1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 10
[ Page 7503 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not my pleasure but my duty to rise today on the opening day of the Wimbledon tennis tournament at the All-England Lawn Tennis Club to report on another prestigious tournament that took place over the weekend at a grass-court facility almost as old as Wimbledon: the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club in the riding of Cowichan-Ladysmith. As I said, I'm doing this out of duty. Hon. Speaker, your trophy was contested in a very fierce contest between a team representing this venerable institution, the Legislative Assembly, and of course the Scrum of the Earth -- or the press gallery, as they are more affectionately known.
Hon. Speaker, before I get into the results I must let you know that the Deputy Clerk, Mr. George MacMinn -- here before you, hanging his head in shame -- did all he could to make sure that the Speaker's trophy remained in the hands of the Legislative Assembly team, where it belongs. As a matter of fact, his efforts -- and this took a great deal of effort -- included bringing in a former Speaker of the House, Mr. John Reynolds, from Scottsdale, Arizona; a distinguished former member of this chamber and Attorney General, Brian Smith; the son of the Leader of the Official Opposition; and two stellar members of the chamber.
Mr. MacMinn went further to try and defend this trophy by bringing in some of the best tennis players in the region -- ringers, as they are better known. But hon. Speaker, we failed you by the narrowest of margins -- five games in four hours of fierce tennis. I can tell you that the Deputy Clerk and the previous Speaker lost the last game 7 to 2. I don't want to lay blame on anyone at all, except to say that the whole team let you down.
While I was unable to play this year, which some have said may explain the results -- I wouldn't say that, but some would -- I was able to attend a fundraising banquet, as did members of the victorious team, that took place on the beautiful 400-hectare property of Providence Farm, where we were able to serve food and raise over $10,000 for that wonderful facility that provides work programs and training for mentally handicapped people.
All and all, it was a splendid weekend. But I can assure you, Hon. Speaker, that next year we will prevail.
F. Gingell: In the Speaker's gallery today is my daughter-in-law, Nancy Gingell, and my two grandchildren, Jessica and David. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
F. Garden: My wife Margaret is in the gallery today, as well as a very good personal friend and constituent, Mr. Steve Wallace. Mr. Wallace is the mayor of the city of Quesnel in my riding and also the president of the North Central Municipal Association of B.C. Would the House join me in making them welcome.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce in the gallery today Mr. Chris Gingell, one of my constituents and also my tennis partner for the tournament this weekend. I can say that we're still on speaking terms despite the results of the tournament. I just want to echo the words of the Premier by saying, after reviewing the conduct of the victorious team, that never has the Deputy Clerk had to endure more from less.
C. Evans: In the gallery today is my brother-in-law Rod Thoms, his wife Sandy and their children Jon and Eric. They travelled all the way from North Dakota to see this event. I told them that this would be the most interesting 15 minutes of the day's session, and I just want them to know that we don't always open with a sportscast delivered by the Premier.
Hon. L. Boone: On behalf of the Minister of Women's Equality I would like to recognize two individuals who are in the precincts today: Margaret Nagle from Prince George and Michele Monahan-Brar from Vernon. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Mitchell: I notice in the gallery today a crony of a former Premier of B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Clancey.
E. Barnes: I'd like to join the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi in acknowledging the presence of Bill Clancey. I'm sure most of us know Bill from old. He is one of the most venerable entrepreneurs in my constituency, and I am pleased to welcome him. I am sure the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has included his stories in some of his books. Please make him welcome.
BEAVER LODGE TRUST LANDS RENEWAL ACT
Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act.
Hon. J. Cashore: This bill ratifies and confirms previous Crown dispositions of lands known as Beaver Lodge lands, conveyed to the Crown for experimental work in reforestation and forest management purposes.
This bill permits further dealings with a portion of these lands to create a new and enlarged Crown-managed trust area. The bill permits the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to dispose of portions of the Beaver Lodge lands not required for the new trust area, including lands scheduled for development. It also permits the acquisition of additional private lands required to increase the trust to 502 hectares and the designation of these lands as trust lands. It authorizes the Minister of Forests to establish a resource use plan
[ Page 7504 ]
for the trust lands; enables the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to purchase, acquire or transfer Crown lands in exchange for lands which must be designated as trust lands, and expropriate land or property if necessary.
[2:15]
Acquisition costs shall be paid out of the Crown land special account. Under the Land Title Act, it causes the registrar to make an endorsement on the title to land acquired for the trust and core lands, stating that the land is subject to the restrictions of experimental work in reforestation and forest management.
Bill 52 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.
LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Profession Act establishes the authority of the Law Society of British Columbia to govern and regulate lawyers practising in the province. The purpose of these amendments is to modernize and improve a number of sections dealing with membership in, and the governance and administration of, the Law Society.
One of the most important parts of this bill is the creation of a new category of membership for non-practising members. This new category would allow non-practising members to continue their involvement in the profession at reduced fees. Under the current provisions of the act and rules, a lawyer temporarily leaving practice must now either continue to pay the full annual practice fee and assessments or cease membership. The new category of membership will help those lawyers who wish to take career breaks and subsequently return to practice. This amendment is made pursuant to recommendations by both the report of the Law Society's subcommittee on women in the legal profession and the gender bias committee. Other amendments will allow the Law Society to regulate lawyers who act as mediators, allow non-lawyers to be appointed to Law Society committees and permit more expeditious handling of claims made against the special compensation fund.
Bill 53 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 presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act will amend 15 different acts and will eliminate all appeals to cabinet from decisions of statutory decision-makers. Where appropriate, the bill replaces the cabinet appeal with a new appeal process. The most significant amendments in the bill are to the Agricultural Land Commission Act and to the Motor Carrier Act.
The bill fundamentally alters decision-making under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It restores the integrity of the agricultural land reserve by transferring the power to make decisions about agricultural land from cabinet to the Agricultural Land Commission. The bill also abolishes the appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee from decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission.
The bill gives cabinet the power to refer matters before the commission to an independent board for a public hearing into its probable environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and agricultural effects, if it is in the provincial interest to do so. In these extraordinary cases, the board will make a public report to cabinet, and cabinet will make the final decision.
The bill eliminates appeals to cabinet from decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission and introduces a two-tiered hearing process by the commission. This process parallels that used for gaming and the process under the labour code.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 42 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.
LOWER FRASER VALLEY EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT
K. Jones presented a bill intituled Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association Amendment Act.
K. Jones: This is strictly a housekeeping amendment to allow this association to use the name of the Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition Association. It is a minor change to the act that constitutes their direction.
Bill Pr401, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
COST-SHARING ARRANGEMENT ON LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS
F. Gingell: Today the province and the federal government announced a cost-sharing arrangement on aboriginal land claims settlements. This includes the province paying 50 percent of third-party interest settlements. Can the Premier advise the House of the estimated costs of these third-party interest settlements?
Hon. M. Harcourt: What we signed today was a cost-sharing formula for negotiations that are going to
[ Page 7505 ]
take place over many years. The agreement, the memorandum of understanding, states very clearly that the primary responsibility and jurisdiction for aboriginal settlements rests with the federal government. The exact amounts are going to be carried out over the next generation or so. The discussions will take place over the next generation or so. I cannot give an exact amount, except to say that the amounts are within the commitments that I gave over the last few years. They will have to be within what the taxpayers of British Columbia can afford. The yearly budget will be through the budget process that we all follow and will have to approved through Treasury Board.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: I am sure that the Premier didn't make those statements without having some proper, thorough economic studies done. Perhaps the Premier could advise the House of the scope of the dollar cost that these studies will have determined.
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, I can't. As I said, these negotiations and agreements are going to cover many years. It's my opinion -- and that of the Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure -- that British Columbians are going to be far better off after we have concluded these modern treaties.
What we have right now -- the conflict, litigation, uncertainty and unpredictability -- in British Columbia is scaring away a great deal of investment. What we have now -- aboriginal people living in poverty on artificial communities called reserves, under the Indian Act and run from Ottawa -- is unacceptable. We're able to work with the aboriginal people to help them move towards self-government within Canada and self-sufficiency and to have healthy, viable communities. There will be a net benefit to British Columbians.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: I hear the Premier saying that they have gone and signed a blank cheque. They haven't done any study, none at all.
Anyway, if a significant compensation were to be claimed by a resource company in which the province holds an equity interest, how would you deal with this apparent conflict of interest?
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that is a hypothetical question and does not fall within the guidelines of question period.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon.
ADVERTISING OF CANADA GAMES
L. Hanson: I have a question for the Premier. Earlier he demonstrated his interest and expertise in the area of sport. Last Thursday, he was in Kamloops, the site of the upcoming Canada Games. Could the Premier possibly explain to this House and to British Columbia why his government decided to erect road signs advertising the 1994 Commonwealth Games but declined to advertise the Canada Games in Kamloops?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: At a number of locations around the province the ministry is assisting in erecting signs prepared and paid for by the Commonwealth Games Association. The same thing has been facilitated in the vicinity of Kamloops for the Summer Games. Provincewide attention has been given to the upcoming Commonwealth Games because it is a more significant international event that deserves a higher profile.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Hanson: It's interesting to see the attitude of the government. Vancouver and Victoria are okay; anywhere else in B.C. is out of sight, out of mind and beyond hope. This question is again to the Premier: why wouldn't the government consider using those signs that they've dedicated to the Commonwealth Games to advertise the Canada Games, which will happen in about a month and a half? Surely the signs could be used for that purpose to the benefit of all British Columbians.
Hon A. Charbonneau: If the hon. member opposite wishes to take up with the Commonwealth Games Society why they chose to print signs of a certain nature and size, be my guest. With respect to the support of the Summer Games in Kamloops, this government has done a fine job, exemplified most recently by the delivery of a cheque for half a million dollars to assist with a world-class swimming facility in Kamloops, which the people of Kamloops were quite delighted with.
WINDY CRAGGY PROPOSAL
D. Jarvis: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Kemano completion review will cost thousands of dollars to the taxpayers, yet your government has already admitted that it will not or can not make any changes. On the other hand, it refuses to allow any public consultation on the Windy Craggy proposal, where it is solely responsible for making that decision. Can the Premier explain this apparent hypocrisy?
An Hon. Member: Can you explain your question?
D. Jarvis: Again to the Premier, information has come out which indicates that Americans have been under the assumption that the government decided to disallow Windy Craggy over a month ago, yet the government continues to insist that no decision has been made. Has your government made any decision on Windy Craggy as yet?
An Hon. Member: Out of order. Come on!
[ Page 7506 ]
D. Jarvis: Seeing as we're not getting any answers, perhaps the Premier will answer this. Does the Premier know whether the issue of Windy Craggy was discussed by the Prime Minister and President Clinton during their meeting earlier this month? If so, did you provide the Prime Minister with any advice, what was the nature of this counsel, and what was the result of the discussions?
[2:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member had the wrong minister for his first question. He had the wrong rule on the second; he knows very well that it's a matter of future policy. On the third, he went out of the country to ask the question. The real issue here is that whatever the Prime Minister or the President of the United States thinks about British Columbia, I can assure you and the people of B.C. that any decision about the northwest area of B.C. will be made right here in B.C. for British Columbians.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Attorney General. This morning my office received a letter from Mr. Ace Henderson, special prosecutor in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society investigation, who advised us that with a year gone in this investigation, his office has yet to receive one document of evidence. Can the Attorney General tell the House whether any members of cabinet have been requested to furnish information to the RCMP as their investigation continues?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These questions are not appropriate. I will make no comment on that investigation.
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Over the last few months -- indeed, since the beginning of this session -- the government has spent over $1 million on propaganda put out to the public in this province. Can the minister state what has changed since the days when he was in opposition and ranted and raved about the propaganda brought forth by the government? Is the level of propaganda production by his government directly proportional to their crash in the polls?
Hon. G. Clark: As the session wears on, it's obvious -- and I've been there, so I know -- that it's hard to maintain new questions. As the days go by and the answers get shorter, it means that they run out of questions sooner. So I'm delighted to answer this question again.
As we move forward with some major land use decisions -- like the Clayoquot Sound -- it is important that British Columbians be informed of the facts so that they can make decisions for themselves about a sound land use decision. We are very proud of a decision which upholds sustainable development policies, which upholds the highest environmental standards and which gives people a sense of where the government is going to ensure the integrity of the land base and the working forests. We want to communicate that information to British Columbians so they can make an informed decision for themselves.
G. Farrell-Collins: You don't need to spend $1 million for the public in this province to know exactly where this government is going and what their intentions are. They know that this government is going right down the tubes at record-breaking speed. When the NDP was in opposition they ranted and raved about all these expenditures. Now that they are in government they do exactly the same thing, only worse. When will this government finally stand up for the things they said they would do when they were in opposition, and stop betraying the people of British Columbia?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me advise the House that the advertising budget for the government of British Columbia has been cut significantly, in two successive budgets, from what we inherited from the previous administration. Second, let me advise members to look at the Clayoquot brochure that was sent out. There is no partisanship and no politics. This is a straight information sheet to give people the facts about an outstanding land use decision so they can make the decision themselves.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can check some of the facts of that brochure that this government spent so much money on.
A question to the Minister of Environment. Is he aware that the front page of that wonderful glossy brochure they sent out was in fact a picture of Flores Island, due to be logged within the next year?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think that if the hon. member looks objectively at that brochure, he will agree that it is a very balanced presentation that serves the purpose of getting information out to the people of British Columbia.
ICBC ROLE IN INTERSECTION REDESIGN
L. Fox: I'll do my best to get the question out. I've got a bit of a problem with my throat.
My question this afternoon is for the Minister Responsible for ICBC. Bill McCourt, your new ICBC president, was quoted Saturday as saying that ICBC's social responsibility is to promote better driving and extends to fixing signals and redesigning troublesome intersections. Is it the minister's understanding that ICBC premiums will now be used to supplement the provincial government and municipal budgets?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is possible that ICBC may invest money in a pilot project to see whether or not the improvement of an intersection might in the
[ Page 7507 ]
long run save ICBC a lot of money in settlement claims and hence enable a reduction in premiums. That would be a very reasonable thing to do.
L. Fox: It would seem to me that was the government's responsibility, not ICBC's responsibility.
My supplement is to the Minister of Finance. Is it the minister's intent to offload interchange redesign costs from the Highways budget to ICBC, thus further disguising the true financial position of this government?
Hon. G. Clark: When we took office, we inherited an unbelievable mess at ICBC because of political intervention by the previous government to artificially lower rates. It was a scandal of monumental proportions. In the last two years ICBC has acted like a commercial operation. I am very proud of the job they are doing to act in a businesslike manner, to make sure decisions are made to bring those rates down for the motoring public -- not artificially and politically, as the previous government did, but on a businesslike basis. That's what Mr. McCourt's instructions are, and that's what we expect.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of this assembly have a right to seek information from the government. Indeed, that's one of our roles here as members of the assembly. One of the procedures available to us under the standing orders of this assembly are written questions. Standing order 47, in particular, outlines our right to seek information from the government with written questions in this assembly. For over three months, there have been 32 written questions standing on the order paper in my name. These are simple questions dealing with information about public opinion research. The government has failed to answer any of these questions; they continue to fail. This government, which claims to be an open government that believes in the spirit of freedom of information, refuses....
The Speaker: Hon. member, I need to call you to order.
D. Mitchell: Can I get to my point of order, please?
The Speaker: Very briefly, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: My point of order is simply this: we have standing orders in this assembly. What good are rules in this assembly if the government will not respect the rules? We have standing orders in this House that prescribe our rights and indeed our duties, and the government will not respond, after three months, to 32 simple written questions. I appeal to you as the presiding officer of this assembly to give some direction to this government with respect to honouring the standing orders of this assembly.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member well knows that the presiding officer gives directions to no one, except on points of order. I think that this point of order has been raised several times before. Clearly, hon. member -- and all members of the House -- the orders certainly make provision for written questions, but it is not a point of order to require answers to them.
W. Hurd tabled a letter from Mr. Ace Henderson.
The Speaker tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the Commission on Resources and Environment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A we will review the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in Committee B the Ministry of Social Services. Later in Committee A we may move to another ministry.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
On vote 54: minister's office, $392,165.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I rise today to present the 1993-94 budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. Over the last year my ministry has improved and streamlined existing programs and services. During the '93-94 fiscal year we will be bringing in further reform to ensure that British Columbians receive timely and effective assistance to deal with job loss, poverty and family breakdown. There's an old adage that you reap what you sow, and if we want a more prosperous future for B.C., we must be willing to invest in our citizens today. We must ensure that the economic recession and fiscal deficit today not become the social deficit of wasted human potential in the years to come. We must help dislocated workers and young people to acquire the skills demanded by our changing labour market, and we must support them through the difficult transition from welfare to work.
We need to help families deal with crises that threaten to tear them apart -- crises, I might add, that are often related to the pressures of poverty. A stable family is a child's single most important resource. The ministry is expanding partnerships with communities to enhance their ability to support individuals and families under stress. One of the biggest causes of pressures on the family today is economic hardship. The pace of economic change across Canada has had a profound effect on many British Columbians. Globalization, new technologies and misdirected federal economic policies have led to business failures, job losses and the in-migration of workers and their families from other parts of Canada. This in turn has stretched our resources. I am proud to say that while acting to control spending growth and cap the deficit, this government has reaffirmed its commitment to
[ Page 7508 ]
funding vital services. Our economic assistance caseloads grew by 16 percent over last year. Today, one in ten of us depends on income assistance to pay for food and shelter.
Ironically, B.C.'s relative prosperity is one reason for our growing number of cases. Thanks to our position on the Pacific Rim and to good fiscal management by this government, British Columbia has the strongest, most expansive economy in Canada. Statistics Canada reports that our economy grew last year by 2.2 percent, the highest rate posted by any province. By comparison, the national average was just 1.4 percent. Many responsible Canadians move to B.C. in search of better economic prospects. Some succeed right away; others don't. Income assistance statistics for March show that 14,381 recipients, or nearly 8 percent of the caseloads, had arrived from other provinces during the previous year. I want to emphasize that our economy, not our welfare rates, is providing that attraction. B.C. leads the provinces in economic growth, but we do not pay the highest welfare rates. The National Council of Welfare did a comparison of rates across the country, and it shows B.C. in the midrange of benefits offered by provinces.
[2:45]
Under the terms of federal-provincial cost-sharing through the Canada Assistance Plan, people who cannot support themselves or their families are entitled by law to financial help. My ministry takes very seriously its responsibility to fulfil this mandate. At the same time, taxpayers must be confident that their dollars are going only to people who are legally eligible for assistance. Let me restate what I told the House on May 6: it is critical that the Ministry of Social Services apply the highest standards in managing income assistance. Fraud reduces the amount of money available to people in need, and it brings the entire welfare system into disrepute. Over the past year we have introduced many tough new measures. New computer technology is identifying people who make claims at more than one office. Unique characteristics added to cheques are making them difficult to counterfeit. Electronic monitoring is telling us how many cheques are being delivered to any one address.
As you know from my earlier statements, these are just a few examples of what we have done. We will be taking further steps over the next year, but prevention of fraud and error is always preferable to intervention after the fact. We have requested 135 more financial assistance workers to cope with the heavy caseloads, and we will be giving our workers more training. At the same time we will be able to ensure that those in need of benefits receive what they are entitled to and have the best services to help get them back into the workforce. We have eligibility officers to compile baseline data for administrative error and to train staff in this area. In addition, our regular investigators will have a specialized unit to detect and prevent high-tech crime and organized crime. As well, a senior prosecutor was hired through the Attorney General's department.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
We are also hiring more employment counsellors. These workers help clients get the training or hands-on experience needed to find permanent work. Employment and training programs are a major focus of this coming year. We must update and upgrade our income security program to ensure that people who lose their jobs do not remain unemployed. Employment and training programs are among the best long-term investments we can make. They teach people the skills needed not just in today's market but in tomorrow's as well.
To underscore the importance we place on these programs, we wish to direct $58.71 million to them this year. As of today, $16.5 million has been earmarked for employment and training programs in B.C. 21, our government's long-term strategy for strengthening the economy as we head towards the next century, in addition to this ministry's investment. Employment and training programs give clients the opportunity to fill gaps in their education, acquire new skills and get hands-on experience they can use to open doors to permanent employment and independence.
It is not just clients who benefit from these programs. There are many advantages for business and industry as well. By joining a program that offers a wage subsidy, employers may be able to hire extra staff they would not otherwise be able to afford. Our employment opportunities program is one of several that are successful in moving people off welfare and into the workplace. It is cost-effective: for every dollar spent on this program, $2.40 is saved on income assistance payments. We will be putting $8.46 million into the employment opportunities program this year -- $6.46 million directly and the other through B.C. 21. We have set aside another $8 million for the community tourism employment training program -- $5 million is from the ministry and $3 million from B.C. 21. This program supports locally initiated projects that encourage tourism. Every dollar spent saves British Columbia 41 cents on income assistance and provides 50 cents' worth of product to the community.
One sector where we are improving and expanding on-the-job training is forestry. We have contributed $12.9 million to the forest worker development program that we operate jointly with the Ministry of Forests -- $6 million of this amount comes from B.C. 21; the other $6.9 million comes from our employment and training budget. This level of spending allows us to add new elements to the program that will bring long-term benefits both to the forest industry and to people who work in it.
We are now offering three levels of training and employment instead of just one. As before, there are entry-level opportunities for people with no experience in forestry; but in addition, we have created bridging-level opportunities for workers who have been in the field but need more training to round off their skills. There are also new opportunities for fully trained people to work with local contractors or to become contractors themselves.
It is not just income assistance recipients who will benefit from improvements in the forest worker development program; there are advantages for
[ Page 7509 ]
communities, too. We anticipate that the forest worker development program will provide economic recovery in areas outside Vancouver and Victoria where the recession has had a significant effect on employment. Of course, a program that relieves unemployment in one region of British Columbia will be quite inappropriate for another. The key to success is recognizing regional diversity and responding accordingly. We have a regionally initiated special employment program known as RISE, which creates opportunities in areas that community members identify as priorities.
The workers in my ministry are familiar with local conditions and resources, so they can help design programs that address specific needs. For instance, one program being developed at the moment targets single mothers who are leaving abusive relationships. They are looking at how best to meet their special needs as they prepare to re-enter the workplace.
My ministry is also designing programs to meet the needs of young people, who will make up the workforce of the future. YES, which stands for Youth Employment Skills, provides young people with the education and training they need to break the cycle of poverty early in adult life.
The staff of my ministry serves on the front lines, helping families and communities cope with the ravages of recession. It is not easy work, and I am proud of how they are able to cope with the growing caseloads. Administrative tasks are being streamlined and computer technologies upgraded so that our workers can spend less time on paperwork and more time with clients. We want clients to be served promptly and efficiently, and to have access to services that help them regain their independence and contribute fully to the economic and social well-being of our communities.
Traditionally, federal and provincial governments took a cooperative approach towards social safety net programs. Today there is an erosion of the federal role, and employment benefits have been reduced and access to benefits limited, pushing many people onto provincial welfare roles. If that was not enough, Ottawa has reduced the welfare support it provides to B.C., Alberta and Ontario through the Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP. In 1990, without consultation, the federal government put a ceiling on the growth of its CAP payments to B.C. Now B.C. pays an even greater proportion of its share of those costs. The federal share has fallen from 50 cents on each dollar in 1990 to 36 cents on the dollar this fiscal year. It will slip to 29 cents on the dollar next year. The reduction in federal contribution represents a loss of $1.6 billion to B.C. in the next five years.
In March we released a discussion paper called "The Challenge of Change." In it we focused on challenges this nation must meet if we are to avoid the long-term social deficit of families and generations living in poverty. Our national system of social safety nets needs to be cooperative federal-provincial action to design and implement the reforms necessary to take Canadians to the next century. We will be continuing this dialogue with our federal and provincial Social Services counterparts.
On the provincial level, I am expecting the first recommendations of my recently appointed Advisory Council on Income Assistance to begin the reform process. The 15-member council in British Columbia represents clients, client advocates, business, labour and people with disabilities, among others. They will be proposing strategies involving government-community partnership and improvements to effective service delivery throughout the province. They will be reviewing and assessing employment and training programs, health services, benefits for people with handicaps and issues related to the working poor. They will be giving us community input into improving the way we use available resources to deal with the causes and effects of poverty. In other words, the council will be a vehicle for British Columbians to speak to their government about change.
My ministry has been asking British Columbians to tell us about the kind of society that they want to have now and in the future, so that together we can identify and implement necessary reforms. A little over a year ago I appointed a community panel to review provincial legislation on family and children's services. Panel members visited communities across the province, holding public consultations where people with the widest range of interests could discuss their concerns and propose solutions. This mass of information and ideas was the basis of two reports which Premier Harcourt and I proudly received last December. In all, the panel gave us 264 recommendations to empower individuals and families and to build partnerships between government and the communities to address the serious problems that face society today. They asked us to act early to prevent crises and violence in families and communities rather than to intervene after the damage had been done. We have responded to some of these recommendations already; others will be entrenched in new legislation.
Under the Family and Child Service Act, the protection of children is the primary mandate of my ministry. Child apprehension was once the typical response of ministry staff to a family crisis when a child was in jeopardy. Increasingly, we are finding options which see the child's best interests served in a strong, supportive family environment. Therefore my ministry is shifting the emphasis from crisis intervention to prevention of child abuse.
We are increasing staff training and reducing the administrative burden on social workers so that they can get on with what they do best -- providing family and community support. We want to strengthen the family as a whole and build partnerships that ensure that communities have the resources to respond immediately and compassionately to children and families facing difficulty. Despite tough financial times, we are committed to investing in people to ensure a secure and healthy future for children and youth. My ministry is committed to fulfilling its mandate. That means eliminating the effects of poverty by helping those in financial difficulty to regain control over their lives and ensuring that children are raised in a safe, healthy environment.
[ Page 7510 ]
I am happy to present the estimates to the House and look forward to any questions and, I am sure, an in-depth discussion of the estimates and the work that is underway in our ministry.
