- and my own -- I will get this information to us both before too long in terms of the full explanation of the ratio, how it's changing and the differences between the youth and the adult facilities. I'll get that information and convey it by one means or another in the near future.

A. Warnke: That is totally satisfactory. Also, does the minister have a comment as to any sort of trends: whether this is an improvement in the ratio that has existed in the past year, or whether there has actually been a significant alteration of some sort?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The trend line appears fairly static at the present time.

A. Warnke: I don't see anyone else getting on their feet; therefore I would like to move to the section with regard to liquor control and licensing. I would like to address a number of aspects. As a matter of fact, I believe last day we touched on some aspects of this with regard to police matters.

In this particular context, there are a number of questions. We could begin with a general question: could the minister indicate just how much money is being allocated to education programs involving liquor control and alcohol abuse? That would include any new initiatives in developing alcohol abuse programs, alcohol abuse centres and so forth, and any other contributions to the CounterAttack program. Could the minister perhaps elaborate on that? I recognize that this overlaps to a certain extent with the Minister of Health, who assumes responsibility for alcohol and drug programs; maybe Labour and Consumer Services is even involved in that somehow. Is the Attorney General ministry itself...? Could the minister indicate how it is involved in these programs?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish I had a specific question. First of all, in terms of the liquor licensing function of the ministry, that branch provides one program: the responsible beverage-service program. Very much in cooperation with the industry, with the licence-holders, we have a program designed to train the people who actually serve the alcohol, so they are able to make sure that it is served in a responsible manner in those institutions. That program has been very successful and well supported by the licence-holders who are involved in it now. Not all licence-holders are, because restaurants are not "yet" involved in that program. But that might be something that could be looked at in the future.

In response to the question on CounterAttack and other programs that deal with the results of drinking, there is a wide variety of programs, some of which are a combination of ICBC, the motor vehicle branch and Health. I'm not sure how I can respond in any more detail without a specific question about a particular program.

The government has a wide range of initiatives to deal with the results of alcohol. In bottom-line numbers we take in about $400 million as a society, and we probably spend $1.5 billion which is easily identifiable on the results of booze -- probably more than that if you count all of the consequences of what alcohol does to our society. We've got a long way to go here in raising alcohol taxes to generate enough income to pay for the damage it has caused.

A. Warnke: What the minister has done has helped map out the relationship with some of the other ministries. I think that is important to get on the record. It's an area in which we are all over the place. I wonder if that is perhaps inhibiting the government from addressing some of the particular problems with reducing alcohol abuse -- the implications it has for drinking and driving, and that sort of thing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In terms of alcohol- and substance-abuse programs, the lead responsibility is the Ministry of Health's. In order that the programs don't get lost in a variety of ministries, it is clearly the responsibility of the Minister of Health. It used to be that that responsibility was in Labour and Consumer Services, where the liquor distribution branch was also located. In November, when we came in, we felt that it 

[ Page 859 ]

should clearly be a matter of health policy, and that's where it's been put.

In terms of traffic safety, which is the other issue the member raised, one of my concerns early on was the proliferation of programs in traffic safety by a variety of ministries and by ICBC, which didn't appear to be particularly well coordinated. In fact, you could have identified five or six different programs, some of which appeared to be in conflict with the others. We have now established a cabinet committee on traffic safety, which includes me as chair, with responsibility for the motor vehicle branch; the minister responsible for ICBC; the Minister of Transportation and Highways; and the Minister of Health. The four ministers are the political committee, as it were -- the cabinet committee -- and there is a staff committee comprising the same elements, all under the leadership of the motor vehicle branch, which takes primary responsibility now for traffic safety initiatives. Ever since December, when ICBC rates went up, we've talked about the fact that there will be a comprehensive traffic safety program coming, parts of which will be dealing with the alcohol-related issues that the member raises.

D. Jarvis: The Serving It Right program. If you should be lucky enough to get elected in the next election, and you would like to have a small party for the people who worked for you, it would be incumbent upon you to get a liquor licence. That will necessitate you making a minimum of three trips to the liquor store, one or two trips to the RCMP and giving at least ten days' notice to the RCMP before they will sign it. It will require you to write an exam which will cost you $65 to $75 and then to wait for the results to come through. Do you not think that is a little bit awkward for a casual drink for the odd individual? I can appreciate that in the long run.... Have you heard of Serving It Right?