[3:00]
V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister, for your very thorough and comprehensive presentation. I also want to welcome the members of your staff who are here with you today and to thank them for a number of briefings they have shared with us over the last year. We appreciate the kind of communication that has taken place, not only in briefings about the work of the ministry itself but also in dealing with particular cases or concerns that have come before us. I want to express our thanks and appreciation to you for the cooperation that we have received from your staff right across the province in that regard. I think they deserve that recognition, and I hope it will be conveyed to them from our side of the House.
The opportunities and the challenges before us all are in one sense difficult and overwhelming. We are very much aware that finances are a major concern to people, both to those who are living in poverty and to other people who are paying taxes. The balance between those is something that we need to continually understand. A great deal of this has to do with education and an appreciation of what we're undertaking. The attitudes portrayed here, as we work together in the House, are very important. I say together -- as I said last year -- because I wholeheartedly believe that with regard to this ministry in particular we must all be concerned and work together. We will have different suggestions about process and different questions and answers to present, but that is all part of our process of working together.
In listening to the hon. minister up to this point, I was impressed by the fact that she almost sounded like the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Agriculture. We have sat in on the estimates of some of the other ministries, and there was no clear presentation, such as she has made, on job creation, education and training and experience within those various fields. I'm not sure whether the other ministries will be jealous or a little concerned that their ministries are being taken over by the extension of programs within this particular ministry. I find it interesting that this is the focus that's coming forward, and from that point of view, I appreciate the focus very much.
We are aware that 99 percent of the people in difficult financial circumstances are not there because of their own actions, as the minister has said; they are there because of historical actions, community changes or economic changes in the community around them, and they have suddenly been caught in a difficult situation.
One of the groups the minister did not mention is widows, but they will probably come up at another point. In my meetings, I have come across many widows who were family members and who suddenly found themselves without any means of support and without any job training because they had stayed at home for the last 20 or 30 years. They were suddenly left completely handicapped in an economic sense. I trust that we will look at that particular group of people sometime in the estimates, because I have come across a very high percentage of them, from age 30 to 65, who come into that category. They are suddenly caught in a bind, not knowing where to turn. There is very little support and few opportunities within the community to meet their particular needs.
The minister also mentioned partnerships and struggling to work in cooperation with the federal government. I know that in other reports she has mentioned cooperation between the western ministers of Social Services and other provincial Social Services ministries across the country. She also mentioned the opportunity of working with community groups, to support them and enable them to undertake programs that are important within the communities. I agree wholeheartedly with that.
One area I did not hear her mention directly was cooperation with municipal bodies. Hopefully that will also be raised later on in our discussion. It seems to me that as we begin to look at meeting the needs of local and regional community areas, as the minister mentioned earlier, we need to look at the responsibility and opportunities of working with municipal councils. Municipal councils have a very important place with regard to the programming for a local community area. It seems to me that in the past we have neglected to work with municipal councils. We have had a body of private agencies that we have been working with, which have not been coordinated with each other. We have had a whole host of government agencies working in communities, through ministries that are also not coordinated with each other. These various groups were not coordinated through the municipal councils. I trust that we will look at some of those possibilities within the area.
I realize -- as does the minister, I believe -- that the employment and job training we had in the past were short-term processes. People learned how to write a resume or knock on doors to find a job, without the realization or affirmation that once you learned those things, there were still no jobs available and the short-term skill development you received in those programs did not have the weight of even a community college diploma. Those short-term job-training programs need to be in a cycle of recognition in the community, so that people come out with the kind of diplomas and recognition upon which they can build. They need to actually be not "end" educational programs, but "beginning" educational programs as people move into the future. The concern I have here is that there be a focus not only on the kind of jobs that we've had in the past, which as the minister has mentioned are not likely to be available in the future, but also on the future-oriented jobs that will lead people to the cutting edge of opportunities, not only giving them the skills but also somehow tying them into a process where they have the resources to move.
No doubt we will be canvassing this later on, but one of the simple things among most of the people I hear from who are caught in the plight of economic poverty
[ Page 7511 ]
is that in order to go to an educational program, find a job or even participate as a volunteer within the community, you have, besides food and shelter, the requirement of transportation. Without a bus pass, most of the people I deal with cannot get to the educational, recreational, volunteer or work-training programs that are available to them. Also, without the opportunity for adequate clothing, they are not able to get there. And for children, one of the major concerns is that they're not able to participate in many of the community functions -- sports, recreational, school and team functions -- that are fundamental as part of their growth and education. Some people regard these as frills and not part of the basics of life, but in the wholeness of the personality that the minister has mentioned, these recreational, social and community activities are a part of the wholeness of life. They are important.
The minister has implied -- not directly mentioned today, although she has at other times -- that the whole opportunity and necessity of working along with those people who have come from many cultural backgrounds, making our programs accessible to them within their own cultural thinking and also enabling them to interrelate in the responsive way of being "both/and," not "either/or," in their cultural understandings. Part of that process is to enable our own people who have grown up within this country to understand new cultures and communities which are here among us. I commend the minister for the educational and employment programs which she is attempting to undertake. We will look at other issues as we progress. I thank her for her opening statement and a sense of direction of where she's planning to go in the coming year.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I appreciate the member's comments about the reformed directions of this ministry. We made a decision in the ministry very early on that there was a need for significant change. Because of the economic pressures across Canada, we needed to do things differently. We needed a system that was more proactive, one that met people on income assistance with support in the challenges they faced individually, to ensure that their stay on income assistance was minimized to the greatest extent possible.
To that end, we have worked extensively with our government's planning board and with the Ministries of Economic Development and Advanced Education to look for opportunities and indeed for vehicles to support and enhance the work our ministry has had underway for the last year. I think that the commitment this government has brought to public spending through B.C. 21 to achieve both social and economic goals for the province is a good indicator of the support we have gained in those reform initiatives.
I think it's also important to recognize that the work our ministry does, both at its senior and local levels, is reaping some rewards. People in communities are truly excited about the potential of our enhancements around employment and training, our work in a number of varied communities with some of the social planning departments and/or committees of Municipal Affairs and the local service-delivery and client-based groups, as well as our partnership with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to their new housing policy and initiatives in finding decent and sustainable accommodation opportunities for people.
In addition to that, I want to reference some of your comments around our employment and training programs specifically. Over time, the ministry has documented which programs work and which don't work quite as well. In a project we have had underway with Camosun College, we've managed to analyze the successful programs and built on those. The forest training program that we've launched with B.C. 21 is one such example. We know that by investing in training along with on-the-job practical experience, over a five-year period 60 percent of the people who have been in those programs are still attached to the workplace, thus meeting our goal to eliminate the cycle of poverty. So we're learning what works, we're investing and building on what works, and we're moving forward.
The comment that the member made around our support for culturally appropriate services and training in the ministry is an acknowledgment again of the good work of our ministry staff. Over the past year we have had an opportunity to support staff in recognizing the varied cultural richness in British Columbia and desiring to meet the aspirations of those communities for healthy and strong families.
[3:15]
So we've learned a number of things in the last year, and we're building on what we have learned. We have provided some leadership across Canada. In the last year, for example, we've seen Alberta come and study this government's employment and training initiatives; indeed, they took those programs back home and put them in place in their province. So we not only have shown our ability to support people back into the workplace but have provided leadership through our innovations.
The work that we have done across Canada with other provincial ministers is also showing some progress. In the last ministers' meeting in Regina, there was acceptance for this province's work in chairing a task group that identified barriers to employment and put forward proposals in support of people back into the workplace. Even though the provincial ministers' table represented a fairly broad spectrum of political views and ideology, we're very pleased that there was a commitment and a recognition that the pressures on caseloads across Canada are such that we had to redesign the way we deliver service and support people more actively back into the workplace.
I'm sure the member has other more specific questions, and I'll be glad to answer those as he raises them.
V. Anderson: I appreciate your comment, and I'll come back to some of those later, as we move along. I would like to reflect on some of the promises -- I say promises; some of the statements -- that you made last year, when we were looking at estimates, of things you
[ Page 7512 ]
were planning to do during the year and have your responses as to how they were carried out. I think people would find it helpful to see the flowthrough of those particular activities.
Let me quote this one first: "My ministry will no longer reflect the paternalistic approach to social programs." Will the minister say what we have replaced that paternalistic approach with? What did she understand that to mean at the time, and what is the change of direction? She went on to say: "We will build programs that support and empower clients -- not trap them in a cycle of poverty, abuse and dependence." That was the intention, yet many people still feel trapped in that cycle of poverty and dependence. I acknowledge that the shift isn't going to come in one year or in six months. You don't just snap your finger, and change takes place. I think it would be helpful if we were to define, a year later, the essence of this new approach.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Without restating a number of the points in my introduction, I would point the member to our employment and training initiatives, where we have provided real opportunities for people rather than simply allowing them to stay on income assistance without hope. We've met that challenge by supporting people, rather than taking the direction of the previous administration -- a very punitive direction that did not acknowledge the realities in individuals' lives. We recognized that many small communities did not have jobs. We met that challenge by providing not only a governmentwide initiative through B.C. 21, investing tax dollars in individuals and in economic and social infrastructure, but also through the ministry's RISE program to actually create jobs where there were none. It is being done through that kind of supported investment in skills that indeed deserve to be invested in. Having people on income assistance represents a waste of human potential.
The reference to paternalism refers to the ministry owning the problem and seeing that we have the responsibility to solve it. It refers to the shift in recognizing that only through community partnerships and active involvement of the people we serve in the search of solution are we going to be able to bring about the kind of reform and changed direction that we believe will not only benefit people on income assistance but will show real returns. It is a real long-term investment in this province, where we will see people able to function as full citizens in the economic prosperity of this province.
V. Anderson: You've made a number of references to B.C. 21, the Build B.C. program. That program, which wasn't directly mentioned a year ago as the means by which the minister would undertake these, seems to be the major new thrust which enables the minister to fulfill the promises which she had made earlier. Perhaps she would comment on the significance of that bill and indicate whether this kind of programming is something that builds in a continual dependence upon the government for the same kind of undertaking. The concern is that many federal and provincial government summer work programs built a dependency which became an ongoing pattern for the government. I know the movement is away from that, but in building so much on a particular program, B.C. 21, are we now building in a new kind of dependency within the government rather than in the community itself?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The purpose of referring to B.C. 21 is to point out the partnership. The government has recognized that there is strength in tying social and economic objectives together and has committed itself to investing in the people of B.C. as well as in the economic infrastructure. I'm sure the member is well aware that the minister responsible for B.C. 21 is the Minister of Finance. I would encourage you to ask specific questions of that program during his estimates.
Our ministry has continued to build on its employment and training initiatives. This year we have $58.71 million for employment and training and will be receiving an additional $22 million on top of that from B.C. 21. In total, our clients will have access to approximately $80 million of investment in employment and training. That's either through training, wage subsidy programs or actual job creation. It is a reflection of our commitment as a ministry to support getting people back into the workplace, and a recognition that the most significant tool to alleviate poverty in this province is a livable wage.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I think I understand what the minister is saying. I'd like to follow up this question a little bit more. This last week the Minister of Advanced Education has said to colleges and universities that they have to cut back on their training and educational programs. We also hear of a cutback in the support for many community groups and their activities, which at one point were subsidized through lottery funds. Do I understand that the education, training and skill development of the lifelong education program to which the Ministry of Social Services is now oriented is not primarily a ministry program but is now a Build B.C. program? Has it become a kind of major educational training source funded apart from the budget that the minister is able to work with in this current year. That would imply that this program, and similar programming over the next number of years, would mean a whole new shift, not only in the social services department, but in the whole undertaking of how Social Services works with other ministries.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The programs that we deliver are directly through our ministry or with money that is provided through B.C. 21. Again I want to point out to the member that almost $59 million is within this ministry's budget, with an enhancement of $22 million from B.C 21. So the vast majority is directly in our ministry. But even the additional money invested by B.C. 21 will be delivered specifically to our clients through our ministry offices. That will mean that we will either buy seats in community colleges or provide training and employment opportunities directly in
[ Page 7513 ]
communities where colleges don't exist or where the college programs need to be enhanced in other ways.
The point that our government is making, not only in this ministry but in other ministries, is that while money is hard to come by, we are all challenged to do things differently. There is still a need to invest in people in British Columbia, whether that be young people or people challenged by labour adjustment in the province, and it is going to take partnership both with the established institutions -- community colleges and universities -- and with communities and challenged individuals. I think that is best highlighted by the Premier's Summit on Education and Training, which is bringing together those partners to try to identify how we can do things differently and how we can meet those challenges within the money available to the ministries for the specific needs in the province.
V. Anderson: Following up some implications of that, I hear the minister saying that there are funds available to people on social assistance for what would otherwise be called scholarships or bursaries in order to take the kinds of educational programs they are not able to get on their own. I know there will be people who will raise the question: is it necessary to quit your job and go on welfare in order to better access the scholarships and bursaries that you cannot get if your income is just above a certain level? Is this opportunity available to everyone or only to a select group?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our programs are targeted to those most in need. They are delivered through our offices in the communities. In reference to the member's comment, when a single person on welfare makes $535 for a full month, that must pay their shelter and their support. That's not exactly a panacea, and there's not much of an incentive for someone to quit their job and go on welfare. It's pretty hard to be able to feed oneself and provide for transportation and clothing, etc., never mind meet the challenges the member talks about.
The fact of the matter is that there is a waiting list for most of our programs. When we announced the forest worker program, many offices were able not only to fill those spaces but have a fairly significant waiting list of people who were most in need and wanted to work by taking advantage of that program. To alleviate any concern the member may have that we are indeed offering a panacea, I want to assure him that while investing in people is a different way of doing things, it is simply a tool to support the incentive that people on income assistance already have to get back into the workplace themselves.
[3:30]
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment because in former times, when I was involved more directly with the food bank, which had no particular requirements, we were asked how we knew that the people who came really needed food. Our answer was very similar to yours: if you stand in line for three hours in the pouring rain to get a bag of food, it is an indication that you have a need. So I understand what you're saying in that regard.
In a slightly different vein, last year the minister commented that $10 million would be allocated to address both wage inequities and staff recruitment and retention issues in contracted services across the province. Would the minister respond on that particular undertaking during the last year? I might comment that when I looked at the wage parity provisions in the budget, the increases came to about $17 million.
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a couple of different initiatives under wage parity funding in both family and children's services and community support services. The distribution of that money last year was done in consultation with all of the ministries that provide funding for the community sector: Attorney General, Ministry of Women's Equality, Ministry of Health and ourselves. In many instances you find that different ministries are funding different programs under one umbrella organization through that community sector. There was a real need to try to coordinate it among the ministries and at least make some principal decisions as to where the money would go and what our mutual targets were. The work we have underway with the Korbin commission will help us to target that money more effectively and efficiently to ensure that we can carry out government's goals as they pertain to wage parity.
I'll get you the overall budget numbers for the two sections. Hopefully we can give you the numbers compared to last year.
V. Anderson: At the same time last year you were also commenting on an additional $1.9 million to non-profit organizations. Can you comment on the general direction of that $1.9 million?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear on the question. There was a volunteer program last year, and an advocacy program. I'm not sure which program the member is referring to.
V. Anderson: The section I was reading from says: "We will increase our reliance on community participation and provide an additional $1.9 million to assess non-profit organizations in providing programs that support and complement ministry initiatives." I realize it may be difficult to pull that out; we may come back to it later.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Sorry. With that description, I'm unable to identify the specific program.
V. Anderson: Both last year and this year the minister mentioned a review of the Family and Child Service Act. Could you comment on where that is in the process at this point?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's my hope that within the next couple of weeks, before the session is over, we will be able to provide that information to the House. I'm unable to do it at this time.
[ Page 7514 ]
V. Anderson: I'm sorry I asked, hon. minister. We may not be out of here until August now, instead of July 1. That's increasingly becoming a possibility and the probability, as things come in. But that's another discussion.
Last year you commented on the decreasing number of children in care. Can you comment on whether there is still a decreasing number of children in care, or has the number of children in care been reversed? Are more are coming into care, or less? What's the trend at this present time? We hear about so many children in poverty, but what about the question of children in care?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll get the exact numbers for you. That provides me with an opportunity to talk about some of the investments that we made in family support last year. We have been running a couple of pilot programs in the province where we have actually been able to provide support for families to stay together. Some of the initial information out of those pilot projects indicates that it is money well spent: we have actually been able to reduce, in a specific area under that pilot, the number of children who have come into care.
The statistics for 1992-93 show that the number of caseloads dealing with children in care was 6,109 as of March 31; for the same time period in the previous year, 6,084. With the population increase, that shows that this province has been experiencing an actual decrease, by ratio, in the number of children who are in care of the province.
We believe that it's early to tell the overall impact of the support money we have put in, but all of the initial information we have indicates that where child protection workers in the past would have had no option but to remove children, they are now able to support that child and family in staying together. As the member well knows, that investment is far less onerous on the province than actually taking a child and supporting that child outside of their family.
V. Anderson: Perhaps relating to children and families, the minister also mentioned last year, as she has also done this current year on a number of occasions, the emphasis on culturally sensitive services to aboriginal people. Could she highlight some of the main directions of those culturally sensitive services with aboriginal people that have been put forward this year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There have been a number of initiatives in the last year. We have signed agreements around child protection with both the Squamish and Cowichan nations, announced a moratorium on adoptions of aboriginal children, posted an aboriginal deputy superintendent position and enhanced the ministry's ability to meet first nations in their challenges to return their children, recognizing that those are interim arrangements, and that the objectives of government are to meet first nations in self-government discussions and to support first nations in their agendas with respect to taking back that responsibility for their children.
In addition to that, I have been working very actively with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in identifying tables to meet aboriginal leaders in this province in discussions regarding transitional legislation for child welfare issues, as well as discussions about on- and off-reserve cost-sharing with the federal government for aboriginal communities. So there has been a considerable amount of progress in the last year. We are encouraged by the reception these initiatives have met with from aboriginal leaders and families alike.
It is a tremendously exciting time to be part of government. The healing process underway in this province is very painful and encouraging and exciting for all of us.
V. Anderson: Responding to that -- and perhaps going a little further -- you mentioned you had been working with particular bands. Is there any overall grouping of bands -- as well as individual bands -- that you are able to work with in the aboriginal area? Working with bands related to their band territories is one thing, but I would also ask what is happening with respect to working with aboriginal people within the urban community, where there is not such a clear-cut organizational grouping of people to work with.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Through the leadership of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, government has been able to identify two specific tables for many of the discussions. Discussions about child welfare have taken place with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We have had one very productive meeting. Another meeting is scheduled for the summit, which will give us an opportunity to put those issues on the table and have the kind of policy discussion necessary to ensure this type of partnership we are talking about with first nations people.
As I said, we continue to meet with specific bands and tribal councils regarding their specific issues. To the best of this ministry's ability we support their goals, particularly with reference to the work done with aboriginal communities or individuals off reserve and the M�tis communities. We have been working with the M�tis in this province to develop protocols. We are optimistic that that will be concluded very shortly and that we will be able to make an announcement on that front. With respect to off-reserve communities, we work with both Indian friendship centres and the UNN.
[3:45]
The other area that I would like to comment on has to do with work underway within our ministry. We are conducting a review of permanent wards of the state with an eye to developing life plans for aboriginal children in the care of the state, and ensuring the ability of connecting those children with their families, their extended families and/or their aboriginal communities of origin.
V. Anderson: I think those are excellent directions in which to be moving, and I'm particularly glad you mentioned the permanent wards, because that is one
[ Page 7515 ]
area that very seldom comes to the surface for discussion.
We started this discussion, in part, by talking about children, and we talked about adoption within the aboriginal community. What about the general services for aboriginal families or single people on income assistance? Is there a special relationship within the ministry toward aboriginal people, as opposed to others who may be going in for services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member is aware that there is an agreement whereby the federal government provides income assistance on reserve, and our responsibility is off reserve. While we do not identify income assistance recipients by race, where there are significant communities we try, to the best of our ability, to provide culturally appropriate services. In the last short while I believe there has been an enhancement and support for some of the work being done by Indian friendship centres and the programs they provide for aboriginals off reserve.
R. Neufeld: I have just a few questions about what's happening with regard to child welfare on reserve lands. Maybe you could explain it a little more. How do you perceive this being handled better? I tend to agree that aboriginal children should be looked after on reserve. But how does that come about? We're mixing federal and provincial.... What ability do we have to make that happen, so that children or young people in care can be looked after within their own culture?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Currently there is an unsigned memorandum of understanding between the province and the federal government. It states that the federal government has the responsibility for services to aboriginal people on reserve, and the provincial government provides services off reserve. We are quite distressed about the fact that the federal government has not lived up to that responsibility. If the member has reserves near his community, I'm sure he knows that the services are not being provided by the federal government, as far as equity of service on reserve and off reserve is concerned.
The provincial initiatives will do two things. Because of our superintendent's ability to delegate authority when aboriginal communities are in a position to take back that responsibility, we enter into discussions with those communities and sign agreements around the delegation of responsibility, with the province's commitment to support culturally appropriate services. Clearly, because of their culture, the services deemed appropriate by a band may be different than the services we provide.
In addition to that, as I said to the opposition critic -- you may have been out of the House at the time -- we are presently in discussions with first nations leaders about that transition, whereby they can achieve the full responsibility, the return of their children and the provision of service. The province will not take that initiative with the federal government until we have an agreement from first nations leaders regarding how to take that next step.
R. Neufeld: I'm reading off a news release that one-third of all children in care are aboriginal. Can the minister explain if the number of those native children in care has been reduced in the last year? Have we been able to take a certain number of them out of care and put them in the care of bands with which you've made agreements? I think you've made agreements with two or three bands across the province. Have a significant number of those children been transferred there, or as your new statement says, are they still in care?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can't give you direct numbers at this point. You are correct in that 2,000 of the 6,000 children in care are of aboriginal origin. The review of permanent wards, which is underway, will be able to not only provide that support for those children but also give us a better database against which we can measure our successes.
The member should recognize that some communities are not ready. Some communities and families are not able to take those children back. To make the point, a family may be able to support a child 10 percent. We bring a commitment to the work that we are doing to ensure that that child can have that 10 percent, which perhaps in the past they did not have, and hopefully we can increase the support and involvement that the family is able to give to that child over time and eventually return the child to that family.
As I said, it is a policy direction that has been received very well by communities. Some aboriginal communities are more able to make that transition. The two communities that I would point to -- the Cowichan and the Squamish -- are actively involved with us in that transition and have been asking for it for some time. This government is quite proud to be able to meet them in that challenge. But this is not something that is going to happen overnight. The healing that has to take place, both within individual families and communities generally, is significant and substantive. It will take a long-term commitment from this government and subsequent governments to ensure that we undo the many years of pain and suffering that have gone before us.
R. Neufeld: Is your government proactive in soliciting from different bands across the province? I have a number of bands in my constituency, and I know that they are quite progressive bands. Do we wait until the bands come and talk to you as government about this type of involvement with the children, or are we actively out there talking to different bands? There's hundreds of them.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to clarify. When we are talking about the on-off reserve split and the role of the federal government in the provision of services, the child protection mandate of this ministry is to protect children on reserve, and it is cost-shared. The federal government picks up half of that. When a child is in need of protection, it is the policy of this ministry
[ Page 7516 ]
to notify the band of that apprehension. It's through discussions around those individual cases that we develop a plan to support the reform initiatives of this government, which is to support the families and provide for the earliest possible return of those children.
R. Neufeld: Maybe I missed something that the minister said, but is there no actual program through which we actively go out and discuss with different native bands the government's idea of getting the children back into care on different reserves? Maybe I missed that. I'm sorry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I discussed earlier the tables that have been set up by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and which this ministry is involved with. At both the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the summit table, we are not only negotiating cost-sharing programs with the federal government but we are also discussing initiatives around child welfare to find the best way that we can develop policy to enhance aboriginal people's goals and aspirations. Along with that, as I'm sure the member is well aware, last December we received a panel report on aboriginal child welfare. In the work that we have underway and in the enhancements that I talked about, the deputy superintendent of aboriginal child welfare and our enhanced transition team were using those tables to discuss proposed legislation that will enable aboriginal communities, during the transition, to receive that responsibility. On an individual basis, when there is an apprehension, it is the policy of this ministry to notify the band and band councils. So there are two different levels at which we are being proactive. We're dealing with individual needs through the permanent ward review of aboriginal children and the notification of bands when a child is in need of protection, and then there is the overall policy review with aboriginal leaders around child welfare issues.
R. Neufeld: The Cowichan bands are now responsible for child welfare on reserve lands. This was something that came in early this year. I know its fairly soon, but does the minister have some feeling as to the success of that program? Can you perhaps explain to us a little more about what has transpired with the Cowichan bands?
Hon. J. Smallwood: If I understood the question correctly, it was on the signing of an agreement with the Cowichan. That process is just commencing. It will take a number of years before the actual transfer of authority takes place. The agreement that we have with the Cowichan sees a mutually supportive process that helps develop the skills, resources and the services on the reserve for them to be able to actually take over the delegated authority around child protection.
R. Neufeld: Are the agreements that you are reaching with the Cowichan band, and the one with the Squamish nation that just recently transpired, set up to meet each band's different needs in different areas, or is it a kind of set program that we'll just work around a little bit? Is it stringent? Or is it loose enough so that in different areas of the province -- because, of course, in the north they'll be different than in the south -- the bands will be able to work under those programs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the question is altogether appropriate in recognizing that there are some 200 nations here in B.C., and each nation is a nation unto itself with specific needs, cultural practices and a specific heritage. I might note that these agreements that are being signed are three-party agreements between the federal government, the provincial government and the nations themselves. The work we have underway has the potential to reflect the individual needs, cultural heritage and appropriate desires of those nations. So they will reflect the cultural diversity of those nations within B.C.
[4:00]
R. Neufeld: Could you tell me when the memorandum of understanding that you spoke about earlier was agreed to and when it was signed by the ministry? Could you tell me the year that happened?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It dates back as far as 1976. That memorandum has been respected by the federal government in that they have been paying, for example, for half of the cost of child protection on reserve.
R. Neufeld: So we could say that the problems of native children not being in child care on reserves dates back quite a while, in that the ministry itself has been trying to deal with that issue for a long time. I think we both have to agree that this is not something that can be done tomorrow or the next day, or whatever. It is obvious that from 1976 to now there has been some headway made in different areas on reserves, and that includes child welfare. I want to bring that forward, because what I hear is that the past has been so terrible that we are going to be forever trying to straighten it out. I'm just trying to get it on the record that issues were taken forward quite a long time ago, but the process takes a long time. I think those are all the questions I have on that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have given the member some incorrect information. The memorandum of understanding was '86, not '76 -- my apology. With respect to the reference to the federal responsibility for child protection, they pick up the full cost. We have the responsibility, we bill it back to them and they pay us for child protection on reserve. So it is not 50 percent cost-shared; it is full responsibility to the feds on reserve.
The point the member has made is correct. A commitment has been made to address the issues about aboriginal child welfare in support of aboriginal communities for some time and agreements were signed by your government, under a previous structure. More have been signed under the new agreement, and we are fast-tracking that commitment under this government's initiatives.
[ Page 7517 ]
V. Anderson: Following up on that discussion, the minister indicated that there were other agreements besides the memorandum of understanding of 1986. Are there other agreements between the federal and provincial governments -- particularly with regard to your ministry, in other areas relating to aboriginal people -- besides the protection of children? Are there other agreements between the federal and provincial governments in other areas of your ministry that relate to aboriginal people ?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There is a letter on the provision of income assistance dated 1977 -- the federal government's delivery of service for income assistance for clients on reserve.
V. Anderson: Could the minister indicate the scope of that letter of income assistance? Does that mean they were paying the full amount? Has there been any discussion about updating that letter? It would seem to me that it would be quite different now than in 1977.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think I only heard half of your question. It is the same arrangement. The federal government pays the full cost on reserve, and the provincial government.... It's the on-off reserve split. The provincial government picks up services off-reserve, including income assistance.
V. Anderson: The other half of that question is whether there is an updating in place with the federal government concerns that you share jointly in serving the needs of children and families on reserve.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am tempted to tell the member that there's going to be a test after this. This is my third time explaining. With the tables....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Oh, okay. There is a table with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs around policy discussions on two issues: first, on aboriginal child welfare; second, on federal-provincial programs on off-reserve cost-shared. We will be using those tables with aboriginal leaders to build a consensus. The commitment that we bring as a government is that we will not approach the federal government on any changes with those cost-shared, either the memorandum of understanding or the letter for income assistance, without consultation and support from aboriginal leaders as to what their aspirations and goals are. As I said to the member, we have had one very successful meeting with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and are looking forward to the opportunity for policy work to be done with the province and first nations people in identifying the next steps with the federal government.
V. Anderson: Changing topics and going onto some of the comments from the previous year, which you also mentioned this year, a year ago you undertook to review the family maintenance program. I'm wondering if you could update us on what I presume is an ongoing process within the family maintenance program. It was more or less at its beginning? You might update us as to where it is at this current time.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm assuming the member is referring to the task group that we were a part of with the Attorney General ministry. The Attorney General, as you know, has the family maintenance enforcement program. The cross-ministry work that has been underway is looking at that program to ensure that it can deliver, in the most efficient and effective way possible, the government's goals in supporting single parents and their children. That review has not concluded. I am led to believe that there will be legislative changes, but they are not anticipated until next year.
V. Anderson: At this point I might as well raise a couple of the questions that come up in the area of maintenance. A year ago I discussed this from my experience, which was almost totally negative with regard to the maintenance program. This year I can comment on some positive experiences with the maintenance program and congratulate them on some of the improvements that have been made in that regard. I want to acknowledge some really positive experiences with the family maintenance program this year. But one of the concerns that we hear from the community is the question of those who are on GAIN receipts and receive payments through the family maintenance program from their spouses on behalf of their children. How much of that are they able to keep in any given month? How is it deducted otherwise? There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community about the amount of that payment that can be deducted in any given month and the amount that can be kept.
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member knows, our income assistance advisory council, along with a number of internal program reviews, is looking at all aspects of the income assistance program, including the family maintenance program and the benefit that it provides to our clients. The member may also be aware that ours is the only province that allows a person on income assistance to top up the amount they have by maintaining a portion of their family maintenance. The current policy stands that a family can receive an additional $100 a month of their family maintenance over and above their income assistance. The program changes have been very positive in some communities, where our family maintenance workers have been able to work with motivated clients in enabling them to receive the support that is due for their children. The new orders obtained in '92-93 are up from '91-92 by some 200. The average amount is also up, but only by a fraction. The potential income assistance savings on new orders obtained are also up by a fraction. So we're seeing a significant shift. As I said, the program is still under review, but there are a number of ways: enhancement of income assistance rates; the support
[ Page 7518 ]
that we're able to give clients in receiving their orders; and the review by the Attorney in conjunction with ourselves to streamline the enforcement component of that program.
L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Fox: I'm very privileged to have in the House this afternoon my nephew, Dr. Kevin Pistak, who is here from Toronto. One month ago he graduated from chiropractic college, and the next day he got married. He's in Victoria looking to see what opportunities there are for chiropractors in B.C.
V. Anderson: In looking at the question of maintenance payments against a person's income, I have three questions to put on behalf of people who have asked about them. First, if I understand correctly, a person who is partially employed may earn up to $200 per family member without it affecting their income assistance. If they can earn $200 without affecting their family assistance, why couldn't they receive $200 in maintenance payments instead of $100? Second, sometimes people are delinquent in making their payments, so rather than $100 a month coming in, they get $500 all in one month. Instead of acknowledging that they did not receive payments for the previous months, it's all deducted at one time, which is a disincentive. Third, since these payments for maintenance are primarily for the support of children, why isn't the number of children in the family taken into account by having $100 or whatever is allowable for each child?
[4:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The whole discussion around the ability of families to keep additional money, whether it's through the family maintenance program or through earned income or other unearned income, is considerably more complex than at first glance. If an individual were able to keep additional money, the fact that it would be a cost to the province is certainly a consideration of Treasury Board with the pressures that we have on the system right now. That's one thing that people don't consider generally. They feel that money is free to the system, but it is not. It is a direct cost to the taxpayers.
I recall an article that, I believe, Nicole Parton did, where she actually polled people. I think she asked whether they would pay an additional $2.40 -- I really am doing this off the top of my head -- of increased taxes to enable a single parent on income assistance to retain more family maintenance. Unfortunately, the answer was a resounding no. I raise that just to highlight the challenges that government has in meeting people's needs and trying to alleviate child poverty in this province.
One reality of our growing caseload is that while we have over 300,000 individuals on income assistance, it's not widely recognized that a full third of them are children. That speaks not only of the pressures and cost to the system but certainly of the cost to society, because children who are growing up in poverty don't have the same opportunities. If we are looking toward the future economic and social strength of this province, I think it's incumbent on all of us to look for ways of supporting those children.
The family maintenance program review that we have underway with the Attorney General will hopefully address some issues that you have been talking about, such as the regular delivery of family maintenance payments to those children. There are jurisdictions in North America where the government actually collects the money and guarantees delivery of those programs on a regular basis so that the children are not victimized by irregular payments or the inability of the court to collect payments that are due. Needed reforms in that program to ensure that payments are delivered on a regular basis are some of the things that are being discussed with the Attorney General.
I have asked the advisory council to look not only at the amount of the family maintenance that families can keep but also at a number of enhancements. The member referred to the amount of earned income that a person can keep. It is a maximum of $200 plus 25 percent. Again, that is another program that the ministry developed to support getting people back into the workplace. We've got statistical analysis that shows the longer we support people in retaining their connection with the workplace, the more success people have in the workplace and the shorter their stay on income assistance.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the $200 plus 25 percent. I would like to see that percentage extended, so that by the time people have earned enough money they are able to get themselves off income assistance completely. I come back to two parts of that question. Why couldn't the $200 plus 25 percent not apply equally to the maintenance payment as it applies to earned income? That would be the first of those questions. In responding to that, I recognize there is the argument that it costs the ministry money, but it seems there are two arguments. One is that these are court-ordered payments that are directed to the family and therefore rightly belong to them. Secondly, a psychological argument, and a very important philosophical one, is that the children should realize that the money coming to them is from their parent, and it rightly belongs to them, rather than them having to do without it and the money being taken from them by that ogre, the government. That becomes a very personal thing for the children, with regard to their relationship with the government and being denied the personal support from that other parent.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, with reference to the ability of a family to top up the $200 plus 25 percent of their earnings.... To increase that, we actually had to get a special exemption from the Canada Assistance Plan -- the system is that closely governed by the federal legislation.
[ Page 7519 ]
I acknowledge the points the member made around the family maintenance program, and I'm very sympathetic to those arguments. My only reference goes back to the complicated system we are managing. We are looking at it in a comprehensive way.
The GAIN legislation that is on the books has been ad hoc over the last ten years, where different parts of the legislation have changed over a period of time. I believe that the challenge we face as a government, not only here in British Columbia but also across Canada, is being able to make sense of the system, so that once you move one section, it doesn't buffer the rest of the sections. That's why we have this comprehensive review underway with the income assistance advisory council. We are talking to other provinces, Treasury Board and other agencies in government and looking at that comprehensive review and challenging some of those principles.
The aspect I'm particularly sympathetic to is that family maintenance, or any other income a family gets, should be the base, and we should be topping up, rather than welfare being the base and deducting from that in a top-up. That's the direction I would hope we could head in with our review. But I think we have to look at it to understand the implications. It sounds pretty simple on the face of it, but the system in and of itself is so complex. As I said, it has a very strict interface with the federal legislation. We'll have to look at those implications as well. That is part of the review we have underway.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that that's part of the GAIN legislation review you were talking about at that point -- if I understand correctly.
I want to come back to the other one and clarify it with you. I understand the requirement to coordinate with the Canada Assistance Plan in order to get the $200 plus 25 percent. I'm still not clear why that figure couldn't apply to the maintenance payment as well as to earned income through employment. Is there something under the Canada Assistance Plan that says that you can only consider the earned employment, rather than the maintenance payments, for that $200 plus 25 percent?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As far as we know, the Canada Assistance Plan does not differentiate between earned and unearned income. Again, I want to restate my comments around the direct costs to the system in doing so. It would mean additional costs over and above the amount we have in our estimates at this point in time. It begs the question as to whether or not we would pick up the family maintenance and not treat other unearned income in the same way. For that reason, we're looking at it in a comprehensive way. It certainly begs the question around a family that has a court order and a spouse who is unable to meet that court order and may also be on income assistance. Inequities are created between families in the same circumstances. There are a number of significant issues, and we are reluctant to bring about a policy change without understanding its implications -- and very clearly without having the funding support to do it.
V. Anderson: Inequities will always be seen to be there no matter what action we take. But on behalf of the people who are expressing this concern very strongly, I would also say -- as I know the minister is aware -- that the necessity for them is here and now, not after the children have grown up and left home. The inequities are here, and it's important that at least some of them be addressed as quickly as possible rather than waiting till all of them have to be resolved at one time.
I also appreciate the minister's comment about the ad hoc nature of the changes that have taken place in the GAIN legislation over a period of time. I would take it that the review is to bring an end to ad hockery as quickly as possible and to come forward with some draft plan that people could have in mind and look forward to. Am I right that that's the direction we are moving? The minister is nodding yes, without committing herself, and I can understand partly why she's attempting to do that.
I want to go back to one other question in our aboriginal discussion for a moment. Are there some ministry staff who are particularly dedicated to working on the aboriginal concerns of the ministry at this point? I'm just asking about aboriginal staff in the ministry who might be particularly dedicated to aboriginal work, although I know everyone in the ministry has some relationship to that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, we are trying to gear up for an accelerated transition in a number of ways. I referred to the deputy superintendent for aboriginal child welfare. We have established a committee in the north to develop an approach to increase recruitment and improve service. We are using outreach recruiting to ensure aboriginal applicants know of vacancies, particularly in communities with large aboriginal populations. We ensure aboriginal participation on competition panels when knowledge of aboriginal culture is a requirement for positions, and we staff a position of tribal liaison for aboriginal communities. In addition to that, we are enhancing our policy ability through family and children services, where we have two very qualified, highly respected people in the province helping us with the legislative review that is underway. This also gives me an opportunity to recognize the aboriginal services unit in Vancouver, which does very good work for the province.
R. Neufeld: I want to go back a little bit to the family maintenance enforcement program. Is it a requirement to enrol in that program before you can receive income assistance or social assistance of any kind?
[4:30]
Hon. J. Smallwood: There's an expectation, indeed a requirement, that individuals on income assistance seek income from all possible sources. I think the member is referring to the policy change around subrogation. Prior to this government's responsibility, people on income assistance had to subrogate their rights; they had to give over their rights to the state to collect family maintenance. At that time there was a
[ Page 7520 ]
Charter challenge before the courts, arguing the point that people on income assistance were being treated differently than other citizens. In a recognition that single parents have the responsibility for supporting their children, and the expectation that they will seek all sources of income, this government removed that subrogation clause. Removing that subrogation clause at the same time enhanced our ability to work with single parents in accessing those orders, where possible, in support of them looking for other ways of enforcing those orders. The reference of the government critic is working extraordinarily well, as acknowledged in some communities where very motivated clients are working with our family maintenance workers in the best of our collective ability in ensuring that those orders are enforced and that those children benefit from those orders.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister says, and I am certainly not one to try and infringe on people's rights too much. I think we all have rights, and we are all infringed on in different areas, whether you're doing your job, I'm doing my job, or someone is on social assistance of some kind.
Whether or not the minister agrees with or believes in the program, I believe that it was fairly successful in getting some money paid back to the government from what they classify as fathers who have relinquished all responsibility for their families, fathers who take off and do whatever. Unfortunately, in most cases -- not in all cases, but I would say in a high percentage of cases -- the mother is left looking after the child. Unfortunately, in today's world she cannot do it without help. I appreciate that.
Did the program help force some of these people who had abrogated their responsibility to their family unit to pay something back, instead of just being able to run away and absolve themselves of that responsibility? I know it could sound like an infringement on one's rights; I'm not trying to dispute that part. What I am saying is that I think it did bring in a fair amount of money to the province. Since the change in government, we have seen a drop in the number of cases. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There has actually been in increase in the value of orders filed in the family maintenance enforcement program. During 1992-93 it was $10.67 million, and during 1991-92 it was $10.29 million. So this program continues to be effective in ensuring that family maintenance orders are enforced and that the children who are dependent on them receive that money. Where there has been a reduction in the number of actual open cases, that is not to say that those single parents are not pursuing family maintenance through other channels rather than taking advantage of this program.
Through the program we are able to focus the attention and the resources of the ministry on people who are very motivated, ensuring that we have the best recovery of court orders possible. In fact, the new orders that have been obtained have also increased. We have an additional 200 this year: from 2,013 last year to 2,207 this year. The program has been streamlined. Through the resources that we have brought to bear through the enforcement program of the Attorney General and the support that we are able to actively provide for single parents in our ministry, we have been able to actually increase the number of orders obtained, as well as increase the value of those orders.
R. Neufeld: In the numbers that you quoted earlier, did you say $10 million or did you say $1 million? Maybe you could explain it a little more. I have some information from the ministry that states that the number of cases in the process of being enrolled has gone from 1,430 cases as of March 31, 1991, down to 477 cases.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure where the member obtained that information. If he would like to share that, I'd be happy to give him some background. Let me give you the statistics of the open cases. Between October '92 -- when the policy change was brought about -- and March '93, the open cases went from 21,784 to 17,819. That is a decrease of 18 percent. The member should be aware, however, that that is a reflection of a decrease in the number of cases on the waiting list. They are not people who are being served. I think the numbers that I shared with you, as far as the actual new orders that were obtained.... The actual value of orders are far more reflective of the success of that program than the number of people who are waiting to be served.
R. Neufeld: In the famous project to monitor administrative error and fraud, a certain frustration came from people on the front line that some of the changes in policy were some of the reasons -- and you can classify it as whatever you want: fraud, administrative error or whatever it is -- for the increase in spending in your ministry, which has, you must agree, gone up quite dramatically compared to any other ministry in the last two years.
I have talked to a number of people in your offices around the province who work in the field. They feel some frustration and feel that that is part of the reason costs have gone up so dramatically and that society in general is now paying a lot more for people who have abrogated their responsibilities to family; specifically fathers, who are free to do whatever they want now. That is not the only area. There doesn't seem to be any way to get those people to live up to their responsibilities. If it infringes on their rights, it infringes on their rights. They should have thought about that before they had their families, because now we have a lot of children who are in care and who need the care and help that we have to supply.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I just want to clarify for the member that when we were talking about the infringement of rights, that was about the subrogation clause. Fathers have responsibilities to support their children. We are enhancing our ability as a ministry to work with those mothers to ensure that those fathers live up to that responsibility. I think the numbers speak
[ Page 7521 ]
for themselves. The numbers that I was able to share with you regarding the increased numbers of new orders obtained and the value of those orders speak to the fact that we are able to target government's resources to efficiently and effectively support those children, and to having those fathers live up to their responsibilities in paying that maintenance. That's one point that I want to make.
Secondly, the point around staff morale. This ministry is probably one of the most difficult ministries in all of government to not only work in and provide service but also to meet the challenges of the growing need that exists in this province. Yes, we saw considerable growth in our caseloads and therefore in the cost to this ministry. But I want to remind the member that we are not alone in this province; we don't live on an island unto ourselves. All provinces are suffering from the same pressures. Our very conservative province directly to the east, Alberta, saw an increase in its caseload of 21 percent in this past year, so it's very difficult to make the argument that the policies of this government are driving the caseload or the cost to this ministry when the province right next door, our very closest neighbour, is seeing an increase of 21 percent.
Quite the contrary. It shows that our proactive reform around employment and training have, at the very best, managed the pressures that have been brought to bear at a time where we're seeing significant economic restructuring impacting countries on a global scale. We are not alone; we are not an island unto ourselves. Indeed, we are managing very well given the pressures that this system is under with a federal government -- to make the point -- changing UIC policies. We are seeing direct impact. People who could have counted on unemployment insurance that they had paid into for years and years are no longer able to rely on that system and find themselves having to come to welfare as the ministry of last resort.
It's important for us to recognize the facts and for the member to look at the numbers around the enforcement program, its success, its streamlining and the review that is underway, and indeed to understand that when we're talking about rights, we're talking about the rights of the mother in support of her children and the responsibilities of the father, the partner in that family, to support those children.
R. Neufeld: I agree. Maybe the minister misunderstood me. I also am saying that those fathers should be responsible and support those mothers and children. I have no problem with that -- none whatsoever. That's why I'm talking a little about infringement of rights and those things. I have no problem at all saying that. Can you just explain to me, Madam Minister, now that you've changed that policy, what specifically you do to help mothers collect money from those fathers? What program is it? You talked a little about a program. Maybe I don't understand it, or I haven't heard about it; but just tell me what steps you take now with those mothers to make those fathers who are not living up to their responsibility pay.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member may well be aware that there are two parts to the program. The family enforcement program, which is under the Attorney General, actually enforces the court orders. The family maintenance workers, who are in our ministry work, one-on-one with single parents to ensure that the paperwork is done so that they can access the Attorney General's program to ensure that there is an order filed and that the order is then enforced by the AG's family enforcement program.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
It's a matter of supporting and providing information for single parents on welfare, and ensuring that they are connected with the Attorney General's program. The only change that exists now is that the single parents, the mothers, do not have to automatically turn over their rights as citizens to the state. We still work with and support those single parents in filing the orders with the Attorney's program and ensuring that those orders are enforced.
[4:45]
R. Neufeld: I'm not asking you to answer questions for the Attorney General's ministry, but does the money that's paid stay as revenue to that ministry, or does it -- or part of it -- come as revenue to your ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm unable to answer for the Attorney; I'm not sure how their program works. From our perspective, as in the previous discussion, families are able to keep a certain portion, and anything over and above $100 is deducted from their income assistance cheques. There is a ceiling to the amount that they can earn with family maintenance.
R. Neufeld: What happens to it after that? Obviously, more is collected than is paid out. Where does it go? Is it a revenue to your ministry, or is it a revenue to the Attorney General's ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The family maintenance amount that goes to individuals shows as a cost avoidance to welfare, so we actually do not pay out the full amount of the welfare cheque; it is deducted. That's where the savings to the ministry are incurred. In our earlier discussion with the member around allowing families to keep more of the money, we would not then have that cost avoidance to income assistance. It would be more expensive to the system; we would pay out more money. Family maintenance is a savings to the system overall if the maintenance order is above $100.
V. Anderson: I just want to comment that the spouses who are not paying are not always men, although the majority of the time it is men. Sometimes the wife is the one who is making payments -- not in a lot of cases, I agree, but there are some where that's the case. In coming years we will find that it's becoming more often the case in the other direction. I was talking to a fellow on the weekend who receives money from
[ Page 7522 ]
the wife, whose income is higher than his. So it works both ways and depends on the income of the people involved in the particular court order.
As the minister is aware, I did some checking with people in the community on concerns they might have about the ministry, and we got a number of pluses as well as minuses -- not so much minuses as questions or concerns -- that highlight some of the issues people are asking about. I'd like to share some of these as a basis for asking questions.
On the positive side, the first one I pick up here says thank you to the ministry for addressing mismanagement within the ministry and improving the system. The minister will probably be glad to know that people heard that part of the message.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Yes, I know you would like to see that in headlines, but at least I'll put in Hansard that this is part of the response we're getting. They also appreciate and thank you for the advocacy groups that you're supporting throughout the province. They also say that even with its mistakes -- if there are any -- the tribunal training program is one of the best in Canada, affirming the longstanding tribunal system in the province.
On the other hand, there was a concern from this particular respondent about crisis grants and food vouchers. I've heard from many people that on occasion these seem to be very difficult to get in crisis situations, whereas on other occasions they seem to get them very readily and easily. There is confusion regarding the qualifications for crisis grants and food vouchers and a lack of clarity as to how people can access them. Perhaps the minister would like to speak about those.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm unable to speak specifically to the points you made about the difference in practice. We're working to bring about as much consistency as we can, recognizing that there needs to be a judgment call made by our financial assistance workers, who are trained to make those, to meet people's needs and identify when a person is in need of a short-term crisis response from our ministry. It's worth putting on the record that in doing that, crisis grants can be provided when there's a failure to obtain an item in need that would result in imminent danger to the physical health of the individual or in an apprehension of a child under the Family and Child Service Act.
The criteria for issuing a crisis grant are spelled out specifically. If a person meets those criteria, the crisis grant is provided for that individual or family. The denial of a crisis grant is appealable. The member referenced the fact that our tribunal system for appeals is widely recognized in the community and elsewhere as a fair and just process for dealing with any potential inequities in the system and any questions around the judgment call that has been made.
V. Anderson: With regard to crisis grants and food vouchers.... One of the difficulties with the appeal system at the moment is that it's good for long-range things but not for things like putting food on the table tonight or tomorrow. Some people are facing that immediate problem and are not finding an easy way to.... I think the system breaks down at one point. Once a person has come for their grant, they're generally in a personal crisis situation, and once the system has rebuffed them, it's difficult for them to approach the system again, not having a handy neutral body to work through. Part of the difficulty is approaching the system when it has already said no to you, and you're in an emotional crisis.
Another concern was brought forward. This is a question of whether or not this is policy. The question is written this way: "Why is a single mom told to use her GST credit to pay for a portion of the cost of runners or other clothing for a child when the ministry has previously paid the entire amount?" The question is why GST credit is directed in this direction. Another question is: why FAWs would say that the child tax credit must be used to pay for food rather than being kept to buy clothing with. They're trying to express feeling that that was something that should really go for clothing. So it has to do with these credits coming back to them. Are they part of the income, or do they have some discretionary use of these credits to do the extras, particularly clothing?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is referring to the fact that the GST or the child tax credits are exempted from income assistance payments. In other words, we do not deduct them; the family gets that full amount. The expectation, however, is that families use all sources of income to meet their immediate needs. If the family has a source of income, the ministry will not duplicate that source of income.
The member is highlighting some of the pressures on the system and the balance that government is always trying to bring to the system in providing support for those most in need. Individuals and families have a responsibility to seek out other sources of income or additional moneys to meet those needs and to work towards their independence to the best of their ability. So while we value the social safety net and the role the ministry is able to play in supporting people, we also encourage people to access income to meet their needs wherever they are able. In particular, when there are increased cost pressures on the system, it's important for us to recognize that each family must take on that responsibility in trying to meet those needs.
For single parents, in particular, we've enhanced our employment and training programs for a longer period and enhanced opportunities to bring them back into the workplace in order to ensure that they can meet their goals of self-sufficiency and independence. We recognize that that is the only way for single parents or anyone to be able to support themselves with dignity in the long term and to meet the needs of their children.
So while I readily acknowledge the fact that it is very difficult to live on income assistance, and in particular to raise children on income assistance, this government has chosen to try, to the best of our ability, to meet that
[ Page 7523 ]
challenge by providing bridging back to self-sufficiency and independence. We have consciously chosen to enhance those programs over and above adding to the overall cost of the system. Regrettably, we have held increases to the actual rate for income assistance to 2 percent over our term, recognizing that in some of the big cities that is not even meeting the cost of living.
[5:00]
So the options for people on income assistance are very clear: they are to get off income assistance as quickly as possible. We hope that through that change of direction in the system, we will be able to recognize and support those people who cannot take advantage of those programs. We hope to do that in two ways: by a longer training period for single parents, recognizing that they need a life plan or career plan in place; and for those people who are unemployable and unable to take advantage of this opportunity, hopefully we'll be able to acknowledge their needs at some point in time. We are unable to meet them at present.