[5:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not only have I heard about it, but my constituency association has complained vigorously to me about it. When they try to hold a function which has a bar, they face all of the issues that you raise, and I say to them: "Good." You know, one result -- and I'll just use this as an example -- is that.... When that particular group of people would hold a function, as they generally do annually, whoever could get dragooned into running the bar would run the bar, and there would be no appropriate controls over quantities consumed by some individuals who happened to be attending the function. There was no proper, responsible beverage service program in place at all.

Our association decided to deal with the issue by actually hiring professional bartenders to provide the liquor services at our last function. It may be onerous for some groups to do that, but it was a very good and effective solution for us, and it meant we conducted a far more effective and conscious operation at the bar. What others can do if they choose to do it on their own is take the program that is available. It would be a good investment by individuals in any organization that wants to host these events.

If we err on the side of too much bureaucracy and too much intimidation by process in trying to ensure that there is less drinking and driving and fewer problems that result from these ad hoc parties, then that is the side I want to err on. I would rather err on the side of too many rules, too much process, too much bureaucracy than on the side of not enough. In the past we have erred on the side of not enough. We've got the current program in place. I hear occasional complaints about it, but none of those complaints are seriously opposed, in the sense that I don't think there are too many people who want us to move back from that.

D. Jarvis: I'm not against it. It's just that the way you spoke about it earlier, you read through it as though it was a natural occurrence that is happening, but it's not. It's a long, difficult chore, and it's probably just as well that it is, too.

I have my ticket too, and I passed it.

A. Cowie: I want to let the minister know that I was infuriated that I had to do this in order to have a party: I had to study for two hours and then write the exam. I was intimidated that I might not pass it, but it was an educational process, and I'm glad I did it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Did you pass?

A. Cowie: I passed, yes.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It wasn't tough enough!

A. Cowie: I have a little card now, and I can go on and have many more of these parties.

It puts some responsibility on the people who are holding the function. In fact, you don't have to hire professionals for the kind of party we would have in a constituency. It is a good move, and I think we should continue it. However, the liability is on that person, too. That's the main thing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right, the liability is there.

We have taken some steps to make it more user-friendly: it's now available by correspondence; it's now cheaper. The program is working quite well, and we intend to keep it.

A. Cowie: I went to Burnaby, did it right away and had it in two hours.

K. Jones: Do you have a program that trains bartenders in the appropriate way to deal with the serving of customers?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I referred earlier to the responsible beverage service program, which is a joint program with the industry designed to ensure that servers are well trained. A required managers' training program is also put on by the ministry, which I 

[ Page 860 ]

understand many bartenders take as well in order to upgrade their own levels of skills in this particular area.

K. Jones: Do you have a similar program for liquor store staff and for beer and wine store staff?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The liquor store staff do go through a training program. I can't give you the details off the top of my head about the nature of that program, but it includes the responsibility issues. It also includes being able to give good advice to consumers, especially in terms of wines. The details of a program in respect to the responsibility that liquor store employees would have to.... The level of learning or education they would have to acquire on that particular issue to convey to consumers -- I can't give you a specific answer on that question. The person I would turn to advice for on that particular question isn't here right now, and I defer it to another time.

K. Jones: I have a concern expressed in my area that persons who are very obviously inebriated have been served at liquor stores, pubs, and wine and beer stores. These programs were intended to teach people how to recognize persons who are inebriated and who shouldn't be served, but I understand that the programs aren't available for the wine and beer stores or for the liquor stores. Either they aren't getting the proper training or they are not paying attention to the training that's being given. It's a very serious problem that has been addressed to me, and the people are very concerned that there should be some rectification of this.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My earlier answer dealt with the general kinds of advice that consumers might be given by liquor store or beer and wine store employees. In terms of selling liquor to obviously intoxicated people, the policy is very clear. They should not; the rules are clear. If there are particular instances where there's an apparent violation of that policy, then the liquor distribution branch -- or I -- should be notified of that, so that appropriate action can be taken.