V. Anderson: Just to follow up on your last point, which perhaps indicated a sense of direction rather than what is really possible at the moment, I know many people would like to see an adequate standard of support established for people relatively close to the poverty level, and then see some kind of cost-of-living indexing system, so that increases would be relative and they would not fall behind once again -- as they have done over the last ten or 15 years. Compared to what we received for the same services a few years ago, we're certainly behind the cost of living. Is the minister prepared to comment on the level of income that might be achievable in due course? How might it be automatically adjusted relative to the cost of living?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the debate that's happening at the federal level, where the Tory government is looking at ways of redefining poverty as the answer to meeting people's needs. It's a bit of a comedy to have a government spending so much time and energy debating what poverty is in this country, when those people we're serving are trying to feed, house and provide a safe environment for their children.
The low-income cutoff line -- which is a line that Statistics Canada refers to -- is when 60 percent of an income is spent on basic needs. It indicates that we are some 57 percent below that in this province. I think it's fair to say that with income assistance rates we are not meeting basic needs. We have a ways to go, if we are to use the low-income cutoff with StatsCan. Using that number, we are looking at a 40 percent increase in income assistance rates. I point out to the member that when we're talking about a budget of $1.8 billion, a 40 percent increase is completely out of the reach of this government. We are unable to make that leap or that commitment.
In addition to that, I think we need to recognize that a number of people considered to be the working poor are living below the poverty line as well. I emphasize the challenge that we have as a society in addressing those significant issues -- issues that have direct costs to the system. If people are unable to support and keep their families together, someone has to support and house those children, which is a phenomenal cost for government. If people are forced through desperation to alleviate the pressures of poverty through crime, then there's an equal pressure and cost to the system around policing. I don't have to remind this member what happened last summer in Los Angeles. The desperation and futility that people felt in that city, with the lack of choices and the loss of hope, was not only a cost in human terms but also a cost to the system in riot control, policing and corrections.
I readily acknowledge that these are issues, but they are not issues that this ministry owns unto itself. They are challenges for society generally -- challenges to the economy, to business and to taxpayers -- to grapple with and make some decisions. It's a time for choices in British Columbia. Indeed, we can choose the kind of society that we want, the kind of future that we want for our children and for our neighbours' children -- and whether or not we're going to invest in those children or pay the cost of not investing later.
V. Anderson: As we know, one of the first things many people who are having extreme difficulties lose is their self-esteem. One of the issues this raises is whether the ministry is prepared to support programs -- the term they used was "self-esteem workshops" -- that would help these people.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The philosophy we bring to people on income assistance is that the best impact on self-esteem is success. That is why we invest in programs around employment opportunities and training in support of people successfully attaching or re-attaching themselves to the workplace. Without the kind of investment this government has been able to make, we see people falling back on income assistance. The more often that happens, the lower their self-esteem and the harder it is for them to get back into the workplace. I talked about the kind of analysis the ministry has done around the employment and training programs. We know that certain programs are more successful than others in ensuring that people remain successfully attached to the workplace. With that analysis and evaluation we're building on those successes. In addition to that investment, as part of our bridging, the ministry invests in life skills training for some of our clients who can benefit from such programs.
We are trying to develop a seamless system in recognition that not everyone is able to take advantage of the same type of program. People are in different positions in their lives and need different types of support. We have been developing a seamless program where we meet people where they are and support them toward successful self-sufficiency. Again, the best way to support someone in enhancing their self-esteem is to be able to ensure that they are successful in their endeavours, and that is the philosophy that we bring to our programs.
[ Page 7524 ]
V. Anderson: When you stress the right to work and success in working, that brings to light another question which has been raised. We now have categories of employable and unemployable, the assumption being that the unemployable are not in a position to get employment in the normal workplace. There is a concern about the balance between those two, and the meaning of those definitions is important to many people who would like to be in one or the other and yet still maintain their self-esteem. In explaining the difference between employable and unemployable, perhaps the minister might be able to share with us the number of single men and single women in the employable and unemployable categories. What is the division between those? I think that would clarify the understanding of those terms for the public.
Hon. J. Smallwood: To attain unemployable status on income assistance one has to obtain a medical certificate. A doctor has to communicate in writing to the ministry that the person is unable to work. That certificate is difficult to come by. We're trying to get you the numbers.
V. Anderson: I might ask clarification about that. Some people who are designated as unemployable are not employable as far as earning a full-time income goes, because they have sicknesses or illnesses that come and go -- particularly people with mental health conditions. I have heard that some of them are concerned that they are therefore barred from doing part-time employment or fairly extensive employment for a week or two. They switch between employable and unemployable and get caught in the middle. I'm wondering how those persons, particularly the unemployable at this point, would be able to maintain some participation where they might be part-time employable without losing their unemployable status. It's the only security that they have, yet it seems to be a shackle preventing them from exerting themselves as much as they are able.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just to give the member some numbers here, the total GAIN caseload from March 1993 was 193,825; the total caseload of unemployed is 39,256. On the question of the definition, specifically to your concern around people with mental illnesses who at some times may be unemployable but at other times may be able to take advantage of employment opportunities, that issue has been raised by the disability community.
We have, through the advisory council, ensured that there is a representative of the disability community at that table, and at this time we are supporting work around the definition of unemployable and disability. It presents a significant challenge to the system, because an unemployed designation indicates additional financial support; there is significant cost by increasing the number of unemployed. At the same time the disability community is concerned about changing the definition to allow a person with a disability to lose that designation, because that designation is very hard to come by.
It presents a significant policy and financial challenge. At the same time, it's obvious to many of us here, I think, that a person with a mental illness should be encouraged and supported to work when they are able and at the same time should be able to have increased support or benefit when the time arrives that they are unable to take advantage of their independence.
V. Anderson: Of the 39,256 who are classified as unemployed at the moment, do you have a breakdown of single men or women in that particular category?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's one thing we have no end to. We have numbers for things that you would not believe. Single men -- 15,519; single women -- 12,370; heads of families -- 11,367; dependents -- 19,390. The total recipients in the unemployable caseload -- keeping in mind that this includes dependents -- is 58,646. That's the difference between the cases and the families.
[5:15]
V. Anderson: We raised the question of definition, which I presume is the proposal that people have brought forward to change the definition of handicapped. We were using employable or unemployable. Do you use the same terms whether we're talking about employable or unemployable? I know there has been some concern about changing the definition of handicapped. Is there a distinction between handicapped and unemployable?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, yes, there is a difference in the definition. The handicapped designation is a medical review, and it is a permanent status. Unemployable status is a medical certificate, and it may not mean a permanent designation.
V. Anderson: Handicapped is regarded as a medical certificate which indicates that the person has a permanent handicap. Are they employable or unemployable within that handicapped definition, or does it imply one definition or the other? Are you saying that the permanent handicapped definition probably does not need to be reviewed that often, if at all, whereas the definition with a medical certificate of unemployable would have to be reviewed at certain times? Are there distinctions in treatment between those two definitions?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct; it is a permanent designation. People who have been designated with a permanent disability can take advantage of employment or our volunteer program, which is different from an unemployable designation that is not permanent. With an unemployable designation they cannot take advantage of our employment programs. They can't top it up.
V. Anderson: The handicapped person can take advantage of the employment program, as I understand
[ Page 7525 ]
it. The unemployable person can't take advantage of it as long as they're in an unemployable category; they would have to move over to an employable category. Is there a difference in rates for a handicapped category as against the employable category and the unemployable category? I know I'm getting fairly technical, but these terms are helpful to people in understanding the three categories.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, there are different rates for each category, and there are different entry gates, if you will -- different tests -- for unemployable and handicapped. Income assistance for a single employable recipient is $535; for a single unemployable recipient it is $585. An individual designated with handicapped status receives $755 per month.
V. Anderson: As well as the basic payment schedule that you mentioned, do any extra benefits such as bus passes go along with the categories?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Those designated unemployable receive medical benefits, and a person who is designated handicapped gets bus passes and extended medical.
V. Anderson: The minister mentioned the volunteer program, and that was the next comment I had to share. A person was concerned that there seems to be some confusion at the moment over how one accesses the community volunteer program. It seems to be the experience of a number of people that it's difficult to access. The conditions are not clear, so people are becoming frustrated by trying to be part of it and are dropping out. They are missing the program and would like to be part of it. So they are caught between those two extremes.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It was designed as a bridging program for people on income assistance to be able to top up their income assistance rates and at the same time be involved with their community and develop additional skills. Someone who is unable to take advantage of an employment or training program right off may qualify for the volunteer program, which, as I said, allows them to top up their welfare rates. The program is very popular. In some areas people are on waiting lists, because there is a designated amount of money allocated for that program in each and every region. So some individuals may have to wait for their opportunity to take advantage of that program. The accessibility of the program is through income assistance offices. You have to meet the criteria to qualify and then be eligible for one of those placements. I think the comment you made around eagerness is a reflection of the fact that people on income assistance want to be involved in their communities.
We talked about the employment programs as well. The same phenomenon applies, where we've got people lining up for those. When we announced those initiatives, our phone lines were deluged by people who wanted to take advantage of that opportunity. We hear stories in the public media about the fact that there are far more people available for job postings than there are jobs to be filled.
V. Anderson: I've had an opportunity to work with people who have been part of this program, and they have found it extremely helpful. I'm not sure what the rate is at the present moment, but a couple of the concerns that have come up are: what is the financial remuneration, and what are people able to earn through that program within the limitations of it? One of the other questions that came up for many of these people was with regard to the cost of transportation to and from the volunteer program, as well as with regard to the advantage of the experience.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The program is set out so that if a person qualifies and provides 20 hours of volunteer time in a month, the remuneration is $100. The remuneration is intended solely to meet some of the expenses of volunteering. Obviously it does not provide for a wage.
V. Anderson: In relation to the concerns people have with regard to crisis grants -- we mentioned clothing and things like that a while ago -- one of the concerns is that when appliances break down and they're without them, they have difficulty finding a way to get the money to get them fixed in the short term in order that they can have their fridge, stove, toaster or whatever it may be. What is the arrangement for dealing with that particular need?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll quote the criteria again, but they are very specific for crisis grants. Crisis grants can be provided when failure to obtain the item of need will result in immediate danger to the physical health of an individual or apprehension of a child under family and child services. The criteria are fairly restrictive on the ability of financial assistance workers to provide that support. That is the balance we try to bring in accounting for tax dollars and, at the same time, meeting crucial needs through a system of last resort.
V. Anderson: Questions are raised about the medical items covered, such as eyeglasses or contact lenses. Are they automatically covered, or do they require special grants or support?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As for your question around eyeglasses, as long as they are prescribed by a doctor and are nothing elaborate, we cover those basic needs.
V. Anderson: Following that is a question about counselling that does not come under the regular medical kind of counselling. Is there a suggestion of a $500 provision for counselling? Are you aware of that, or is that perhaps something that is being looked at? Its availability has been seen as one of the positive attributes of the ministry, and I want to confirm if that is accurate.
[ Page 7526 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm assuming the member is referring to alcohol and drug counselling.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
V. Anderson: I understand from you that what is designated as non-medical counselling would be available for alcohol and drug problems. Would that also be available in the area of psychological counselling or counselling for personal problems?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We've instigated a program to cover drug and alcohol counselling only if it is a part of bridging to employment. There has to be an employment plan and a need for some support back into the workplace, recognizing that if there is a significant drug and alcohol problem the person would not likely be able to successfully take advantage of our programs. As for psychological counselling, that is covered only if it is covered by the Medical Services Plan. Otherwise, we do not cover it.
V. Anderson: I think this one was being asked in the context of a person who has some mental health difficulties and therefore may have an ongoing need. It may be sporadic. It may come on suddenly. How is that dealt with in that mental health situation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have an individual program, although people who work for the ministry have, on a number of different occasions, advocated on behalf of an individual to obtain additional support through mental health to meet their needs.
V. Anderson: If I understand what you're saying, there is some freedom within the ministry to provide that kind of help when it's needed. You may want to respond.
[5:30]
Also, the same person raised the question of whether there is a way to deal with the five-week syndrome of receiving payments. That comes up fairly regularly as a problem. In discussing this with some low-income people, I suggested that payments might be made every two weeks on a regular basis, as with unemployment. Their comment was that it won't do, because the basic bills of rent and other items come at the end of the month, and therefore there was a need to have money at one time. They weren't happy with that suggestion. So it's not as simple as saying that it should be done every two weeks. Is there another way of dealing with that every four weeks and somehow adjusting it in that situation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: In case there was any misunderstanding around the counselling issue, I'd like to first clarify that our financial assistance workers or social workers do not have the ability to meet that need. They do have the ability to advocate on behalf of their clients with another system. Secondly, on the question of the five weeks, the only reference that I'd like to make is that, like everything else in our system, that has a dollar cost. I recognize that while it is a significant pressure on income assistance clients, it is also a significant cost-driver for our system. Like a number of the other issues that we have dealt with, we have looked at those issues and asked for Treasury Board review. But this is where the rubber hits the road, if you will: it is the cost that prohibits us from meeting that need.
It is part of the comprehensive review and will be one of the factors that we will look at. There will be trade-offs in that review. There will be costs that we will not be able to meet. We are looking at cost savings in the system and trying to identify if there are any potential cost savings. We are looking at streamlining the system to ensure that it is both efficient and effective. That's the income assistance review in "The Challenge of Change" paper that we launched back in January. We're going through the whole system in a comprehensive and extensive way, both in the ministry and in the provision of service to our clients. In doing that, as I said, we are looking at our interface with the federal government. So that is simply one other issue that we'll be asking our advisory council to guide us on and to help us weigh off and prioritize where the investments in the system should fall.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that response because I know it's not an easy one. No one seems to have a clear answer of how to go, but the very fact that it's being worked at thoughtfully is helpful to them. Another part of that same discussion is the question of the feasibility of cheques being deposited into bank accounts for people who are able to make that arrangement and who have some permanence in their lives, because this would simplify the process in many areas. People would be able to use banking machines and have the regular processes available to them, making it much easier for them to write cheques and all the other things. It would just simplify it to have it put into their bank account, the same as many other people do in other areas of employment. They could manage it from there.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member may be aware of some work that is underway with the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association pilot banking project. Our ministry, along with the Ministry of Finance, is exploring options on that front with them, but we would only explore that option with clients who are a permanent part of a stable community. It would present a considerable problem for communities with high turnover. The downtown east side, actually, is one of the more stable communities in the province, and because of that provides an opportunity for us to explore some of those options with them.
V. Anderson: I very much realize that the downtown east side is one of the more stable communities. Once you get to know that community well, you certainly discover that. They care for each other in a very important way. I'm thinking also, though, of the people we were talking about earlier who have a handicap, a long-term disability, or even some of the unemployables who are in long-term care. In most cases they also have most difficulty getting to the
[ Page 7527 ]
services, and for them this could be a very important aspect. If they could be included in that it would have some real possibilities. Many of those people are living in out-of-the-way places throughout the province where this could be very important. Facilities are not easily available to them, and particularly in the wintertime, even getting out to banking facilities without transportation is a very difficult problem for many of the handicapped people. Would there be consideration given to the real concern of the handicapped and the unemployable who are in a longer designation period, and to making this available to them as early as possible?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, we are. We agree with you, and we will look at that option.
V. Anderson: One of the concerns that we hear very often is the housing allowance that comes within this. For single persons, I think the housing portion is about $325. That works fine in Gopher Gulch perhaps, but in places like Vancouver, finding suitable accommodation at that price is just not feasible. I was approached just this last weekend about a young fellow who is struggling to cope, and the only accommodation available to him, even with the support of workers working on his behalf, would be in a circumstance that would not enable him to overcome the difficulties that he's had with that kind of allowance. Then you have the concern of families who have to live in conditions that are totally unsuitable for adults, much less for children. It's not only the circumstances of the apartment that they may be living in and the adequacy of it, but also concern about the neighbourhood in which this kind of apartment or housing is to be found.
So there's a multiplying effect here of single people, and a multiplying effect with seniors at the same time. This first came to my attention when I visited with a woman who lived in one room. I discovered that she was living in that facility because she had no choice. It was on the third floor, and she had difficulty climbing stairs. She was not able to go out and visit or even to buy her food. The housing available for her was just not appropriate. This particular case was a widow who at one time, prior to her husband passing away, had owned a farmhouse and all that went with it, and here she was in one room with a hot plate because she couldn't afford anything else.
So I think there are a variety of concerns around housing which it seems are not being met in many communities -- particularly urban communities perhaps, but I'm sure in other places as well -- for single persons, for families with children and for seniors. The same is true for many persons with physical disabilities, handicaps and special needs. The housing that is so basic to their emotional and physical well-being as well as to their ability to equip themselves to go out for services is a general difficulty. I raise the question of the housing allowance, particularly in those categories, because it seems to come forward again and again as something people cannot understand. It has not kept pace at all with increases in housing costs or even housing taxation. That is a major concern.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't disagree, and it's likely a speech I made in opposition. I will continue to agree and put the point forward. That's one of the reasons I am particularly pleased with the work of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in developing a housing policy. I'm hopeful that some of the innovative programs the minister is bringing forward will help in supporting people to meet their housing needs. In particular, I know they are doing some rather innovative skills development work with the homeless in meeting housing requirements. It's another opportunity to highlight the fact that the federal government has pulled out of its responsibility for partnership options to provide affordable housing for the poor in this country. We recognize that our shelter allowances fall considerably below basic shelter needs, challenging people on income assistance to make ends meet. We know that people are spending a significant portion of their support allowance in some of the bigger cities just to be able to pay rent.
V. Anderson: A problem that comes up in a number of different forms on the issue of housing is where two adults strive to share some of their facilities and find difficulty in doing that -- they may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes. One person here even has the difficulty that if the husband moves in to live with them, they cannot afford it. In order to care for the children, the husband has to move away and not be a part of the family. I've heard that kind of discussion from seniors. Recently I've heard about a couple in Pearson care home where the only simple way they can get around this kind of taxation -- which is not really so simple -- is to get a divorce. So that kind of living arrangement, which I know has difficulties, is there. I'm wondering how the ministry is working to try to alleviate or clarify the kinds of arrangements that are involved here.
Hon. J. Smallwood: This is a ministry of challenges, and this is just one other challenge. Earlier we talked about the pressures that poverty brings, that it breaks up families and puts children at risk. The issue that you raise around the cost of shelter and the responses of individuals to those pressures are very real. The ministry tries to the best of its ability to work with individuals in meeting their needs. We have recognized, as indicated earlier, that the system needs to be more proactive not only in trying to advocate for the people we serve but also in working with other partners both in the community and in government to try to resolve some of these very significant societal problems. We'll continue to do that. We believe that's the only way that the new direction that the ministry has embraced will provide for the kind of change that I think we both look forward to in our community. When you acknowledge the issues that we're dealing with as a society, I believe it is the only option. I think it's very clear that the system we inherited was a very passive system that used rather punitive policies as its incentive. It has been proven not to solve the problem and not to deal with the increased pressures. Instead, it
[ Page 7528 ]
has victimized people and added to the pressures that families are already facing through poverty.
[5:45]
V. Anderson: Again, I appreciate the support the ministry and its staff workers have given to people in many conditions, including abusive situations. There is also a general awareness that because of overload or whatever reason, ministry staff people do not have the time or, it appears, the inclination -- and I say "appears" because that's the way clients feel it and see it -- to deal with them long enough to understand the real reason behind their need and why they have come to them in the first place. Staff has also not been able to provide them with adequate information and direction in how to fit into the ministry's services.
On one hand, some people are very pleased and have had good experiences; but by and large, many feel the staff has not had the time or inclination to hear them out personally. They've filled out the forms and dealt with them in a formal rather than a personal way. They also haven't been able to give clients the kind of information or direction to know how to deal with their situation.
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the first time, this government acknowledges that the best way to impact caseload is through caseload management. The previous administration denied that there were caseload issues. So we're playing catch-up in most of the services that we provide and/or fund in communities. I'm sure the member is well aware of that. Through this budget, we have enhanced our commitment to frontline workers, enabling them to serve our clients in a more meaningful way by adding full-time positions for financial assistance workers and administrative support. Through those enhancements, we acknowledge that there is a dual benefit, reference the balancing of decision-making that goes on at all times in the ministry: our ability to account for the system to ensure that people who qualify get the assistance and support that they need, while safeguarding the system from any potential abuse by those who do not qualify.
In addition to enhancing our ability through caseload management, we are also looking at our communications tools in the ministry -- our ability to speak to each other more effectively. We can learn a great deal by communicating more effectively with the financial assistance workers -- our frontline workers -- and by ensuring that they have the ability to communicate with senior management as well.
We also are looking at our ability to communicate with our clients in a user-friendly way by targeting our communications to the specific client groups that we serve, whether it's people with mental handicaps, young people or people with other specific needs. We have talked about the services and the communications around specific cultural groups that may have language barriers. We're looking at different ways of ensuring that the people we serve have all of the information available to them so that they can take advantage of our programs, if and when our financial assistance workers are unable to spend the time necessary to explain those programs to them. One of the examples of an enhanced communications tool is a pamphlet we are developing for the family maintenance program that spells out that program, how to access it and the clients' responsibilities in ensuring that they access all available income, etc. So we are looking at a number of different ways to ensure that we can best serve people on income assistance and limit their stay on income assistance where possible.
V. Anderson: I remember that in the presentation of last year's estimates the ministry was talking about computer terminals, perhaps similar to what is now in the libraries, where people could access information. Has that kind of system come into effect yet, either within the ministry office or in cooperation with the public library system? While I'm asking that one, many people wonder about a 1-800 number that would be known widely enough so that they could phone with concerns they have and get reference material. At the same time, they wonder whether basic information packets are available in constituency offices. More and more people are coming to constituency offices for this information as well.
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member knows, the ministry does have an information line -- a 1-800 number. The point is well taken that there is more need to communicate and ask questions, and more need in communities generally. Our ability to meet that need, whether through communications or communications tools, is limited by our resources. The ministry is struggling to meet those challenges and, I believe, is doing a phenomenal job, considering the pressures and expectation out there. We are looking for new ways of streamlining and effectively communicating with people, and I think that you will see some of those new initiatives as this year unfolds.
V. Anderson: I come back to a matter that we referred to earlier, because it keeps coming up again for people who are on welfare, from the point of view of educational opportunities and family contact the possibility of bus passes for people on income assistance. Transportation, no matter where you live -- even to go shopping -- is a necessity in most places. Otherwise, you have to shop at the local store, which -- as studies have shown -- is usually more expensive than a major store.
I think we are coming to the hour when we should probably request adjournment, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 7529 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the House recess for five minutes.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order please, hon. members. The motion before you is that the House upon rising will stand recessed for five minutes.
C. Tanner: It is a matter of convenience. Both the minister and the critic have been here for four hours. I don't think it's reasonable to recess for five minutes. It would be much more reasonable to recess for half an hour and let them get a bit of a break.
The Speaker: The Chair is in the hands of the House. This is a debatable motion.
V. Anderson: I amend the motion to recess for half an hour instead of five minutes.
On the amendment.
R. Neufeld: I speak in favour of the amendment, because I think we're going to go into estimates in the Douglas Fir Room also. So it would help government members and our members.
[6:00]
The Speaker: The motion before you is on the amendment that the House upon rising stands recessed for half an hour.
Amendment approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 47 | ||
|
Marzari |
Priddy |
Barlee |
|
Jackson |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Hammell |
Conroy |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Hagen |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
Clark |
|
Blencoe |
Barnes |
MacPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
Doyle |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Mitchell |
|
Serwa |
Wilson |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Gingell |
Tyabji |
K. Jones |
|
Jarvis |
Anderson |
Warnke |
|
Tanner |
Symons |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
De Jong |
Kasper |
|
Garden |
|
Krog |
| NAYS -- 1 | ||
| Randall | ||
Motion as amended approved.
The House recessed at 6:07 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.
Hon. D. Miller: I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we have the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; upon completion, we will move to the Ministry of Government Services. In Committee B, we have the Social Services ministry.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 54: minister's office, $392,165 (continued).
D. Mitchell: I noted with interest the earlier comments by the minister with respect to training for recipients of social assistance. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us whether or not her ministry has taken any initiatives with respect to illiteracy. The reason I ask is that I notice that caseworkers and social service offices around the province have noted in the recent past that many recipients of welfare are among those British Columbians who might be considered functionally illiterate. That, of course, is a large topic that will be canvassed in more detail with the Minister of Advanced Education during his estimates. Does the Ministry of Social Services have any policy with respect to illiteracy? Do they take it upon themselves as part of their mandate to correct that problem with respect to social assistance recipients?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to answer that in two different ways. One, reiterating the comments I made earlier, our bridging programs for employment and training are designed to meet clients where they are and to meet their specific needs so that they, in the best way possible, can be successful in their transition either into the workplace or back into the workplace. On a case-by-case basis where a person has a literacy or numeracy barrier, or an ESL barrier, the ministry will support that person in a training program to address those issues for them.
The other way in which I want to address your question is the need to break some of the myths about who is on income assistance in the first place. Increasingly, in particular for single women, you're seeing people with degrees. You're seeing fairly well-trained and skilled people on income assistance. I think that's a reflection of some of the restructuring that we talk about that is happening in this environment, as well as a reflection of some of the significant barriers for women to employment that provides a wage that will enable them to support their children.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for her answer. I don't dispute what she has offered. My concern was more with the issue of illiteracy. The rates for illiteracy in British Columbia are alarmingly high. The estimated rates for those who may be considered functionally illiterate are among the highest in Canada. I'm not sure what the answer to that question would be. I can't answer it myself, and I've never received a satisfactory
[ Page 7530 ]
answer to it. Having said that, I understand that among those who receive social assistance are a number of people who might fall into that category. When somebody who is functionally illiterate approaches an office of the Ministry of Social Services for assistance, are those individuals specifically targeted for training? Is that what the minister is saying? Are they targeted for assistance to overcome what might be considered a handicap in terms of their ability to attain a role in society? Clearly, in order to make a contribution and get on one's feet in this day and age, an individual must have basic literacy skills.
[6:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have officers in the ministry who work directly with people on income assistance to design programs that meet their needs and support them back into the workplace. That would be done on a one-on-one basis, identifying what the barriers might be and how our programs can best serve those clients. Where literacy is identified as a barrier to employment, a plan would be worked out to support that person in literacy training and bridging back into the workplace.
D. Mitchell: Could the minister inform the committee whether or not her ministry maintains any statistics on illiteracy, which clearly is a very serious barrier to attaining full-time and meaningful employment in British Columbia? Does the ministry maintain any data? Does it track individuals who have problems and challenges in this particular area, so that over the course of time we can monitor whether or not we're actually improving the degree of literacy in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Information is kept case by case on personal files. No central file could give us that breakdown on caseload or individual support.
As the member was talking, however, it brought to mind some work that was done through Camosun College. We assessed the success of some of our ABE classes in providing for income assistance recipients. We found some pretty interesting information that really challenges our assumptions about classroom training and asks the question about delivery of community programs for people with adult basic education needs.
We're learning. We have some data on a number of our programs. I know the member wasn't in the House when we were talking about the employment and training programs, but we have evaluated a number of those programs. We know which ones are successful and whether we can best complement them through ABE or literacy. Those issues will be raised in our evaluation. We'll learn how to support people better, and how to identify and meet their specific needs.
D. Mitchell: I certainly applaud the initiatives the minister has launched. The idea of giving to recipients of social assistance, wherever possible, the skills necessary to take care of themselves and their families is something that we have to applaud. My only point of disagreement with the minister might be that she's too timid in this area. I'd like to see more aggressive action and, in fact, more fundamental change in how social assistance programs are delivered. We need some fundamental restructuring. But I certainly encourage and applaud the minister for any initiatives that are launched.
Like the minister, I, too, am interested in getting away from stereotypes of those on social assistance in British Columbia. That's why I was asking the question about literacy. I would be interested to know if the rate of illiteracy is markedly higher among recipients of social assistance than for the adult population in British Columbia as a whole. That's why I asked whether or not any statistics are kept on this. That's the one area the minister hasn't addressed. Is there any specific tracking in this area, so that over the course of time we could monitor this, as one of the areas where skills are being developed so those individuals will be able to make a contribution as literate British Columbians?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have a database on the profile of our income assistance caseload for two reasons. This is my own personal opinion, and I think I had better separate myself here. One, when money is made available to our ministry, it goes to those in need; it doesn't go to the bells and whistles, to the systems or to the kind of research the member is talking about. In addition to that, there are other complications. While we've recognized that the caseload may indeed have changed over time -- and certainly one of the issues I raised with the provincial ministers when we met in Regina was the need to have a better idea as to who is falling on income assistance across Canada -- the fact of the matter is that we can't talk about a static caseload. The caseload is always changing, and the rotation on income assistance is about five or six months. So at any given time, you don't have the same people on income assistance, although I think that it's fair to say that disproportionately you see specific groups. You see women, the disabled, minority groups -- whether it's cultural minorities or aboriginals -- and, in increasing numbers, displaced older workers. While there is some commonality, it's very difficult to have an overview at any given time. I think it's fair to say, however, that people on income assistance reflect, to some extent, the community at large.
D. Mitchell: I would like to believe that. I think it would be useful to track it. As a suggestion to the minister, in the future perhaps this criterion and others like it might be useful to track, especially if we are serious about wanting to assist those on income assistance and to provide them with the skills so that they can take care of themselves rather than being taken care of by the state, so to speak. I think all recipients of income assistance would like to have those skills. If those skill deficiencies are identified when first contact is made with the ministry, it would seem to make sense that tracking them over time and targeting them for particular areas where skills can be developed and improved might make some sense. I simply suggest that
[ Page 7531 ]
to the minister as something we might want to undertake for the future.
Perhaps I could move to another area with respect to the stereotype of those who receive income assistance in our province. Certainly the minister and other members of the government have indicated in the past that one of the reasons for the huge surge in the budget for this ministry -- the ministry's budget received perhaps one of the largest increases of any budget in the provincial government, second only to debt servicing -- is the influx of people into B.C. from other parts of Canada and the world. Does the ministry track people who receive income assistance from their area of origin? In other words, is any specific tracking done to take a look at the percentage who are British Columbians, the percentage who are from out of the province, and from where out of the province? Is there any data that the minister is able to make available to the committee?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, one of the projects we have funded this past year is with SPARC, the Social Planning and Research Council. The project was to profile people on income assistance and give us some data around the face of the clients that we're servicing. We're looking forward to the research council reporting out on that. Hopefully it will provide us with some additional information.
Just to reiterate the point that I made earlier, we have brought that request to the federal government as well. The federal government is in a better position to fund research in targeting the pressures that all of the provinces are facing around caseload increase. The member was not in the House when we talked about an initiative that our province is chairing across Canada around barriers to employment and targeting the resources of government in a more proactive way to support people. Part of that initiative is recognizing that the best way to target our resources is to ensure that we understand who we're targeting those resources to. That's a component of that national work, which is, as I said, being led by this province through this ministry and by the Ministry of Advanced Education through labour adjustment.
Secondly, on the question around out-of-province caseload, there is a category that itemizes out-of-province caseloads; there is a Canadian residency provision so we can track those cases that are coming from out of province. We don't have information as to specifically where they are coming from. As to the reference that the member made around immigrants and out-of-province "inmigrants," the requirement to qualify for income assistance is a residency requirement -- Canadian citizenship.
D. Mitchell: I applaud the initiatives that the minister referred to earlier, the research that she is undertaking and the research that has been undertaken by SPARC, as well. But clearly the impression has been created that one of the reasons for the huge upsurge in the caseload of workers and in the budget in her ministry is the influx of people into British Columbia. We live in an area that's so attractive that people flock here from all over. There's a common perception, reflected in the editorial opinion of some newspapers, that British Columbia is somehow a welfare gravy train. I think that's the terminology that was used in one editorial in one of the leading Vancouver newspapers. Is the minister able to provide now, even though the research hasn't been completed by SPARC and others, any profile of an overview of income assistance recipients in British Columbia? How much of the current upsurge -- a 40-percent increase in the last two years, I understand -- has been created by new British Columbians who have arrived either from other parts of Canada or elsewhere in the world? Does she have any data on that whatsoever?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll obtain those numbers. You're looking for the percentage increase of immigrants to the province. While we are looking for those numbers, the point that I want to make to the member is that while our ministry saw a significant rise in our budget, the fact of the matter is that we are considered to be one of the have provinces. I remind the member that back when the federal government arbitrarily placed the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, it was because our provinces were seen to be economically viable and doing well. In recognizing that, they capped the cost-sharing. We are in a bit of a double bind because we are capped. We are also the strongest economy in Canada, so people in provinces whose economies are devastated by the recession and free trade are coming to our province, looking for work. The reality is that between the capping and the in-migration to our province, and keeping in mind this is a national program.... This is cost-shared -- 50-cent dollars before the cap -- with the federal government in recognition that the social railroad that ties our country together was an important principle for Canadians; something that we as Canadians wanted to preserve. It is important for all of us as Canadians to ensure that that safety net is not eroded, especially during difficult times when people can more viably raise or put it on the public agenda.
[7:00]
The numbers I have for in-migration show a 20 percent increase between March '92 and March '93, versus a 15 percent general caseload increase. So the in-migration is rising faster than the general caseload. We can provide lots of statistical information about the number of dependents and caseload by type. It doesn't put a face on it any more than to say the number of single, employable, female, male, couples with dependents -- that sort of breakdown around caseload examples.
Just for the member's own information, it is worthwhile repeating some of the earlier comments about the reality in this province. While we have seen caseload pressures in increases in the budget of this ministry, the proactive stance we have taken in the last year regarding enhancing employment and training, and supporting people back into the workplace, has, I believe, served us very well. Our neighbours to the east, Alberta, actually came to this province in the last few months to look at and explore our employment and
[ Page 7532 ]
training initiatives. They took those initiatives back to Alberta and put them in place verbatim. Alberta, a very conservative administration, saw a 21 percent caseload increase in the same period of time. They are also one of the capped provinces. So even with the most conservative politics in place, they were not able to manage their caseload as well as we were handling ours here in this province. I think that bodes well for the initiatives. It speaks well for investing in both the economic and social infrastructure in this province.
D. Mitchell: Maybe I could just ask the minister one other question in this area. None of us in this chamber would want to see those in B.C. who are truly needy denied the assistance they require. I think that's very important for the minister when she is carrying out her mandate. All of those British Columbians who are truly needy must receive assistance. But has the minister taken any initiative to dispel this image that B.C. is somehow -- as I referred to earlier from the media report -- a welfare gravy train? With the recent reports about welfare fraud and the fraud squad that the minister has launched, an image has been created. I'm sure that's something that will be discussed later on during this estimates review. We talked earlier about dispelling stereotypes, and I think there is a need to do that. Has the minister taken any specific initiatives to dispel that stereotype, so that British Columbia is not regarded, nationally and perhaps even internationally, as some kind of welfare gravy train?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That myth was perpetuated quite actively by the previous administration. When things got tough in B.C. the previous administration kicked those who were least able to defend themselves. The reality is that the income assistance rates in this province are in the middle of the pack. They are fifth out of the ten provinces and, at the same time, the cost of living in our major cities -- and in particular in the city of Vancouver -- is significantly higher than in a number of other communities across Canada.
Our administration has increased GAIN rates by 2 percent. For people on income assistance in the city of Vancouver, that means that the standard of living for people on income assistance has actually eroded; they have lost ground. The depth of poverty in Vancouver is deeper. When you look at the Health and Welfare Canada statistics, you will see very clearly that people who are poor in British Columbia are poorer than anywhere else in Canada. That legacy was not only brought about by the previous administration but was also perpetuated by the false myth of welfare as a gravy train. Most of us in British Columbia, a province we consider economically strong and viable, are ashamed of the level of poverty here. At any opportunity I have had, I have highlighted that and emphasized that while it is responsible for Canadians to seek work, it is no panacea here in British Columbia. It's a very difficult place to be able to support your family if you don't have the resources and are not connected to the workplace. That is a message I have carried across Canada when I have met with other ministers and done national interviews.
I think it's important for all of us not only to dispel myths but also to embrace the challenge. When we look at not only the depth of poverty but also the legacy for the next generation, which is being brought about because fully one-third of all people on income assistance are children, it's incumbent upon all of us in British Columbia to embrace that challenge and try to meet it.
I was particularly optimistic when I looked at the poverty statistics around seniors to see that in a decade, the figure of a 20 percent poverty rate for seniors was reduced to 8 percent, because there was a concerted effort from not only advocacy groups but also communities and different levels of government to address those issues of poverty and to look at pensions and a number of different ways of supporting seniors in a way that we as a society would hope they would be supported.
Rather than looking for scapegoats, I would hope that all of us in this House and in British Columbian would meet that challenge. It's going to be a tough one. I gave the example of what we have seen with seniors' poverty; we can do at least as well for the children.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious, listening to the minister talk about poverty in different groups in society, whether as a basis for that discussion the minister would indicate the kind of family income she sees as poverty. Does she agree with the federal stats on the definition of poverty? Now that she's had this portfolio for almost two years, has the minister had an opportunity to identify the income that would take a family of four, for example, marginally out of poverty? Where's the poverty line in B.C. for a family of four, a single parent and child, a senior? The minister has talked about a number of different groups in society, and perhaps she could give us her definition of poverty so that we understand what she's talking about.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The debate around redefining the poverty line is a very interesting debate, one that the Tories are embroiled in as we speak. It seems that Canada got a bit of a black eye through the UN and the work that was done internationally around the level of poverty in different countries. Rather than address the issues of poverty and the fact that so many children are going to school hungry here in Canada, the Tories decided to redefine the poverty line.
While I'm intrigued by the member's need to define poverty, let me just say that Canada's statistics use a low-income cutoff. The low-income cutoff line for StatsCan is where 60 percent of a family's income is taken up by their basic needs -- shelter and food costs. That low-income cutoff shows B.C. at 57 percent below the cutoff, so no matter what poverty line we want to use, the reality is that even with StatsCan's number, we're significantly below it. We know there are issues here. We know that many people on income assistance in this province fall far short of being able to meet their shelter costs, which means they're using the food money that should be going to their children to make up the rent.
[ Page 7533 ]
I welcome the member to the House. I'll fill him in on some of the previous discussions.
J. Weisgerber: We've heard a lot of talk but very few answers. I'm not particularly interested in what the Tories are talking about in Ottawa. We're here in Victoria in the Legislature, doing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services, and that is the jurisdiction that's important to me. It's the important jurisdiction for the purpose of the debates in the Legislature. If the minister wants to start talking about the need to address poverty and the failure to address poverty, and perhaps her failure to address the needs of people in poverty, surely to goodness you have to have an identifiable poverty line. The minister talks about it being 60 percent of basic needs. Does this mean that the poverty line in B.C. varies in each community and in each neighbourhood in the community? Is the minister unwilling or unable to identify a poverty line? She is critical of the federal government because it has established a poverty line that she disagrees with, but she is unwilling or unable to identify the poverty line that she agrees with.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The debate around the poverty line is a little bit like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; it's completely academic. It's completely irrelevant for those people who can't house or feed their children, never mind clothe them or provide them with the kind of support that would break the cycle of poverty. I'm not particularly interested in the debate. I have quoted for you the information from StatsCan, which provides a measurement acknowledging what people need to be able to meet their basic needs. StatsCan statistics show a different poverty line depending on the cost of where you are living, so that changes from area to area. I'm sure a member who serves the north is well aware that the cost of living in the north is considerably different from the cost of living in the city of Vancouver. I'm a little intrigued by your confusion around the fact that poverty is different depending on the cost of living where you live.
I and this government are more interested in an action plan that puts people back to work and supports people in full citizenship in the workplace so they can make enough money to be self-sufficient than I am in a debate about what the poverty line is. We need to invest in the talent that is being marginalized because of the economic restructuring that is going on. We have to focus on getting people back to work.
J. Weisgerber: One of the nice things about estimates debate is that it's not so much what the minister is interested in debating, it's what the members of the Legislature are interested in debating. So I can understand her reluctance to want to talk about this issue. Certainly for her to say that her government is interested in putting more people back to work sounds very nice, until you examine the fact that the costs of her ministry have increased by $450 million a year to $900 million a year more now than when she first took over as Minister of Social Services. So there must be a great deal of dissatisfaction in her government over its failure to reach the goals that she's identified, because clearly the budget for her ministry is proof of the failure to deal in any way with those goals.
[7:15]
Having sat in the House and listened to her talk about the poverty line and the need to deal with the poverty in British Columbia, I found it most interesting that she now says the poverty line is irrelevant and that she doesn't care about or pay any attention to the poverty line. Indeed, her own comments in the Legislature earlier would suggest that that's not the case. It wasn't I who brought this debate to the House. Having listened to the minister refer time after time to the poverty line and the need to bring people above the poverty line, I was moved to ask her what that line was. Unfortunately, I didn't receive any kind of an answer. It seems to me that only by identifying this government's interpretation of poverty -- region by region, community by community -- can we know whether the minister has had any success in dealing with poverty and have some sense of her goals. But the minister is very evasive on this topic. It's not the first time she's been asked, and I suppose it's not the last time we'll pursue the issue, because it's important for everybody involved to know what goals the minister has and what criteria we're talking about when we talk about poverty.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm always pleased to enter into debate with that member. It's just unfortunate it has taken him so long to enter into the debate -- indeed, to be in the House for me to provide him with some information so that he can enter the debate in an informed fashion. If the member had been in the House for the estimates this afternoon, he would have known that when the question around the poverty line was brought to the floor, it came from the opposition. My explanation to the opposition around the poverty line and poverty statistics is that if we used StatsCan, we'd be at 40 percent below the poverty line. That was not within the mandate of this government to be able to address, nor did we have the ability to address it. Instead, to repeat my earlier comment, this government has chosen an action plan to invest in people and put them back into the workplace, towards self-sufficiency, in a successful fashion so that they can stay attached to the workplace for the longest time possible and support themselves.
Mr. Member, I don't believe that this ministry owns the problem; it's a societal problem, and it's going to take cooperation and partnership from a number of different sources to be able to address the issues of poverty. For the member to ask what the poverty line is detracts from the debate. We've got work to do here, Mr. Member, and that work is to ensure that people on income assistance have opportunities to be successful and support themselves and their families. The only way we can do that is to ensure and recognize the interface with the economy and provide a livable wage and opportunities, particularly in communities where there are few opportunities at this time.
In addition to that, I want to just put the member's comments into a little broader perspective. The member
[ Page 7534 ]
seems to feel that we are an island unto ourselves here in British Columbia, but it couldn't be any farther from the truth. What is happening in other provinces -- in very conservative Alberta right to the east of us, with caseload pressures of 21 percent, Mr. Member -- speaks to the fact that we in this province are doing very well at a time of global economic restructuring and recognizing the impacts of technological change, free trade and policies of the federal government, as well as the legacy that has been left to us in this province by the previous administration because of their economic policies around resource management and a number of other restructuring issues.
The fact of the matter is that it is because of our proactive stance of investing in people, turning them around and giving them an opportunity for a successful re-entry into the workplace wherever possible, that we have been able to hold that caseload growth down. It is because of that partnering with the Economic Development and Advanced Education ministries and with our B.C. 21 initiative that we have put in place this year -- the first year where we see a government making a commitment to partnering social and economic goals for this province -- that we are going to begin to see a real option of the politics of hope, Mr. Member, rather than blaming the victim.
J. Weisgerber: Only in British Columbia, and only with an NDP government, could you possibly have a minister who has a 17 percent increase in her caseload stand up and say: "We are doing very well." It is truly an incredible statement by a minister whose budget is up $900 million to suggest that we're doing very well and it's only because of the actions of a government two or three years ago that we have that problem. The reality is that under that previous government, welfare costs in this province were $900 million lower than they are today. The fact is that caseloads were significantly less than they are today. For the minister to stand up in this House and say, "We are doing very well, thank you. Our caseload is only up 17 percent this year, and our budget is only $900 million more than it was when we took office. Aren't we doing a wonderful job?" could only happen here, and it could only happen with this government.
Back to my original question. The minister says that we are 40 percent below the poverty line. By "we," I assume she is referring to social service recipients. If she has that figure, surely she must know the number to which she is making the comparison: 40 percent below what poverty line? Do you disagree with the one that the federal government and StatsCan have developed? Is that the number you are working with? If you disagree with the StatsCan figures, then either tell us in this House what your figures are -- the figures that you agree with -- or table the government's version. Surely you can't have it both ways. Surely you can't disagree with the StatsCan numbers without being willing to put forward the numbers that you do agree with.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The numbers I have quoted are from the low-income cutoff, which are StatsCan's measurement. It has been referred to as a poverty line for Canada. My point to the member is that whether you use the low-income cutoff line through StatsCan or any other poverty line -- and there are a number in Canada -- the fact is that we are considerably below any one of those. The low-income cutoff for StatsCan is a measurement of income where 60 percent of a person's income is spent on basics: food and shelter. Using the low-income cutoff through StatsCan, the statistics show that poverty in British Columbia is more significant than in any other province, and that has everything to do with the cost of living in this province. Because this province is strong, the cost of living is commensurate with that, in that some people are doing quite well and other people are bearing the brunt of that cost of living in that kind of an economy.
My point for the member is that rather than talk about which poverty line, which measurement, the fact is that there is undisputed poverty in this province. My goal -- and this government's objective -- is to address that poverty, and I would hope that the member would embrace that as a goal also. I would hope that rather than debating what poverty line, what measurement, what philosophy, that we get on with the job. That is the task that we all should embrace, and whether we're talking about children living in poverty -- a full third of the caseload, Mr. Member, and I'm not sure that you understand that.... One-third of all the people on income assistance are children. Think what legacy that is bringing to this province. Think what that will mean to the next generation, not only in wasted potential, but in real cost of taxpayers' dollars.
This government isn't interested in an academic debate around which poverty line. I think it's fair to say that poverty exists and that it is a reflection of a number of factors, which are not disputed across Canada.
For the member's information, I shared with the government's critic some references from a meeting of ministers from across Canada, from a number of different governments, ideologies and political perspectives, who all agreed that they, too, were being driven by the same economic restructuring and economic pressures; and they, too, were having the same kinds of pressures brought to bear on cost-drivers for their ministries and caseloads. It was recognized that the initiative and leadership provided by this government in giving more proactive support to get people back into the workplace was the only way to go.
J. Weisgerber: It seems to me that if the minister is interested in getting people back into the workforce, we could have a debate around a whole series of economic initiatives that might have been taken by this government and that this government has miserably failed at in its 18 months in office. But I don't think that's what we're here to debate today. I'd be quite happy to debate the economic performance of this government.
I am trying to get a handle on the minister's approach to poverty vis-�-vis social assistance. Is it the intent to raise social assistance? Is it the intent to identify a more realistic poverty line? Is the minister suggesting that she is going to be satisfied with social assistance payments that are only 60 percent of the
[ Page 7535 ]
amount of money needed to live? I don't understand the purpose of the minister's debate in her early references to poverty. That was the whole point of trying to determine what measure the minister was using. The only thing I can learn from this is that she believes that welfare rates have to be substantially increased. Is that the point?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll take the opportunity to state again that the point is that welfare is no panacea. People need to be working and participating as full citizens in the economic health and well-being of this province. Those are the goals and objectives of our government. There is also a recognition that everyone on income assistance cannot benefit by those opportunities and that those people should be supported and have their needs met.
[7:30]
This government, not only because of the pressures we face but also because of the pressures the social safety net is facing across Canada, cannot meet those needs. Mr. Member, I'm not going to duck from that. That is a reality. In previous debates with your government, your ministers excused income assistance rates, making the point that they couldn't raise them because they would encourage people to come to this province or that they were adequate enough. I challenged them then, so I'm not about to defend them now. The fact is that income assistance rates do not meet basic needs. The only option I see, as a government member, is to try to support people back into the workplace so that they can support themselves. Welfare is not the answer.
J. Weisgerber: According to the minister's own statement, many people on social assistance are there because they're not employable, and they can't be taken back into the workforce. The minister said that she's not going to duck the issue, but essentially that's exactly what she has done. The reality is that no matter how many jobs are created or what kind of employment climate might be created -- probably by another government -- there is still going to be a significant number of people on social assistance. The minister says she's not going to duck that issue, but she certainly hasn't answered that issue; she hasn't made her position clear. Is the minister saying that welfare rates are 40 percent lower than they should be?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have never been challenged on my communication skills. Let me again state for the member that I believe income assistance rates are inadequate, in particular for those people who are disabled, the unemployables. Very obviously, when 55 percent of our caseload are unable to meet their shelter cost, significant numbers of people are challenged by the low income assistance rates. Using StatsCan's own numbers as the low-income cutoff, many anti-poverty and social planning advocacy groups have lobbied us to increase the income assistance rates to meet StatsCan's poverty line. The cost of doing that would be $3.6 billion, hon. member. Not only can this government not afford it, but I don't think it's the answer.
People on welfare want to work; they want to be a part of the community and to participate in its economic well-being. We have directed our efforts to support them in their efforts. It will take partnership, because this ministry cannot solve the problem in and of itself. But we can find solutions if the people of this province get to the point where they too are appalled at the depth of poverty and are themselves challenged, as we are in this government. If we can involve even your party in that challenge, hon. member, then I believe we will have the kinds of opportunities to decrease the pressure on income assistance caseloads and meet the challenges of providing a standard of living for those people that are unable to take advantage or participate in the workplace. I think that should be a goal we all embrace. But the fact is, given the fiscal realities governments generally face and the economic challenges we all face together, it is going to take that kind of dual strategy to be able to meet people's needs.
V. Anderson: I would like to follow up on this line of questioning for a few minutes just to clarify it on two counts. Earlier, the minister said fairly clearly that she wants to put a focus on getting people back into the workplace. Most people would agree with that focus for those who are able to do so. That would be a prospect and a line of hope for that particular group of people. The other group of people though, who we also acknowledged earlier, will not get into the workplace because it's just not physically possible for them to do so. I think we need to give them some kind of assurance. The minister has just commented that these people need to maintain a standard of living. Will these people have to wait until everybody else gets into the workplace in order to get a higher standard of living than they have at the moment? Or do the people who will not be getting into the workplace because of a physical or mental handicap have some prospect of moving towards an advancement in their condition in the near future?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The acknowledgment of that reality is reflected in the fee structure: unemployable people get marginally more than those who are employable, and people who are disabled get marginally more than those who are unemployable. That structure reflects the fact that they are long-term placements on income assistance and have special needs. Again, I'm going to say that that rate structure, while it is staggered and provides additional support for those people, does not meet their needs. They are challenged to try to live at those rates.
The fact is, Mr. Member, that we have not been able to enhance people's standard of living on income assistance. We have not been able, and are not likely to be able, to improve those individuals' reality, given the pressures on the system to meet basic and immediate needs of the large number of people who have been marginalized, as I said, by that global economic restructuring that is impacting us all. It is part of the challenge that we have to look at as a society. We have to look not only at income assistance but at taxation and the tax system. Look at the provincial tax structure and
[ Page 7536 ]
the way our government tried to shift to a fair taxation system versus what the Tories have done by taxing people at a very low income rate. Those are some of the debates we have to have at a national level as well.
As I said, there are a number of opportunities for us, but I don't think we can meet them by keeping our heads in the sand and not naming the reality. While I regret not being able to increase the rates for people with disabilities, the fact is that increased financial resources are not there to be able to do that.