It's a side issue in this respect, but one of the things we all need to be really careful about -- and police officers have to be careful about this too -- is that some people have particular health conditions which leave an impression that they are intoxicated. It's very easy to jump to a conclusion about an individual being intoxicated, and there may be a casual reference at a liquor store to somebody who was obviously intoxicated having picked up some liquor. That may well be the case, and if it was, it shouldn't have happened. But it may be the case that some people appear, because of some health condition, to be unsteady on their feet or whatever. They may in fact not have had a drink at all, but get subjected to this kind of comment on occasion. I'm not suggesting that's the case in the particular instance the member raises, but we always need to be careful about that issue too.

K. Jones: I think you do have to be sensitive to that type of circumstance, although I think that type of circumstance is very minor. I can relate that the circumstance was such that the person who corresponded to me was related to the person who was served, and the person was fully aware of that person's alcoholic situation. It was enough of a concern that they approached me with the information and wanted to know what sort of program was happening and why sufficient training wasn't given to the wine and beer stores, as well as the liquor stores, when the businesses were actually operating a program that appeared to be going in the right direction.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member should know that, in addition to policies that are in place, it's a violation of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act to "...sell or give liquor to an intoxicated person or a person apparently under the influence of liquor." Not only would someone potentially be in violation of the policy that's in place, they could also be in violation of the law.

K. Jones: Further on that, there appear to be many cases throughout this province of this law not being appropriately enforced. It needs some very serious looking at in the area of your jurisdiction on the enforcement side.

When you say that the appropriate action would be taken, does the appropriate action amount to calling a hearing on licensing the particular premises? I don't know what you do in the case of taking appropriate action with regard to a government liquor store.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In cases other than a government liquor store, the owner of the facility would be issued a warning. If the problem persisted, there would be a hearing, and the ultimate outcome could be the suspension of the licence. In the case of the liquor distribution branch, it would be dealt with by management as a management-employee issue. Clearly there isn't a licence issue there, but there certainly is a matter of personnel, and appropriate and proper processes -- training and whatever needs to happen. Ultimately, of course, if an individual continued to be a problem in that regard, then they would be seeking employment elsewhere.

K. Jones: Following up on this hearing process, I had the dubious experience, I must say, of participating in a liquor licensing hearing in which the owner of the premises was continually able to get a deferral of the hearing. They deferred it so many times that the result, when the final suspension was issued.... There was no question about the fact that the person had multiple violations. There was one case after another showing violations of various aspects of the act.

The ultimate penalty was assigned at a time when.... They were given a two-week suspension, I believe, and this was on the third offence. For the first ones they were just given warnings; for the second one I think they were given a week. That got deferred, and ultimately, through appeal, they ended up getting a two-or three-week suspension, which was given to them in the middle of the Christmas holiday period when there was really no business in that area anyway. 

[ Page 861 ]

It was very convenient for them to move out of their peak period of the summer months and into the winter, just in the Christmas holiday season when their business was absolutely dead. There appeared to be almost collusion between the liquor administration process and the vendor in this case. I wonder how many other cases are similarly administered.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment on a particular case. I'm not sure, even if the member identified the particular instance, that I'd want to without doing a thorough review. I'm not sure how I can respond, other than to say that the issue of penalties in respect of infractions is being looked at to see whether there are ways of dealing with them more appropriately and effectively than are in place at the present time. We're looking at that now.

On the issue of process -- how long it takes and all of that -- I'm as concerned as the member about ensuring that decisions are made quickly and that the kind of delay that shouldn't occur doesn't occur.

K. Jones: I can assure you that the public has lost total confidence in the process of liquor administration in this province. They are getting tired of even participating, because they feel that there's no justice in it.

[5:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to make sure that if the public has lost that confidence, it is very quickly regained.

A. Warnke: I want to turn, in the few minutes remaining -- I think we have enough, though, for my confidence -- to the question of licensing. At the outset, there are nine categories of licences, of which, when one looks at it in more detail, there seems to be at least one that is disappearing. Or is it just the appearance of that? Perhaps I'll just throw out a number of concerns that the minister could address. In particular, there seems to be one area of licensing.... I believe it's classification I; I also wonder about classification H. In other words, there are these nine categories of licensing. In the coming year, is the ministry going to review some of the components or factors in the licensing? Is there going to be a change in licensing, in terms of some of the public demand for a whole new attitude and approach to how alcohol is distributed and consumed in this province?