V. Anderson: There have been a number of discussions about a system moving in that direction. Moving into a tax credit system or something of that nature -- shifting the system right around, rather than increasing the amount of money that goes out in payments on a monthly basis -- is perhaps one that has received more credibility than others. When you talk about fairness in the tax structure, we often think about taking more money from people at the high-income end. But it does not benefit people at the low-income end on an equal basis. I wonder if some consideration has been given to the possibility of shifting a tax credit into the tax structure, which the federal government began to do and then backed away from somewhat. Is it possible to study this process further?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The income assistance review that we announced in January is now underway in this province and is partnered by the Ministry of Finance. The work we have done with the other provinces and the federal government is being paralleled by the ministries of finance across Canada as well. We are looking at a comprehensive review of all our income assistance programs in British Columbia -- as I said, with Finance and Treasury Board -- and that is being paralleled by a national agenda. The tax system is being looked at, as well as the myriad of programs that make up the social safety net.
V. Anderson: I'm sure that the community at large needs to be reminded that that is happening and presumably, that you would be pleased to receive their comments as you move ahead in that area.
Coming back to some other concerns that people have expressed, one that comes up repeatedly, which we discussed earlier, is the question of affordable and acceptable housing. You did mention that some planning was being undertaken with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but is there any kind of pattern? As I mentioned earlier, whether you're a single person on $325 for housing, a family or a senior, housing seems to be one of the major concerns that people are facing. Is there any light or direction, other than saying that the federal government has reneged on their responsibilities, which doesn't help anybody? Is there any community plan or encouragement to municipalities to take some responsibility, in cooperation with the Ministry of Social Services and other ministries, to come to grips with this? The co-op housing has been an excellent program, but it seems to be in abeyance at the moment, and something in this direction would be most helpful.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member will have to pursue that line of questioning with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Housing is the responsibility of that ministry. The only comment I would like to make is that the government is really very pleased and encouraged by the policy work being done by that ministry, and we're optimistic that we will see new directions in this province.
V. Anderson: One of the main concerns with housing has to do with the deposit and the fact that if landlords get an indication that people are on welfare they seem to take advantage of it in one way or another. If there is an increase in welfare and housing, the rents go up proportionately. Is there any way that the minister, through rental review or some kind of process in cooperation with the other ministries, could confront that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, we have been in consultation with the minister responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act around options for a review of the legislation. In addition, we ourselves are reviewing the policies of our program for security deposits, as we are reviewing all the policies that are part of the program for independence.
V. Anderson: Another question that comes up is the relationship between the government, the food banks and Social Services. For many years there has been a concern that there is no cooperation or even consultation between the food bank program and the government. In previous times I know that there was very little, if any, cooperation or consultation. At the same time, many of the people who are coming to the food banks have found that when they go to Social Services offices they are in effect referred to the food bank, and they have no other alternative. It seems to me that this lack of community planning among the government, social services and food banks needs to be confronted and brought together in a formal review, so that this kind of counter system does not have to.... It does not meet the need. It's not even a good band-aid, although it's better than nothing. Just as the government has cooperated with the food program in the schools, which has had an excellent result, could it not also be done for parents and families and others within the community?
[7:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not altogether sure what the member is asking. I think there's an acknowledgment that communities have responded to need by providing some support through food banks. I think there is also a recognition of our responsibility as a ministry to meet need wherever possible. To the best of our ability we try to meet that need in a number of different ways, whether it's through crisis grants for food, natal diet allowances or special diet needs, when those needs can be demonstrated to a financial assistance officer. Through those initiatives -- within the fiscal realities that we face as a ministry -- we deal
[ Page 7537 ]
with individuals to the best of our ability as those needs arise.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the difficulty, but in the spirit the ministry has exercised of consulting and listening to people, it would seem to me that here is a group of people -- the majority of whom are volunteers in the community -- who have something to share and to say. It might be worthwhile having a consultation and bringing together the people involved in food banks with ministry people for an exchange of views and an opportunity to hear each other out and at least come to an understanding, if not an agreement. I just throw that out, because I think it could be a very important and helpful direction in which to go.
As I look at this particular comment, I stress what we have heard so often. On the one hand, new compliments are coming to the ministry because of programs the ministry has undertaken to meet needs that had not been met before. On the other hand, there is a comment that the Ministry of Social Services is getting harsher with clients. As a result, because of the overload or as a result of directives from the ministry, this has been more noticeable since the NDP government came to office. We are getting both points of view, and I think it's always good to hear both. This one particularly compliments the NDP in the sense that it was the first government in recent years to give support to advocacy groups, to enable them to meet and, in a sense, to bring the confrontation of the people to the government itself.
Another area that has been raised, as the minister has commented, is that of improving day care facilities as an opportunity for people to get back to work. Apart from formal day care facilities, does the ministry have any suggestions for helping people -- through baby-sitting services or cooperative undertakings -- who are trying to access the opportunities that the ministry is making available to them? Single parents are finding that having a break from the children for a time is an important element in their well-being. Besides the formal day care program, are there any other programs that the ministry is developing that might lessen the burden, particularly on single parents?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am sure the member is well aware that this government has a strong commitment to day care and has profiled that commitment by its support for the Ministry of Women's Equality. The Ministry of Women's Equality is given the task of developing and enhancing day care spaces and policy development, and our ministry works very supportively with their initiatives. This ministry currently has two programs that are part of the day care network: the special needs day care for children with disabilities and our day care subsidy program.
V. Anderson: Another concern is employment training. Providing information and support for persons beginning their own businesses is one area that has been raised in here and in a number of other cases. There's a new focus on people being able to run a business out of their own home, even while they're looking after their family, and beginning to develop that whole undertaking. Women particularly have been very adept at moving in this direction. I'm wondering if within your training and opportunity programs there is a possibility for people to take a program or course or to enter into the process of gaining assistance in developing their own small business -- or for two or three of them to go in together -- with some supportive expertise.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just for the member's information, there are federal programs that target that specific client group or interest, if you will. One of the things we have underway is that we're looking in particular at our partnering with the Ministry of Economic Development around regional initiatives and community development options. We have been talking to different community groups about ways we can design programs that support individual and group initiatives. One of the things that I found most interesting was a meeting that I had with the leadership of the IWA. They were talking about some of the impacts in smaller, single-industry towns, where the single industries automated the plants in their entirety, shifting from complete or dual shifts of 300 workers each to shifts of two and three people pushing computers. The IWA local had worked with local management in looking for options around employment creation. Interestingly enough, the local management was quite interested once the union had identified real options. Unfortunately, when local management referred those suggestions to their headquarters in New Zealand, New Zealand said they were in the business of creating wealth and profits, rather than creating jobs and therefore nixed those suggestions. In our discussions we looked for ways of supporting that talent. We obviously have some very resourceful people in those communities, and government is interested in meeting those human resources, to deal with the challenges of job creation and ensuring that those people are not marginalized.
We've had very interesting discussions with a number of groups. Last weekend we met with a group that represented credit unions, the trade union movement and the cooperative movement. A federal-provincial task force on cooperatives and a secretariat have been set up by the federal government exploring cooperatives as a tool for getting people back to work. We've begun that exploration ourselves. We're interested in any option, and we are exploring all options in providing support for people in communities where many of them don't feel that they have a lot of support or options.
R. Neufeld: I have just a couple of questions that go back to the Liberal critic's questions about housing. I would think that the removal in the last budget of the renter's tax reduction is certainly going to affect the Ministry of Social Services to a great amount -- some millions of dollars. I don't know the exact number, but it is quite sizable. I wonder if the ministry has done any studies or has any information as to the impact that's going to have on her ministry and her budget in the upcoming years.
[ Page 7538 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: No.
R. Neufeld: That's interesting. I would assume you were in on the discussions about removing that from the budget. It's a sizable amount. As I say, it's going to affect your ministry more than any other. The idea that you're going to go out and build homes for low-income people.... It's going to take a number of years. So it amazes me that the minister wouldn't have any information on the effect that's going to have on the ministry, because I would think it's going to have a tremendous effect. Or would that number already be figured into the increase of some $400 million in your budget this year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As to whether we have statistical information on the impact, my response was absolutely right on: we do not have that statistical information. But for the member's own information, the tax credit was not recovered by the ministry; it was a flow-through to clients. So it would not directly impact.... There were no cost savings to the ministry; it was cost-neutral. So it's altogether realistic that we have not tried to calculate the impact.
R. Neufeld: Tax credit or not, obviously clients of the Ministry of Social Services are going to need more money for rent now, so it's going to affect you in one way or another.
One other question: could the minister tell me if the SAFER program is still in place; and if it is, if the rent subsidies to seniors have increased at all in the last two years?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The program is under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for the information about the meeting of the credit union, the co-ops and the other groups. It's very encouraging to know that's underway. I hope we'll be hearing more about that as it develops, because I think that's a very important way to go.
[8:00]
When we were working with aboriginal people, many were in a situation very similar to what we're discussing here. One of the major obstacles for them was in getting a credit rating or finding anybody who would give them that kind of support. Some of the letters we received from people who were trying to establish a business to get themselves off social assistance said that that was the problem exactly: nobody would vouch for them; they were by themselves. They had the knowledge, the experience and the willingness, but there was no way to get that initial $25,000. In one case particularly, $25,000 was all it would have taken, and they would have been off social assistance very quickly.
We've had a number of cases come to us, so I'm glad that's underway. Hopefully they'll be looking at the possibility of supporting people in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Development or whoever. Some people need $25,000 to get an education over four years in order to get themselves off welfare. Other people need that $25,000 as credit backing or a guarantee in order to get the money that they would then borrow and pay interest on. They need that backing in order to get into a business. I'm not sure if the ministry would think about the possibility of using the money in a credit-backing way as over against an educational way, which would be the same amount of money. In fact, in the business way, I would suspect that the possibility of paying it back would be even greater. Would the ministry be willing to undertake some consideration of that other approach?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't know that anything I could offer the member with regard to that kind of question would be particularly productive. There is an acknowledgment that there is a need to invest in individuals, and the investment the ministry has provided, through various programs this government has initiated and is supporting, is a good indication of our commitment to that. I would simply say that we continue to look for ways to provide real options for people to succeed in self-sufficiency, in supporting themselves. If the member has a specific suggestion or would like to encourage others to provide suggestions, I would be very happy to explore those with him.
V. Anderson: A couple of these responses have emphasized what the minister herself has emphasized on a number of occasions -- I just commented on them -- stressing the concern for equality, not charity. When they stressed that concern, one of the questions -- and they are talking about maintenance payments in this particular case -- that went along with it was: is it fair that a person with one child can keep $100 of a maintenance payment, and a person with three or four youngsters can only keep $100? As the minister expressed earlier, it's a budget item, and the finance is over the fairness and equality of it. The question people are asking is: at what point does the equality or fairness aspect of it begin to overbalance, at least to some extent, the financial aspect of that conundrum?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would refer the member back to my earlier comments about the ad hoc nature of the system. The system poses a number of challenges. We have decided to do a comprehensive review of the income assistance system not only in an attempt to address some of the significant issues the member has raised but also to bring fairness and equity to the system. That will have to be done with the community and with as many of the players as possible, taxpayers and employers alike. That challenge will be one that will hopefully not only bring a rationale to the system and provide for that equity but also prioritize a game plan or a strategy, if you will: what areas we will address first, recognizing that most changes to the system cost money.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
V. Anderson: Earlier you discussed the question of people who have limited literacy, so I won't repeat
[ Page 7539 ]
that. It was raised in connection with the difficulty people with limited literacy have in, one, understanding the material currently available and, two, being able to deal with the forms that are available. They get themselves into difficulty because they misunderstand the monthly response forms -- and I have been in tribunals where this was the case -- and don't send them in or deal with them properly because of the difficulty with literacy. That is one area I trust you will continue to work on.
Another area that has been raised is the question of the homeless and how one is coping with this, with the understanding that you basically need an address someplace. The homeless person's address underneath a bridge is not usually taken as an address. What kind of substitute arrangement is made for these people?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member is aware that the ministry provides for emergency shelter through hostels or other accommodation and that wherever possible we would support an individual in a permanent address through that mechanism. Where there is no permanent address, that person does not qualify for shelter and therefore obtains only a very small portion of assistance from us. The number of shelters that we are continuing to invest in in this year's budget will provide over 670 spaces. The ministry provides temporary shelter for individuals through a number of different ways, whether it's safe homes or transition houses.
V. Anderson: One of the suggestions is that when you're looking at the review, there should be some integration of unemployment insurance and welfare or any of the sources of income that people have, both federal and provincial, and some cooperative relationship between those.
I'm trying not to repeat any of the concerns here, but a key aspect that people have reported is the maintenance program and that spouses who haven't been paying are being pursued. There is a concern for children in poverty, but there is also a concern that the program for independence has been difficult for many people to access. Is there a way to make the program for independence easier to access?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I would like to comment on your request for cooperation between the UI system and ours. I too have been calling for some cooperation from the federal government with respect to the unemployment insurance program, but unfortunately, what we're getting is more federal downloading.
With the last two changes in the policy of the unemployment insurance program, this province has seen an additional cost of $100 million a year. People who used to qualify for unemployment insurance now have no option but to fall back on income assistance to support themselves and their families. I call that pretty negative cooperation. When UI is a large component of the social safety net, we know that every time the federal government reacts, we suffer. Again, it has been a topic of discussion at a number of the provincial tables that I've been at, insisting that the federal government ensure the kind of partnership and cooperation that's necessary for the preservation and efficiency of that safety net. If there are issues that we can deal with around cost or efficiency savings, then that's what we should be talking about, rather than victimizing different levels of government or the individuals who rely on that safety net.
On the other question that you raised around the difficulty of accessing income assistance, my answer again would be that we are looking at all aspects of the system. I would remind the member that this whole debate today has fluctuated between "Spend more, spend more and spend more," and "Your ministry's the only one that has received an increase, so do something about the cost pressures." It's really a no-win situation. The people in the ministry who are working to serve communities are doing the best they can. As a government, we are trying to invest in and support those people doing their jobs. We're also reviewing to try to find efficiencies and more effective ways of serving those most in need, while at the same time recognizing that welfare is not the answer and that work is the answer.
V. Anderson: There's just one more in this series of questions from constituencies that I have been raising. This refers to a person who has been on GAIN and has also been a foster parent. She raises the question of the discrepancy between the amount of money which is available to care for a foster child, as opposed to a natural child. No doubt you have heard this question very often. I raise it because that question has been brought to me.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That is at the heart of the reform that we have underway in our family and children's services division. We recognize that the best place for a child is in his or her home. When a family is in crisis the best way we can support that is by providing family support programs. Not only is it more cost-effective, but in many cases it is in the best interest of the child. We also recognize that there are instances when a child is not safe or cannot stay in her home. For that reason we must provide the kind of safe and supportive environment that is at the heart of the foster care system in this province as well.
V. Anderson: The motto "Closer to Home" used by the Health ministry is very relevant to what we're talking about here. With regard to the care of families and homes, better as close to home as possible.
I want to comment briefly on "The Challenge of Change" booklet which the minister referred to earlier. It touches on a number of things that we've raised in the discussion today. I'm presuming that the minister, in putting it out, is asking for responses from the community, and that people, if they are aware that this is even available, can get a copy of it from the minister's office or from any of the Social Services offices. It does highlight a lot of what we discussed today, and I would hope that people might read it and respond to it.
[8:15]
[ Page 7540 ]
There's one particular item in its summary that I'm interested in. This is a quote: "For the first time the federal government will have the capacity to deliver a tax transfer benefit to Canadian families each month. We could use this mechanism to give low-income families more help, not less, and thereby begin to take nationwide action on the issue of child poverty." Would the minister be willing to flesh out that very good comment a little more?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There is a recognition that there are mechanisms available to government to help alleviate problems and possibly save some administrative duplication between the federal and provincial governments. "The Challenge of Change" paper very clearly lays this out. There's also a recognition that the system needs to be flexible. It needs to address people's immediate needs. The only concern we have around the exclusive use of the tax system is that it is not as flexible or responsive as necessary. People's circumstances change very quickly.
As a province, we are engaged in looking at a number of different vehicles. The tax credit is one of them. The federal government has also been involved in looking at those opportunities. The fact that they have put that vehicle in place is an indication of some of the things they may be thinking about. In looking at the system, as Canadians it will be very important for us to be involved in that review of the social safety net in a meaningful and substantive way. For people who rely on the social safety net, it would be very dangerous for us not to spend the kind of time necessary, and to deal with the substantive issues that evolve. It's not going to be a quick fix; it's going to take us collectively putting our heads to it.
V. Anderson: In looking at the organization of the ministry, we realize that there are the ten regions; then there are the two special ministries with provincial resource responsibilities, on the one hand, and the after-hours response team on the other hand. A number of ministries are talking about regional economic development as it relates to regionalization. School boards are talking about regionalization. And there is an overlapping of regional groups of different sizes throughout the province for the different ministries. Is there some discussion between the ministries about rationalizing this -- as well as some common services -- so that each ministry is not doing their own thing? In many ways the Ministry of Health and particularly the Ministry of Social Services have more closer-to-home ministry functions than most others, and probably touch more people directly than any of the others in that regard. It seems to me that that is key to that kind of functioning. Has the minister any comment about what's happening in that regard?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry is probably the most decentralized in the government. We have people in each and every community in this province. Our social workers and financial assistance workers, or any other of our front-line workers, are very much part of the communities of this province.
It is very clear to government that there is a need to integrate services, that in government we can complement the number of interministry initiatives, and that it will be in our interest to do things smarter. By using two separate vehicles, we have begun those discussions. We currently co-chair an ADMs' committee with the Ministry of Economic Development, which brings many of those community development initiatives together. This enables most senior levels of government to ensure that ministries cooperate and support each other in their initiatives at the local level.
In addition to that, we are part of the child and youth committee of government, where a number of ministries come together for services for families and children. I am sure that the member is aware of the child and youth committees. They have set up comparable structures throughout the province, and they work quite effectively in supporting community initiatives in support of families. CYC -- child and youth committees -- was an initiative of the previous government, and our government is now looking at the mandate of those committees to further enhance our desire to ensure cooperative action at the local level.
V. Anderson: Having dealt with those kinds of general questions across the board, I would like to go through the outline of the organization of the ministry and through some of the programs related to financial and other ministry planning -- the program outline. I appreciate the kind of guideline that the ministry gave us in preparing for these estimates. I would also like to look at ministry operations and various departments -- services for families, community support services, social assistance, services for seniors -- to look at those programs in an orderly fashion and get highlights and an overview from that point of view.
Looking just briefly at the minister's office, we noticed that in the overall budget there's just a $6,000 difference between one year and the next, but within that we noticed a number of changes -- a decrease, if I remember rightly, on buildings and offices, offset by an increase of staff in the office. Could you explain whether the minister's office has become larger or smaller in staff? The minister expected this one, and I didn't want to disappoint her.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm just a little confused. I wasn't sure that I had buildings and offices in my ministry's vote. Maybe you could help me with that.
V. Anderson: I was trying to discover if there had been any major shift within the minister's office this year in staff or in programming. I know the major work is done outside the office, but since it's a budget by itself, we'll just talk about it briefly and then move on.
Hon. J. Smallwood: If I can lead up to some of the questions that I'm sure will follow, the vote for the minister's office has increased this year. Last year's expenditure for our office's blue book figure was significantly less. We underspent our budget last year. The increase in the restated estimates reflects
[ Page 7541 ]
across-the-board salary increases for all of government. Our office, at this point, has no vacancies.
V. Anderson: One item that I noticed within the minister's office is a $1.5 million increase in salary costs, if I'm understanding my figures right. I wasn't aware of a director's office in the multiculturalism area. I wonder about that multicultural director's office budget of $580,000.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That office has been developed because of the good work in our ministry around an initiative, which we talked about last year, that brought cultural experts, people who work in the ministry at different levels, together to advise us on how to develop culturally appropriate services for all of the ministry. We have taken the recommendations from that task group and established an office. From that office we will be developing a training program for staff around the province. The office includes four full-time FTEs.
V. Anderson: To follow that one up for a few minutes, I presume that office has a direct relationship to multiculturalism in the Ministry of Education. I understand it is part of an interministry multicultural committee. Are there particular programs that would come out of that combined undertaking through the multicultural division of the Ministry of Education, as well as the combined multicultural committee of the government?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We're very proud of the work and leadership our ministry has provided. For the member's own information, "Multiculturalism: Towards Cultural Competence" is the report developed by our ministry's advisory committee on multiculturalism. The acting director for multiculturalism within the ministry sits on the government committee. He has provided a great deal of insight, I believe, stemming from the work that our advisory council did in this past year. The work has not only been an asset to our ministry in providing the guidance necessary for us to address the changing faces of British Columbia, but it has also provided support through our initiatives to the government's overall work.
V. Anderson: Yes, I appreciated the report, "Towards Cultural Competence." I think that's an excellent direction to go. I would be interested to know if follow-up reports have come out that might be shared with other groups. I know they would also be interested.
I'm wondering if you could tell us who this person is. I gather it's an acting director of that program at the moment.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The acting director has developed a pilot training program that will be implemented in our ministry for ministry staff. Interestingly enough, that pilot training program has been used by a number of community groups as well. It's very well respected.
For the member's information, the acting director for multicultural services in the ministry is Mr. Charan Gill. He's a long-term employee. I believe he's been with the ministry for about 25 years and has been a real asset in pulling this work together.
V. Anderson: Another program I noticed is the career enhancement program for $600,000. I'm wondering if you might comment on that program and its particular focus and direction at this point. I gather it is a new program, as well as the multiculturalism program.
Hon. J. Smallwood: This particular program is targeted to a classification called OA2. It's administrative support, and predominantly women working in our ministry. It is both for backfill and enhanced training for those women.
V. Anderson: I notice that if you take those up you've got an 11 percent increase in the program. Just taking these out as we go along, with the $900 million that one other member was talking about as the increase in service programming, we finally get some awareness of how much is used within the ministry and how much actually gets out to people in the community -- even though the service is on their behalf.
[8:30]
Services for families and children is the next area before us. We do see a significant increase in funding within this, and the $7 million increase in the area of program management seems to be the first. I was curious to know where the larger part of this might have been. Almost half of the $5.32 million seems to be in preventive family support and community panel implementation. I am presuming that is the development of the family panel that brought forth some of these reports, but I'm curious to know what the nature of that implementation is for the $5 million plus.
Hon. J. Smallwood: A number of different categories fall into that, whether it's research, backfill FTEs or the actual development of initiatives flowing from the panel report.
V. Anderson: Are you saying that that $5 million is actually in research and studies; it's not in actual services to families or in the implementation of programs or activities?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, a very small amount is actually for research. Most of the money is actually for backfill FTEs, to enable staff to access training -- a number of issues like that.
V. Anderson: I was having a hard time hearing the minister. I realize that we've had a long day, so I understand that. My hearing isn't as good as it should be, so take that into account.
Are we saying that most of that $5 million is for new FTEs -- which I think I heard you say -- for new staff? If so, could I ask where those new staff members are
[ Page 7542 ]
being placed and how many you got for $5 million, to get some kind of balance within that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: When I referenced backfill FTEs, those are for our regular staff to access and take advantage of some of the training initiatives underway. To enhance our provision of service and the ability to make the transition to a new way of doing things in our ministry, we need to fill those positions. With a ministry this big, that kind of flexibility costs money. It enables people to come in and fill jobs. As well, as I said, a variety of smaller initiatives are covered, including research. But for the most part, it is for backfill FTEs, to enable people to go on training.
V. Anderson: I hadn't caught the word "backfill," so I didn't quite understand what you were saying. I'm sorry about that.
I have a brief comment about service delivery operating cost pressures. With the way it's worded, I'm just curious to know what the implication of those "cost pressures" is, other than the normal.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Costs under that category include increased pressures for building occupancy, office costs and operating costs for staff.
V. Anderson: Something I realize I missed in the earlier questions has to do with new furniture that was provided for a new office that opened. They wished that some of the furniture that came out of that office had been made available to families on low incomes. I don't have the location of that, but that was a comment they referred back to us for this occasion.
If we move on to family support services, there's an increase of $12 million in this particular area. Of that $12 million, it lists $9.338 million for annualization development and new funding for family support services programs. I'm wondering what that $9.3 million increase in family support services is for, what is being accomplished with it and why it's there in the first place.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Out of the $12.28 million, there are a number of different categories. On the annualization of money that was allocated last year, because of implementation it was slow to get off the ground, so we actually funded a smaller number of months. It is to annualize the full cost of those programs, annualization of the first stage of wage parity, and new funding for second-stage wage parity and the community panel. There is some additional family support money and new money for respite care, aboriginal service and residential abuse counselling.
V. Anderson: For the record, you might want to comment on wage parity and the reason that it's involved. I notice that it adds up to about $17 million as you go through the ministry. If you apply it to other ministries, then you're probably looking at $170 million to $200 million in total. It might be useful to clarify that at this point.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can assure the member that there's no $100 million in wage parity across ministries. I'm sure the community sector would be thrilled if there was, but there isn't.
The wage parity money is targeted to the community sector in particular. The community sector provides services for the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Women's Equality, the Ministry of Health and ourselves. It is widely recognized -- indeed, the program began under the previous administration -- that the community sector's wages are significantly below comparable wages in the institutional sector. There has been an attempt to deal with those inequities among the service deliverers in the community sector on two fronts, to stabilize service to our clients and to ensure that the people who are serving our clients can be supported by government, with some human resource development issues around training and stabilization.
V. Anderson: Within the area of family support services, has there been an increase in FTEs? I didn't quite catch it when you went quickly over some of the major programs that were highlighted here, and I would appreciate it if you would say them a little more slowly. You mentioned aboriginal and some others.
Hon. J. Smallwood: All of the family support services money is program dollars. There are no FTEs per se. It is for the provision of service, and it's delivered by community agencies. I will go through the different categories for you again. There are two annualization components annualizing the development funding and the first stage of wage equity; new funding for wage parity, second stage; new funding for community panel; new funding for respite care, aboriginal services and residential abuse counselling. The community panel would be family support money.
V. Anderson: If I heard you right, there is new funding for respite, aboriginal and abuse counselling. Is this additional funding to programs that were already in place, to extend and enlarge them, or are they completely new programs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would add to your list the community panel or family support. It's a bit of a mixed bag in that some of it is enhancement of existing programs and some is for new programs. That would depend a great deal on the varied needs of the regions.
V. Anderson: Since I gather you're responding in this to regional requests and initiatives, could you indicate the majority of the kinds of requests or initiatives in these areas that are coming forth? For instance, is the aboriginal primarily from band-related areas, urban communities or both? Is the abuse counselling coming from right across the province, and are you doing that in cooperation with the Health ministry's alcohol and drug education? Are these fairly widespread across the province, or are different areas focusing on different programs?
[ Page 7543 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The requests are initiated in communities with our local offices. The way that our ministry builds the budget is that the requests come in and then they're sorted out. Once we have the budget allocations from Treasury Board, that process goes back into the regions, where the money is allocated. Among a variety of requests submitted from local communities, it's a matter of trying to prioritize the amount of money. Obviously the money that is voted nowhere near matches the requests from communities for enhancement of services, but I think the targeting of these particular programs reflects the priorities that we hear from communities across the province.
V. Anderson: I notice that there are both grants and contributions. Just for clarity, could you explain why there's a difference between the two?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The difference between the two is that grants are payments to individuals and the others are purchases of services.
V. Anderson: When you say purchases of services from organizations, are you actually purchasing their services to do something the ministry wants to do rather than giving them a grant to undertake a program inherent to their organization? Does that mean you would be one of the groups purchasing services from an organization, which would be doing other things, or are you underwriting the main operation of particular community groups?
[8:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member has the supplement to the estimates. If you refer to page 119, there's a definition of grants and contributions there.
V. Anderson: Thank you.
If we look at children-in-care services.... Before I go on to that, is family support services the area in which you're primarily giving care to families who are having difficulties and problems? Are these the programs whereby workers go into their homes and meet them, so that this would be a primary program area for family-building?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: Since this is the primary program that supports and builds families, how many of the workers are available to actually go into the home and spend time giving respite and letting the parents go out, or counselling the parents or the children and helping them to become a more effective family? How much of this involves the parents or the family coming out of the home to an office or some other place? How much direct in-home involvement is there in family services? I know last year we discussed a movement in that direction.
Hon. J. Smallwood: These services are all contracted at this time. The length of time and/or the relationship with the family is dealt with on an individual basis.
V. Anderson: I guess what I'm asking, then, is: what are the terms of the contracts? What are the guidelines of the contracts and the kinds of services that are expected to be provided by these contracts? There must be outlines and guides.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to go back to the purpose of the family support work that is done. It recognizes that families are under stress. It is preventive work with the intention of supporting those families before the crisis becomes such that family breakdown is inevitable or that the children are in need of protection. Recognizing that that is the work, one would then understand that circumstances differ from family to family, from community to community. The contracts are flexible enough to meet family needs and are specific to family needs, or to the needs of the child that the ministry has become involved with. The contracts are designed in such a way as to provide the flexibility to be family-specific.
V. Anderson: The question I would raise, then, is about the referrals of these families. Presumably some families would come to the ministry themselves and ask for the referral; other families would perhaps come from school counsellors, from financial aid workers or from physicians. Is there a source of referrals of these families in the community -- different groups that would make referrals to these services and would then follow up the referrals? I'm wondering how the contacts are made.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The referrals come in a number of ways. You've listed many of them: schools or professionals who may have some concern around the safety of a child. Those are child protection referrals, and there are a number of categories: abuse, neglect or.... The ministry is legally obliged to investigate those reported concerns and can respond in a number of ways. In the past the ministry had very limited resources, other than to respond in a protection mode or to decide not to; it had the option. Of course, if it decided not to and something happened to the child, obviously significant concerns would be raised.
The reform work we have underway and the changes we are supporting are in giving the ministry additional tools, if you will, to carry out its tasks, recognizing that there may be opportunities to provide respite care, child care services or a variety of family support services to a family, in the hope that with that kind of community support the family can deal with the stresses that are underway. We offer a wide variety of support programs, everything from parenting classes through to respite or programs for young teens. At this time we're hearing from our front-line workers that with the change in focus, there are instances where in the past they would have had to apprehend the child, but with these additional options they are able to support the family. As I said, those are very cost-effective initiatives as well as a recognition that the
[ Page 7544 ]
children are often better off in their homes in a supported fashion than in the care of the state.
V. Anderson: I would agree wholeheartedly that they're better off in the home. I remember a person commenting to me once that it was better to have an imperfect father than to have no father at all. So there are certain responsibilities.
There are two things with the change of focus. In the past there has been -- and it continues to some extent in the present -- a distrust of the Ministry of Social Services as a government institution. The fear was that once they got their hands on you you couldn't get away, and whatever happened became a public rather than a private concern. There was a confidentiality concern that your name got into a file that would be held against you. What kind of confidentiality protections are there so that people can see their files, understand what's in the files, have the files corrected and, when they're finished doing their work with the ministry, have those files removed?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure that in his work with his constituents the member has come across situations where it has been very difficult to access information on behalf of a constituent because of the confidentiality provisions of the act. As a ministry we are very aware of our responsibility in serving the people who rely on us to protect their confidentiality. As a minister I'm not able to talk about the specifics of any case. It puts the ministry in a particularly difficult position, as the member knows, when people choose to go to the media and we are unable to respond and tell our side of the provision of service.
Given that, and in recognition of the strict provisions within the legislation, the government has also embraced the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and is acting as if that act has been proclaimed. This ensures that individuals have access to their personal files as well as an opportunity through the information and privacy commissioner, once the act is proclaimed, to deal with any problems they may have with their files. So there are a number of safeguards, in both the GAIN legislation and the Family and Child Service Act, to guard and protect the privacy of clients.
R. Neufeld: The minister talked about the different programs that are in family support services. I think she talked about youth programs and just a few others. Could you list those off again for me, please?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me clarify. Is the member asking for the different programs that are covered in family support services? There are a number of different programs. I'll just name a few: Reconnect, rehab resources, mediation services, transition to independent adoption services, adoption support services, assisted adoptions, active adoption registry, international adoptions, services to aboriginal people, B.C. Council for the Family, sexual abuse intervention, residential abuse and community panel programs.
R. Neufeld: I believe there's a $13 million increase in that, and I'm just using it.... It's not right on, but it's close -- just under $13 million. Could the minister explain if that is for added programs? Does that cover salary increases to a certain amount? Have we just expanded services, or are there more people requiring services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll be more specific. I wasn't sure what the member was asking. A significant amount of the $12.2 million increase, fully half of it, is for annualization of our programs last year. The member may be aware that the government enhanced family support programs significantly, investing in communities and their families. Some of those programs with that enhancement money took longer to develop. In other words, in last year's budget we actually ended up paying for less than 12 months, so this additional half of that $12 million is to annualize the cost of another portion the previous year -- to annualize the first stage of wage parity. Again, that was funded for half a year, and so we have to budget for the full year this year. Then there is an additional amount for the second stage -- this year's funding for wage parity. The rest of the programs that I talked about -- family support, respite care, aboriginal services and residential abuse counselling for historical abuse -- are a very small part of that $12.2 million, and they are either new or enhancements of existing programs.
R. Neufeld: Just to follow up on wage parity, can you maybe give me an idea of stage one and stage two? When does the minister feel that we'll be at what she considers wage parity, or what she considers where the wages should be? Is it going to be another couple of years, or is that going to be fulfilled soon?
[9:00]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the best way I can answer that is a recognition that for the first time, through the Korbin commission, we have been able to identify the community sector. For the first time, government has been able to pull together the contracted service providers across ministries and to develop a database that identifies the extent to which government is contracting, the wage structure, the disparity within both ministries and service providers in communities around skill levels and a number of other issues that are of concern to government.
In particular, one of the examples I would reference within our ministry is residential care for people with mental handicaps. That was part of a community living initiative to deinstitutionalize people from Woodlands and Glendale. It continues to be this government's commitment, as it was the previous government's, to ensure that people with mental handicaps can live as full partners in communities. Governments face the challenge that that sector is particularly low-wage, and that as people gain experience in the provision of service, they move on to higher-wage jobs in the same sector. That turnover is very unsettling both for clients and for people that rely on those service providers, and it represents a loss to government because government
[ Page 7545 ]
has made an investment in personnel through its contracting.
So what we are trying to do across ministries is to better understand that sector and to prioritize where we are able to enhance wages and a number of training initiatives. As I said, that work has virtually just begun in a realistic fashion through the Korbin commission identifying what that sector looks like. I'm optimistic that in the next couple of years, through that work and with the cooperation of the ministries that contract in the community service sector, we'll be able to provide real opportunities for people for career paths and for wage parity between the community and institutional sectors.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that answer. Do you foresee a time frame when you will have the wage parity you wish?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Until we understand the dynamics in that sector and its interface with the institutional sector, it's going to be very hard for us to put a time frame on it. It is very much like some of the other issues we've talked about: when one thing happens in one ministry, it has implications all the way through that particular sector. So much of the work we're doing at this point is to identify the reality and put in place a more strategic and cooperative approach with the different players -- the employers and the union in that sector as well as across ministries. As I said, your party's government acknowledged that this was an issue. Unfortunately, it did not develop the tools necessary to measure its success, so the money was going into that sector and could have been -- and indeed, probably was -- exacerbating rather than solving the problem. It's going to take cooperation and an ability to target rather than continuing to juxtapose the different initiatives across ministries.
V. Anderson: I know that last year you were stressing mediation services. Have you found that this has become an acceptable program for more and more people, and have you found an increasing use of the mediation services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The mediation project was a research project. What we were looking for was methods around child protection that were less adversarial -- the interface between the ministry, families and the courts. The mediation project presents some real challenges, because there truly is a difference in the power relationships between ministry child protection workers and families, and it raises the question of whether the problem is mediation or, indeed, the need for the ministry to support families. So we've been trying out a number of different ways.
The mediation project was one of the research projects that was part of the development of the legislation. We continue to work with the Attorney around the interface between child protection and the courts, and are looking, as is the Attorney, at less adversarial ways of resolving family issues. The more we are involved, the more we understand that there's more work to do. We haven't found the answer on that front yet.
V. Anderson: Didn't that discussion raise the question about...? Increasingly we hear about the opportunity for children and youth to speak up much more for themselves rather than being directed by adults. I'm wondering whether you are finding that in the ministry and if there is a direction in which this is continuing to go.
Hon. J. Smallwood: You've just asked a question about a group that I really like to talk about. Some time last year I met with a group of young people, both children in care and ex-children in care, who have formed a youth-in-care network. Our ministry is very happy to be able to support them in their initiative. They were a very impressive group. For months afterwards, I was struck by that meeting with them.
These kids had come through probably the most difficult childhood that many of us can imagine. Yet the leadership and the wisdom provided by that group was inspiring. They continue to develop initiatives in peer support for other children in care. We are currently working with them to develop a videotape and some communications for children who come into the care of the state, so that they can hear from other young people about what they can expect, what their rights are and what their responsibilities are. We are all very supportive of that work. I think that it will provide a real voice for the children we serve and an additional protection mechanism, I suppose one could say, for children in care. It's very clear to me that children need information to be able to access the kinds of services they need and the kind of support that perhaps only children who have gone through the system can provide for them.
V. Anderson: I would also be very excited about that opportunity. Some of the people we've met even recently who as young or even older adults have gone through in-care programs have had emotional experiences which they have never been able to deal with. I presume this would come to light in this kind of youth-in-care program. In large part, they would perhaps even be able to deal with it between themselves. If not, it would at least come to light and they would find other ways of dealing with it through that program. I think that's an excellent program for that reason.
Were there other programs initiated last year, like the mediation project, that were meant to show some new directions or do some research, as you've indicated? If so, what came of those programs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Many of the programs that we were able to announce in last year's budget were under the category of family support. There was a considerable enhancement in family support money. In those programs, the money was disbursed to the regional offices and they were developed by communities. The other program that comes to mind
[ Page 7546 ]
was a research program done with UVic on.... I'll have to think about that.
In the meantime I will tell you about the home-builders program, a pilot project that was developed in three different regions: Kamloops, Prince George and Port Moody. The Kamloops one was the particular pilot program we evaluated that actually provided the kind of feedback that I referred to. People said that without this program they would have brought those children into care. That was one program that we invested in and evaluated. It produced very favourable statistics and is the kind of program that we'll look to in the next while for enhancing our ability to support families.
The UVic project was developed in Chilliwack and Vancouver. It was empowering women by involving our clients in planning for services. That was another community development research project done by the university to allow us to better understand some of the principles and values that the panel report was talking about -- how we can best listen to our clients and support them in developing services that are appropriate to meet their specific needs.
V. Anderson: Does the foster care program come in this particular area or in one of the other sections?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The foster program is under children-in-care services.
V. Anderson: I'll follow it up under children-in-care services.
I know that you've done some re-examination, review and recategorizing of foster care people and foster care givers this year, which has met with mixed reception from the people themselves. I had the opportunity to sit in on one of the introductory meetings in Richmond and found it very interesting as people struggled with the new meanings and new definitions. I wonder if you might elaborate a little on that new initiative and the struggles, because it has gotten a number of media comments as a result.
[9:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure that you're referring to the levels-of-care initiative in the foster care system. It's a program that I was very happy to support. It was developed in cooperation with our ministry and the foster parents' association over a fairly extended period of time. The important aspect of the levels-of-care initiative is that for the first time the child does not have to be labelled. You don't have to argue how bad this kid is to get care. Instead, what it does is evaluate the expertise and the skills level of the foster home, and fund that home according to that skills level. The child is then referred to a specific level, depending on what that child's needs are.
I think it's a good departure from the labelling of children, because I know that we've seen in the past -- there certainly was a concern, at least -- that foster parents found themselves in a position of having to argue or having to convince social workers that this child was really a difficult kid and therefore needed additional resources. It takes away from the focus of the child and focuses instead on the level of skill and ability to care for children.
V. Anderson: I know there has been a continual advertising campaign, if you like, to try to find foster care parents. Is there an increase in the number of children coming into foster care, or is it because of the turnover of foster care parents on a regular basis? What is the balance of children needing foster care and the availability of foster care homes and parents?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As I commented earlier, the number of children that come into care is fairly constant. That hasn't changed a great deal. One might argue that with the increased number of children -- the increase in population -- the ratio actually has dropped. The advertising for foster homes is something that is ongoing in the province and has been ongoing for a number of years. It's simply attrition and turnover in homes available.
V. Anderson: Have the ages of youth coming into foster care varied a great deal? Are there more younger children or more older children in foster care? What's the situation in that regard?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The majority of children that come into care are between the ages of 14 and 17, and that also is fairly constant.
V. Anderson: That's interesting, because in our own community -- actually just in the block next to where I live -- there was a care home for children and youth. It was to be for children, and at times it was used for teenagers, and the community had difficulty with that. Then that home was taken down, and two new ones are indicated to go in its place. At the present time there's a concern from the community that the process of community consultation didn't take place to their satisfaction at all. Although they have no problem with one home on that lot, they have difficulty with two homes side by side, because although it's two separate homes they think it reintroduces the institutional nature of it in that there will probably be four to six youngsters in each home. Although the intent is for it to be younger children, from previous experience they're concerned that it will end up again being a home for teenagers or older children.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Looking at the ages of the children, there are actually two dominant groups: zero to five years and 14 to 17 years. The largest group is the 14- to 17-year-olds. In talking to your community, I hope that one of the things you point out to your neighbours is that those children likely come from that community and have a right to be a part of that community. In addition, given the services that are provided by group homes through our ministry and the kind of ministry support through social workers directly to those children, those children are likely better behaved than some of our kids. The fact is, they are more directly supervised and their actions are
[ Page 7547 ]
accounted for to perhaps a greater extent than in homes where both parents are working.
I find it very difficult when we're dealing with issues around foster care or group home placements. In particular, there needs to be a recognition that you're not answering the problems of communities by shipping those kids outside the community. Possibly the best way of dealing with community issues is by the community embracing and sharing in the lives of those children. I would hope that the member would put that point of view forward in that debate.
The other aspect that I would want to emphasize is that in the involvement of our ministry with group homes and the placing of group homes in neighbourhoods we try, to the best of our ability, to consult and work with and enhance that partnership between the neighbourhood and the group home. Just last year I was involved with a group home here in Victoria where many of the neighbours came and lobbied government not to place those children in their neighbourhood. I was very pleased to have that same delegation return in the last month and say how happy they are with the involvement of those teenagers in their neighbourhood and that those young people actually contributed a great deal to their community. The sense of more open support, I guess, for those children is something that I think we can all learn from.
R. Neufeld: When children are put into a foster home, if there are one, two or three children, are families kept together as much as they can, or do we still see cases where the family is split up?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That is certainly the objective of the ministry. It is our policy to encourage sibling groups to remain together. It becomes an increasing challenge with a larger number of children in a family. I would make that appeal to you in your community: if you have a connection with foster parents or foster parents' associations, encourage families to open their arms to those larger sibling groups in an attempt to keep those children together.
R. Neufeld: When children are placed in foster care, is there a process whereby the foster home has the ability to find out some background of the family of those children? I ask that question because I have had a number of years of experience in foster care, and for my own information I would like to know what transpires now. What are the rules? What are the ramifications? What happens with the social worker who places the children?
Hon. J. Smallwood: To the best of its ability, the ministry provides information and support for foster parents regarding the specific needs, including the history and background of those children. I readily admit that the ministry is not perfect. There are instances where that work is not able to be done, given the pressures of the job, but it certainly is the ministry's policy. To the best of the ministry's ability, we do sit down with foster parents, discuss the children's background and develop a plan for support of those children.
V. Anderson: A little further on foster care, is it the practice to try, as much as possible, to reinstate youngsters in foster care back into their original homes, or are they all in permanent care?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I should start by outlining how children come into care. There are a percentage -- we'll get you the numbers -- of children who come into care by voluntary agreement with their parents, and there are children who come into care through the courts. Through the courts, there are time-limited care agreements. As those time limits expire, the ministry is unable to return the child to their home. For one reason or another they must go back to the courts until such time as the child is declared a permanent ward, at which time the ministry is responsible for the care of that child until the child reaches adulthood. With respect to children who come into care through voluntary agreements, those agreements are spelled out with the parents, and there are expectations, depending on what the specific needs of the family are. Twenty-five percent are by agreement, and 75 percent are by court order. Approximately 45 percent of the total caseload is permanent wards.
V. Anderson: Is it understood that when children come into foster care, particularly under the voluntary agreement and perhaps under some of the court orders, and before they become permanent wards, people are working with the family and the children, that there are also people working with the parents, and there is still the opportunity for the youth and the parents to meet and to have the opportunity to get back together again?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to make the point that just because a child is a permanent ward, that doesn't exclude the child from the ministry's support in reuniting with the family when the child is not at risk. This gives me an opportunity talk about the new directions in the ministry and the recognition that first and foremost, wherever possible, children are best supported in their homes. While it has been the direction of the ministry for some time to try to return those children to their families as quickly as possible, we will first of all try, through the community panel recommendations, to ensure that they don't come into care, and when they do come into care, we will try to ensure that the ties with their families are not broken.
We covered some of this ground earlier. There is a recognition that some families may be able to keep their involvement 10 percent of the time, some 50 percent of the time. Wherever the families are, it is important for us to recognize that we need to support whatever the family can do in their involvement with their children, in an attempt not to break that important bond between the parents and the children.
V. Anderson: When young people become permanent wards of the state, are they then able to access their history, their background and their family
[ Page 7548 ]
connections, so that when they become adults on their own, they will have all that background information, and they can carry that with them?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Each of the children who come into care have a social worker who works with them. It's through that work that the social worker is able to support them in meeting their needs. Some children may want to and may need to be involved in a search to identify that history. The social worker will work with the child both in identifying the history regarding where they came from and in developing a life plan as to where they're going. Again, through the community panel report, it has been identified that there is an increasing need to enhance the ability of social workers to support children and work with them, rather than doing things for them.
[9:30]
V. Anderson: I understood you to say earlier that the adoption registry comes under the same family services and child care area. Could you indicate the nature of the family registry at this point and the process of an open registry or being able to follow through? What have been the successes or failures of young people trying to find their birth mother, or vice versa, through that kind of open registry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can provide the member with some statistical information around the work of the reunion registry and the services that it provides. But I want to remind the member that we have an adoption legislative review underway, and in some of our consultation and at the tables we've provided to deal with that review, we are also talking to people about the whole aspect of an open and active registry. If the member would like, I will give him the numbers for between October 2, 1991, and January 2, 1992. For the active registry, there were 2,864 applications. There were 1,644 completed searches, 948 reunions were completed, and 324 reunions are in progress. For the passive part of the registry: applications, 1,235; reunions completed, 142.
V. Anderson: Just to clarify the difference between those two, the passive registry, if I understand it rightly, is where both parties indicate that they would be interested in discovering the other party, and it would be only when both parties' names appeared together in the registry that that would take place; whereas the active registry is when one party indicates their desire, and a search is put in place for the other party to inquire whether they want to be part of it or not. I just want to confirm the difference between the active and the passive registry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps I could put it slightly differently: the active registry is where a person can actually go and search out information about their background; the passive registry is where both parties have to consent for the search to be conducted on their behalf.
V. Anderson: Perhaps I'll step down now for the moment and let my colleague enter the discussion.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to enter the debate. I'm sorry I wasn't here for the introduction of the staff. I see that gender equity hasn't got that far yet, but presumably it will soon.
Initially what I'd like to ask about is the funding of community service organizations that are particularly involved in the provision of social services. As someone who has served as a director of the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society, I know that a lot of work is done cooperatively with your ministry, with volunteer organizations and with partially funded organizations. To the extent that her ministry is providing funding to those organizations, I wonder if the minister can tell us the status of core funding in terms of an approach to financing. Does your ministry intend to move toward a core funding program? I know that we canvassed this last year; at that time it was something you were considering or looking at. Maybe we could see what progress has been made.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can't resist an opportunity to introduce the staff and to set the record straight. Let me first introduce Ron Willems. Ron is the director of income assistance. Ron's boss, the ADM for income assistance, is a woman; she's unable to be here. Let me also introduce the director of family and children's services, Wayne Ironmonger. Wayne's boss is a woman; she's the ADM for family and children's services, and she's unable to be here. Let me introduce to you John Pickering. John is with financial planning. I'd like to say that John's boss is a woman, but unfortunately, that's where my introductions fall flat. My deputy is Bob Cronin, and his boss is a woman.
Secondly, in terms of the reference to affirmative action in this ministry, the question was around core funding for community services. Again I want to welcome this member to the House and to the debate. Some of that ground has been covered already. Let me, for your information, highlight the work that has been underway through the Korbin commission in identifying the community sector. Some of the issues around human resource planning and contracting with the community sector have been identified. We look forward to the Korbin commission reporting out.
We believe that many of her recommendations will help to identify some of the stresses and strains that community service agencies find themselves facing in dealing with multiple ministries and contracts in the delivery of service. We're optimistic that that work will provide a good foundation for an overall review of the way that government does business with the community sector.
G. Wilson: I'm aware that some of this material has been canvassed, and I don't want to go back through ground that you've already covered.
The reason the questions come forward is because increasingly in communities, particularly in those outside the urban core, where there are relatively dispersed populations that have small centres -- either
[ Page 7549 ]
villages or towns, or they exist within a regional district -- the accessing of certain services becomes quite problematic, particularly if there's not a readily available transit service to get them to government services.
Community service organizations have traditionally been able to solve some of those problems by providing volunteer drivers and volunteer action work. They have given tremendous service to the public. Could the minister tell us what efforts are being made within the ministry now to try to provide some of those transportation services? What kind of outreach programs exist in the smaller communities in the province? Is there a network now being built to start to assist some of the families with needs that have been identified as relatively long-term needs, in order to facilitate them accessing services, which I would argue tend to be, by necessity, at least somewhat centralized in this province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: To make a couple of points, while I understand that the ministry at one point in time did provide for transportation services, much of that money went over to B.C. Transit. They provide, through handyDART and services like that, services for people with disabilities. In addition to that, we do provide some funding for some service providers, in particular people who serve people with mental handicaps. Also, we fund our clients who are on income assistance for their specific and individual transportation needs.
G. Wilson: If I could concentrate just for a second on the handyDART service, clearly it is a service that is most valuable in a community, without a doubt. I understand it is a service that was originally developed primarily for people with physical handicaps, although now it's used as a much broader transit service. Often, in fact, it doubles as a transit bus in some communities.
It would appear, however, that there is clearly a need for two types of assistance -- not only for people who have physical handicaps but also for some who have mental handicaps or who simply have a chronic disability that gives them a need for regular transportation. One is volunteer drivers, and there is a wide program of volunteer action centres and volunteer drivers, many of whom do so at their own expense. I wonder if the minister can tell us what actions, if any, is being taken to integrate that service into her ministry. Secondly, if one looks at the cost of the service in areas where handyDART is not available, it can be argued -- and, I think, demonstrated -- that the provision of a pass system for taxis can be cheaper in the long term than trying to establish handyDART in areas where the population is widely dispersed and the cost of running, maintaining and servicing a handyDART system is too great. So with those two questions in mind, I wonder if the minister might talk specifically about whether or not her ministry is involved in trying to provide these services today.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I've already outlined a number of ways that the ministry is involved in supporting the people we serve -- our clients -- and I talked about the B.C. Transit initiatives. While that responsibility obviously does not fall under this ministry, I think it was certainly well worth acknowledging. Any other questions flowing to B.C. Transit should go to the minister responsible during his estimates.
The other point that I want to make is that, in addition to the provision of service in support of our clients, we have the bus pass program for seniors and people with handicaps on income assistance. Currently, some 32,000 are now paid for by the ministry to support our clients.
G. Wilson: As I understand the minister's response, those people who would traditionally be provided service under a community services society program may not necessarily qualify for assistance from this ministry. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Smallwood: If I understood the question correctly, yes.
G. Wilson: One of the problems that we find is in terms of people who are moving away from cities. A couple of months ago, late in February or early March, a report was released by several economists. I can't recall their names, but it seems to me it was reported in one of the local newspapers. It showed that the unemployed find it easier to relocate in the communities surrounding the lower mainland, and that people who find living in the cities expensive are tending to shift to rural or less urban communities in order to make ends meet. It would seem this exacerbates the transportation problem. What does the minister think about that in terms of the decentralization of a population that is more easily served in a centralized area, but who choose to move out of the urban centres because it's simply cheaper to live and easier to find accommodation? The difficulty is their inability to get to and from areas where they require services.
[9:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's not a phenomena that we've experienced particularly. We see people leaving small towns coming to the bigger cities looking for jobs, which is quite the opposite. For many of the questions that we've received from the official opposition or the third party, the fact is that each one of these concerns has a price tag on it. We have a system that is struggling to support and get people back into the workplace; we have considerable enhancements for employment training and bridging programs; we have considerable enhancements in supporting people through transportation, day care or tools or clothing for the workplace. A number of programs are in place to ensure we reduce people's reliance on income assistance in the best way. We will continue to invest in that aspect of program enhancement to the best of our ability. I think it speaks very well for the government's commitment to invest in British Columbians, and it's a real alternative to a previous system that saw rather punitive policies as government's only tool to manage the system.
[ Page 7550 ]
G. Wilson: If I could move on to the second of three broad areas of discussion -- again, all of my questions have to do with community service programs and the integration of those programs with the ministry -- I wonder whether we could talk just for a moment about counselling programs. I'm thinking specifically about counselling programs that may be connected with either the Ministry of Social Services or the Attorney General. Obviously this minister cannot speak for the Attorney General, nor would I expect that, but there are people who have requirements with respect to counselling. Those requirements may be family counselling questions or questions in terms of dealing with problematic conditions such as substance abuse, violence and that kind of thing. The community service organizations around this province, some of which have received funding from the Attorney General, are starting to become much more active in trying to provide that kind of counselling service. Could the minister tell us what, if any, integration there is, given that often an individual's social services demand is linked to relocation or community work required of people who may be subjected to specific rulings from the courts? Is there a link between the Ministry of Social Services, the community service organizations and the judicial system in the province with respect to people who may be seen to be -- I don't like the word chronic, but I guess there's no other word to describe them -- repeat or chronic users of the system?
Hon. J. Smallwood: On the question of counselling, the only program that we actually fund in the way of direct counselling.... We have some money in our bridging program, and we may fund a person who intends to re-enter the workplace but has a drug or alcohol problem to purchase service through the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health delivers drug and alcohol counselling and the drug and alcohol programs in the province.
I'm just looking at our list of community projects funding, and it is varied. There is everything from funding for individual societies or community associations to a variety of different community projects that I'm sure you're well aware of. Many of them are youth or family service projects.
The coordination that you talk about and the need to integrate the work cross-ministry is at this point being facilitated for children and youth in particular through the child and youth committees of government. There is a child and youth secretariat at senior levels of government, where the different ministries are able to sit down and talk about some of the interfaces between programs and the major policy issues around standards and regulatory issues. There are local child and youth committees in many communities, where the ministries sit down not only cross-ministry but also with some of the actual community agencies to plan the coordination and spending of budgets or to identify specific community interests or issues that the ministries or the different players in the community want to tackle in a cooperative fashion. In some communities this has been a very positive model. We've seen, particularly in last year's budget, ministries having developmental money, whether it's family support money or other money, that they have been able to pool with, say, mental health or public health and develop a project that would be far more effective and far better targeted than if each one of the ministries went on their own to try to meet their specific target group. So we're learning how to better use the child and youth committees, and we'll be looking forward to the secretariat recommending perhaps a revised or enhanced mandate.
G. Wilson: I was actually coming to the children and youth question. Since we've gotten there, maybe I can jump down to that, tie three questions into one and maybe speed up the process a bit.
The integration of services has worked well to a degree in some communities and has not worked well in others. It's hard to paint it all with one brush. Certainly in the case of the organization with which I was involved prior to being elected to this assembly, the integration of services in my own home riding worked extremely well because of regular meetings. Ministries would come together with community service organizations to look at not just the broader issues but some of the cases.
In terms of the integration of services for youth, and particularly where there may be a link to or some concern with substance abuse questions, could the minister tell us to what extent their concerns are linked to their family's concerns, and to what extent the family is involved in the program if that family is obviously relevant and in place? When I use the word "relevant," I simply mean it is a functional part of the lives of those people. I'm not talking about people who are detached and where there is no connection.
One of the things we've been able to determine in the community that I'm familiar with -- and I can't speak for any other -- is that there is very clearly a cycle at work here: once affecting young people, it will become problematic as they get into their later teens or early twenties and start to have a family. We end up having a repetitious problem.
Is there an opportunity to integrate with the family the kinds of services that are provided in the youth program; and if so, how does that work? Are there methods whereby other ministries' services are brought into play -- i.e., health, legal services, housing and so on?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The whole purpose of the child and youth committees, particularly in the communities, is specifically that: they integrate the work that the ministries do in the provision of services; and in many communities they have attempted to involve the service providers and the families themselves in that consultation. In some instances that is around case management. Where a specific family has a number of significant issues, the child and youth committee has the service providers or the ministries responsible sit down and do some problem-solving with them.
We're optimistic that they will be increasingly used around broader social planning initiatives, supporting communities in taking a more responsible, proactive role in identifying community needs and increasingly
[ Page 7551 ]
allowing the different ministries in government to act as facilitators to those community needs.
G. Wilson: That's encouraging information, because if we are starting to see an honest and sincere decentralization of service to the community, I don't think there's a community in the province that wouldn't welcome that. The difficulty is that if we decentralize service, we often decentralize cost and responsibility. We have to be very careful that community service organizations don't end up being provided initial funding to set up programs; those programs start to become established; people become dependent upon them; then, because of hardship in government, or whatever reason, those funds start to diminish. As a result, we have created an expectation within the community that no longer can be realized, and we have problems as a result of that.
I wonder if the minister could tell us whether we are shifting towards that decentralization on a long-term basis. If so, is there a provision to establish some long-term financing? Can we really start to look at the integration of community planning at the community level, through the community service organization? I'll put my cards right on the table, hon. Chair: I'm a very strong proponent of core funding for community service organizations. I believe that the sooner we move towards core funding, the better, the cheaper, the more effective and efficient it will be. The sooner we move that kind of social and community planning back to those directly affected and start to allow the community to have a hand in it, the better off we'll be. Having stated my bias, obviously I'm hoping the minister might say that we are moving that way and give us an example of how those funds are starting to be allocated.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would first like to acknowledge the very real concern the member has identified. Having lived through some of the serious cutbacks to the community sector in this province during 1982-83-84, I feel the need for stability, and that is part of many of our life experiences. The issues regarding the ability of communities to make decisions and be confident that the funding will be there to support the long-term need for those services are also part of the core concern in government's commitment to decentralizing service and engaging communities in that partnership.
The member acknowledged that different communities are in different stages of ability to meet those challenges. One can only categorize previous governments' talk about decentralizing and involving communities in that process as the worst type of social dumping, where provincial government relinquishes its responsibility and leaves it to communities to pick up the pieces. I want to assure the member that neither I nor this government will be a party to that thrust. We will proceed cautiously and ensure that the supports are in place, and that communities are ready and able to embrace the challenge that that ownership implies. I refer the member back to my earlier comments about the words of the Korbin commission, as well as the review that has been undertaken with the community sector in identifying government's contracting policy, the need for stability and a different way of doing things. It's early in that process. Korbin has not reported out yet. We will have to take a look at their report. From this ministry's perspective, we are committed to stabilizing, to addressing those funding issues, and to moving in a purposeful way towards more community involvement and community responsibility with respect to planning and delivery of service.
[10:00]
G. Wilson: With the guidance of the Chair, I understand that we are approaching the hour of adjournment. If that is correct, I would just say, as we will carry this on tomorrow, that I appreciate the minister's introduction of her staff. I take as a touch� the response on the gender equity question. I can only say that I'm delighted to see that behind every good woman there's a man. With that, hon. Chair, perhaps we could rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:48 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On Vote 14: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).
R. Chisholm: I'd like to ask the last couple of questions on the ALR, and then go on to other subjects, if it would be fine with the minister.
The current government has shown its interest in preserving B.C.'s farmland through the ALR. But it must help to maintain the viability of farmland by providing programs that enable municipalities to develop adequate drainage systems on the farmland, along with the urban development. This is a provincial responsibility, after all. Since the ARDSA program is
[ Page 7552 ]
now out, do you foresee any program to assist the municipalities in developing these drainage ditches and the drainage required for some of the agricultural land -- for instance, in the Delta area or down towards the Chilliwack region? Do you see another program coming forward to assist municipalities in this area?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. B. Barlee: Consultations continue with the various municipalities through the Agricultural Land Commission and chair. The commission is asking that the various municipalities impacted -- and you named some of the areas -- bear in mind that the growth in these areas does impact, sometimes negatively, upon the various farms in the area. These areas have been covered more adequately than previously by the Agricultural Land Commission.
R. Chisholm: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to offer subsidies to farmers who are forced to keep their lands in the ALR? When changing market conditions lead to their operations being economically non-viable, what assistance is the minister prepared to offer these people? Or are the farmers of B.C. expected to carry the entire burden of the government's ALR policy? Are you going to bring in programs requiring farmers to change the commodities they are producing so as to make them economically viable? Or are you going to have any assistance for farmers who have problems within the ALR and whose products are no longer viable?
Hon. B. Barlee: We canvassed this question the other day. Generally speaking, there are several areas out of the 280 commodities where the farmer is at risk. Those ten farmers who were bankrupted last year, out of 20,000, did come from those two particular areas: eight out of the ten came from the vegetable industry, two of the ten came from the tree-fruits industry. Through our Buy B.C. program, we will be announcing a siginificant launch which will cover one of these areas at risk. This launch will probably be on June 29.
R. Chisholm: There's a new bill being put forward in the House today. To clarify it for the agriculturists of British Columbia, could the minister explain to us how they expect to stop cabinet meddling in ALR practices? Do you foresee another committee overseeing it, and just what will it be called? Will it be like the old ELUC program? How is this process going to work?
Hon. B. Barlee: There will be a debate in the House concerning that very matter. I would be quite glad to defend the bill, which is now before the House, and I think that's the proper avenue and place for it.
The Chair: The Chair would just note that that point is, indeed, correct and would ask members to adjust their comments accordingly.
R. Chisholm: I guess the only reason we wanted a bit of an explanation is so that we know whether we are looking at new legislation or at the old system revamped. After all, the farmers have asked us this and they know the old system. Is it going to be a different system, or is it just going to be a change in names? I guess that's the question I'm trying to ask. Is this going to change completely?
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Chair, that question is out of order, but yes, there will be entirely new legislation.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to go on for a little while in the area of taxes. We have some problems in the agricultural industry with taxes and tax exemptions. For instance, tax-exempt equipment for use on the farm often changes and requires accessory equipment. Is this government reviewing and updating its list of exempt equipment? And is it going to initiate an annual review of updated lists, so that the appropriate equipment is tax exempt?
Hon. B. Barlee: I would like to discuss that fully. We have extended that list in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, but it is essentially under the aegis of the Ministry of Finance.
R. Chisholm: I realize that some of these questions will be under the Minister of Finance's authority, but I'm quite sure that the minister is in consultation with the minister -- at least I hope he is.
I have another question along the line of taxes, which I wonder if he's talking to the Minister of Finance about. The farmers have long lobbied for the removal of taxes on fuel used on the farm. What is the minister's opinion of this idea and the efforts to bring input costs closer to other jurisdictions, such as the Peace River or Alberta?
Hon. B. Barlee: That does not fall under my mandate; that falls under the mandate of the Minister of Finance.
R. Chisholm: It may not be under your mandate, hon. minister, but you are the Minister of Agriculture, and it is your responsibility to be discussing this with other jurisdictions. If there is a problem, I would suspect that you would be discussing it -- I would hope that you would.
Another taxation problem, which seems to be a difficult one with the farming industry, is the corporate capital tax. Again, we realize that it is under the Minister of Finance's authority, but I would hope that you are discussing it with him, especially this tax. We well know that it affects farms. It affects the capital, it affects the wealth, it affects the debt, it affects everything about a farm. Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money these days to buy into a farm. This capital tax is a disincentive for young people getting into farming. They are looking at overwhelming mortgages, they are looking at what they have to put into the farm and then they are looking at being taxed at the corporate level by this government. I would hope that you are talking to the Minister of Finance.
For instance, for many years farmers have been advised to incorporate their operations. This tax
[ Page 7553 ]
penalizes those who are incorporated -- with no relation to profit or the real ability to pay. The production of many commodities is capital-intensive, with often little or no return on capital. British Columbia's agricultural products are marketed in competition with those of other provinces and countries, with little ability to reflect increasing domestic costs; that is, the increasing costs cannot be passed on to the consumer. Corporation capital tax does not apply to farms in any other province other than Quebec, and the farmers in Quebec are given considerable financial assistance.
Just by these statements, hon. minister, obviously you and your government -- I should correct that: the minister and his government -- have put the farmers of this province in a very difficult bind. I hope you are talking to the Minister of Finance, and that you will rectify this situation so that the agriculture industry does not decline any further than it already has. I also hope that we can put incentives back into it so that young people will get into agriculture. I'd like to hear some of your comments, hon. minister.
The Chair: Before I ask the minister to respond, I would like to remind all members of the committee that when we talk about going through the Chair, we mean that literally. We don't talk in the second person. We don't talk about "you"; rather, we talk about the minister in the third person. I ask all members of the committee to please take that under advisement. Otherwise, I shall have to keep rising on points of order.
F. Gingell: Write it out 30 times and put it on the teacher's desk.
The Chair: That too.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that one of the best incentives for a young farmer is seeing how viable the industry is at large. When you look at 20,000 farmers and you have ten bankruptcies, that's the best business in British Columbia, by far. When you look at the net income difference in 1991-92, which came up 21 percent, and you look at '92-93, which came up 24 percent, you really can't ask for much better than that. With the notching of the corporate capital tax from $1 million to $1.25 million, 230 farm businesses were exempted from that, and another 20 fishers and 20 food producers. We have ongoing consultation with the Minister of Finance. Generally speaking, nowhere across the country does anybody touch the economic viability of the farms in British Columbia.
R. Chisholm: A few of those recommendations I passed on to the hon. minister a moment ago came from the chamber of commerce. It is their belief that the minister's government is putting the agriculture industry in a deficit position.
[3:00]
Take a look at what the dairymen's association of British Columbia has had to say about this:
"The corporation capital tax has caused unjustified difficulty for many B.C. dairy producers, a situation that has now been rectified for only very few farm families by the slight threshold increase."
That was the one you were referring to, hon. minister.
"As they requested on February 5, 1993, it is therefore critical that your ministry develop a satisfactory solution to the serious problems associated with applying this tax to the agriculture sector."
Hon. minister, I believe you must go back to the Minister of Finance and talk to him again, because I could read to you submission after submission. I'm sure you receive them -- from the Cattlemen's Association, the vegetable growers' association, and on it goes, hon. minister. This industry is capital-intensive. As long as it is, there are going to be debts and value. And this corporate capital tax is not going to differentiate between the two. Hon. minister, I do wish you would go back and talk to the Minister of Finance about these taxes.
But I've already heard your answer, so I'll go to another question, which is on fees. Along with these corporate capital taxes, the taxes on fuel and all the rest, we've had vast increases in fees. Whether we're talking about the cattlemen or about some other faction is immaterial. For instance, they state that the fees for the Cattlemen's Association are a disaster and are going to put them out of business. You keep telling us that we haven't had a bankruptcy, but I can give you quotes where you said we had a bankruptcy just prior to you getting into office. You obviously waved your magic wand, and they all disappeared. But, hon. minister, are you going to have something done? Is there going to be a study on these fees? I know you've arranged for a committee, but is it going to do substantive work, or is it just going to wander around the province and create a myth? Is something actually going to come out of this committee? These farmers need to know this. You've sent out the message that you are going to have a committee, but is it going to be viable and worthwhile? Could you please answer the question on whether this committee will actually be authorized to give you direction as to what this government should or should not do in the future?
The Chair: Once again, before I ask the minister to respond, I want to try to clarify. At the risk of sounding schoolmasterish and bookish in the extreme, let me explain the rule. Your duty as members in committee is to talk to the Chair about the minister and the ministry. Therefore expunge and eradicate from your vocabularies, if you will, all references to "you." We will be on good, solid ground, and we can proceed swimmingly. I hope I have made that clear; I have certainly tried.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I didn't know that the Chamber of Commerce was heavily into the farming community, but perhaps it is.
Second, you mentioned the dairy industry in British Columbia. The dairy industry is probably the healthiest of all the agricultural sectors in the entire province. Some of them, under the supply management system, net hundreds and hundred of thousands of dollars. So they are really not too badly off.
In talking about increases in fees and licences, let's take a close look. A number of those fees have been
[ Page 7554 ]
frozen, and a number are under review. You specified the cattlemen, and indeed I have a great deal of time for the cattlemen. When you compare some of the fees the cattlemen are paying in British Columbia, we pay $1.82 or $1.83 per AUM, which is an animal unit month. If I remember correctly, they pay $5.27 in Washington and $7.05 in Montana -- that's three and four and five times as much. I think that our fees, generally speaking -- with some exceptions, which those exceptions I've targeted, and that's why those exceptions are frozen and under review....
H. De Jong: It's a pleasure to be back here after the weekend. I understand the minister has enjoyed some sun in the Okanagan over the weekend. The minister's thoughts may be a little out of line, if I've heard some of the answers today.
Speaking about the dairy industry -- I'm quite familiar with it -- for the minister to stand up and say that hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit is made by dairy farmers in the valley.... Well, certainly those profits are not made while they are farming; I can assure you of that. If the dairy farmer can show 2 percent profit on his investment in a year, he is very lucky. I fail to see where the minister gets those comments, because I don't think any farmer has told him this, and surely he wouldn't get it from his ministry staff. So the minister may want to withdraw those comments later on, because I'm sure that they are out of context.
Of course, there is truth, too, as I said in my private member's statement a few weeks ago. Farmers are cash poor and asset rich. That comes to the heart of farming, really, because the farmer hasn't got much money when he starts off. Anyone who had a lot of money wouldn't go into farming. There's a lot more money to be made elsewhere and there's certainly a much quicker turnover. One thing the farmer is assured of is steady employment. There's no question about that. Sometimes it is too steady: the hours are too long and tiresome, but the farmer, being a person with much determination, is obviously trying to get through the tough times as well.
Having said that, there are number of issues facing the farmer directly today. I haven't talked on these yet. Perhaps there was some discussion on Friday on this matter, but a number of taxation policies have come out -- direct taxation. The farmer is a person who needs a lot of land -- some more, some less -- but for those who need less land the cost is usually higher per acre because small parcels sell for more than bigger ones. The dairy farmer, for instance, has to have a fairly good land base to grow his forage, as well as for the disposal of waste products. The rancher has a larger land base. The greenhouse and poultry operations and so on, have a lesser land base, but a higher intensive value in buildings and facilities. It's not unusual to spend $500,000 per acre on a greenhouse setup. It is unfortunate that some municipalities -- and it is no reflection on the provincial government -- apply the development-cost charges to facilities such as greenhouse operations because of the higher-density farming. I can understand that it is higher-density farming, but it is just a change from growing out in the field to growing under glass, perhaps garnering two or three crops in a year instead of only one. Is the farmer to be penalized by development-cost charges from a municipality because he is trying to grow the crop under glass rather than out in the open field? I think it is totally unfair.
There are the other taxation policies too, and the minister may have to withdraw some comments in regard to high profits, because if the profits were indeed hundreds of thousands of dollars for some farmers -- maybe not all, but even for some -- then perhaps the corporate tax would not be that hard to take. But I can assure the minister that the corporate tax has hit the agricultural community very hard, particularly for the reasons I've already stated: the large land base, the high cost of facilities and thousands of dollars invested in equipment to be efficient. Last fall at the agriculture convention in Harrison Hot Springs, the minister told farmers that the farming community has to be more efficient. Well, efficiency means that you can get the job done quicker, more satisfactorily and for less dollars at the time. Obviously, labour costs are always of concern to the farming community. I would just like to ask the minister whether in fact he would agree that the corporate tax is an unfair tax to the farming community.
Hon. B. Barlee: The operative word on that is "sometimes". I think you'll find that in Hansard.
I happen to have the figures in front of me: there are about 1,300 dairy farms in the province and between 500 and 600 of those average a net profit of just over $100,000 each -- that's not too bad, but it's not great. Some of them average much more than that, as the member knows. He is very familiar with this area. That was the 1991 figure. I believe the '92 figure is up from that.
As far as the corporate capital tax is concerned, we have had ongoing discussions with the Minister of Finance and his ministry. That's why it moved up a quarter of a million dollars last year. Of course, hon. member, these discussions will continue with the Minister of Finance.
H. De Jong: The minister would get quite a different insight, if he talked to a number of accountants who do the farmers' books. Statistics are always great and you can use them in different ways. Certainly I would not advise the minister to put too much faith in statistics.
[3:15]
Another subject, which I spoke on last year, is the matter of septic field approvals in the lower mainland, particularly in the floodplain areas. I have a letter here in front of me to remind the minister what he said in the letter:
"The matter of septic field approval is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. However, my staff and I are concerned that withholding approvals for bona fide agricultural operations in the agricultural land reserve may significantly reduce the viability of some farms."
The minister is quite right in that statement.
[ Page 7555 ]
"Therefore, I have directed my staff to discuss the matter with officials in other provincial and municipal agencies. Hopefully we can arrive at a solution that will satisfy all parties."
This matter has been going on for quite some time. There may be some difference as to which area you live in and which inspector is coming around to harass the farming community rather than trying to find solutions to the problem. What has come out of these discussions? Has any headway been made in coming to a solution of this difficult matter, which undoubtedly has caused great concern for many farmers who have a second home on the property for farm help, as well as a farmer either building or rebuilding his own home.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. I think the letter read into the record is an accurate assessment of our views about it. We have had, and continue to have, ongoing discussions with the lead ministry, the Ministry of Health. But if the member does have some specific cases in mind -- and I imagine he does -- we would be delighted to follow them up.
H. De Jong: Certainly I will give the minister a list of specific cases. One in particular is a farmer who has a farm that has been there since the early l900s. The original farmhouse burned down some years ago. A second home was built on that same farm; it's still the only home on that particular 40-acre plot. The farmer farms about 120 acres in total. This farmer now wants to build a better home to better suit his family, because he's got a family growing up. He's been told: "No, you can't do this. You cannot connect into the existing septic tank situation, and therefore you will have to wait a full year before all the tests have been taken on that farm for septic purposes." You must wonder, hon. Chair, how the septic system has worked all these 60 or 80 years in the past. As a person of common sense, I have difficulty understanding the bureaucratic nightmares that these farmers -- who want to either improve their own home or have a second home built for farm help -- are facing. I will get that specific incident, along with a number of others, to the minister and see what we can do about it.
The other item I'd like to talk a bit about is the Agricultural Land Commission. I know there is a bill before the House that will be debated on its own merits. I must say at this point that I do not quite agree with the intent of the bill, but we will leave it to later. At the same time, it's not all gloom and doom that I want to preach here today. I also want to commend the staff of the Land Commission on a particular situation. I wrote the Land Commission on behalf of a farmer who wanted to sever 40 acres to be included onto another farm. It was basically a boundary exchange. The regional district in that area did not wish to deal with it for some reason or another, although they could have dealt with it without going through the Land Commission. The first answer that came back from the Land Commission was that the application would have to wait four or five months for review. That's when I started writing a letter, indicating that this farmer was planting his crops for the year and it was very important for him to have this decision in a short time. Within three or four weeks there was a positive answer from the Land Commission, which I can appreciate. So I must say that sometimes, I suppose, the bureaucracy does understand farming -- as long as it's pointed out to them. So much for the Agricultural Land Commission. We will get on with that when the bill is on the floor for discussion.
I would like to talk about, or get some answers on, another item. A strong attempt was made by the fruit growers, in particular the apple growers, in the Okanagan and in other places in B.C. to start an apple marketing agency together with other provinces. I understand that that has not gone forward, but I'm just wondering what the real reasons were for the apple marketing agency not going through. Was it in fact due to the replanting program that has been initiated? Was it seen as an unfair subsidy, if I may call it that? It wasn't intended to be a subsidy. Were there other reasons, or was there simply no interest from the other provinces in participating in such a marketing scheme?
Hon. B. Barlee: I followed that very closely, hoping that it would pass, but it was defeated essentially by the growers of Ontario, who, of course, are much closer to the market and have a much larger market. The population of Ontario is in excess of three times the population of British Columbia. Most of the growers in Ontario are in an area that is extremely close to the major metropolitan centres, so they were not interested in British Columbia's yield.
One of the other problems -- it would not have made that much difference in the final analysis anyway -- was that British Columbia got just over 50 percent of its growers out to vote. The vote was not very high nationwide. I can't recall the figures exactly, but I think it was probably around 53 percent or 54 percent. In British Columbia it was somewhere between 54 percent and 57 percent, so it did not pass. I regret that, and I think the majority of growers in British Columbia regretted it, because they voted for it but were defeated in the democratic process by the growers of Ontario.
H. De Jong: On another issue, the minister mentioned that the dairy farmers have done quite well in British Columbia, and I don't deny that they're doing reasonably well. But at the same time there are other aspects of farming, particularly ranching. I understand that they're not always doing as well. At least, they haven't got the steady supply of milk cheques coming in every month; they more or less depend on a one-year calf crop or whatever it may be. In other words, they probably have to borrow more money for operating funds for a year because of their once-a-year crop situation.
Several regulations have been put in place by the Minister of Environment, as well as other increases in costs, such as grazing fees and water fees. That certainly must be -- as I see it, anyway -- a concern to the Minister of Agriculture and to the ministry as well. I believe that this ministry is very concerned about the welfare of the agriculture community, and I believe the minister