If the minister could focus on one particular form of licensing -- that is, the distilleries. Perhaps the information I received is inadequate; perhaps it is even wrong. One piece of information I got is that in previous years the amount paid by distilleries for a licence has actually decreased. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether it has decreased from three years ago. Or has this particular kind of licence been re-examined, and the licence fees for distillers have actually increased?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was trying to remember if there are any distilleries left in British Columbia. Potter is gone; Park and Tilford is gone. Are there any? If there are, I'd be interested in knowing where they are. If they do exist, I'll certainly find out about the licence fee.

Is that it? If that's it, we'll wrap up.

A. Warnke: There were two questions earlier. That was actually the second one with regard to distilleries license-wise. But the first one is actually one I really wanted to concentrate on: the nine categories of licences, and whether there are plans for the ministry to re-examine the various categories and look into the various factors -- whether there are going to be any changes with regard to licensing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As part of getting a handle on my responsibilities as minister, I have asked staff to review with me the various licence categories to see whether what we have is appropriate, to see what we can come up with in terms of policy directions. At the present time, there is some discussion going on between ministry staff and me about that issue, with no conclusions yet.

A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's response. That's nice and specific, and then we have some idea of where we're going. While we're on this, I recognize that municipal and city bylaws are primarily responsible for defining one classification here -- providing entertainment; cabarets and so forth. Given some of the controversy, I'm wondering whether -- I can think of one problem in Abbotsford that comes immediately to mind, and perhaps in some other cities as well -- the province is thinking of re-examining this area to provide some sort of consistency as to what a cabaret is as opposed to something else that provides entertainment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope to look at all of those kinds of questions as we continue to review policy within the ministry.

A. Warnke: One final question before I turn it over to other members; maybe they have some questions along this line as well. There was a controversy in the past with regard to the policy of licensing. One case in Vancouver became rather infamous -- and I guess there's nothing wrong with being specific here; I'm referring to the Knight Street Pub controversy. That's in the past, and I recognize that. Since that was a problem, I'm wondering if the minister could clarify where we are with regard to the policies that involve that kind of controversy and what sort of progress we're making there.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the consequences of the Knight Street affair was to create within the ministry a clear separation between the decision-making by officials at the liquor licensing branch and the minister's office. As minister, I have no contact or involvement in any way with any particular licence application, or licence review, or any other issue that may come up with respect to a licence. I will not even meet with or talk to people who have some concern about a licence, whether it's applying for one or whatever. Given the history and the occasional problems of liquor licensing in this province, that's not a bad 

[ Page 862 ]

review. It means that many residents in North Island don't have an MLA in respect of this issue, but that's the price they pay for having me in this job. There is a very clear and specific instruction to the manager of the liquor licensing branch that no direction whatsoever will come from the minister or the minister's office in respect to liquor licences.

A. Warnke: I and my colleagues feel very good about the minister's specific response with that kind of policy, whether it was actually practised in the past so deliberately or not. Once again, I think the minister should be commended for making such a statement so crystal clear.

On that basis I have no further questions on this specific aspect of the estimates. Obviously there are many other topics we have not even addressed yet. Legal services and criminal justice are certainly things I want to follow up. We will have to leave that for the next time the committee meets. At this point, I would defer to any other member who has a specific question with regard to liquor licensing and so forth.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to answer an earlier question asked by the member for Prince George-Omineca. Before I do, it seems that we've dealt with liquor licensing; but if something comes up, obviously we'll try to deal with it again before the estimates are complete. It's my expectation that we will continue tomorrow afternoon with these estimates in this room and, given the progress, maybe even manage to get through. However, it's your call.

Earlier the member for Prince George-Omineca asked about the courthouse in Prince George. I would like to be able to give quite specific answers in terms of the timetable in respect of that, but there are some Treasury Board issues yet to be resolved. But I can say that there aren't any apparent hurdles or problems anticipated. We hope to be on track with that courthouse, to the stage where -- hopefully early in the new year, if all goes well -- we'll be able to get to tenders, and we'll go from there.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:42 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada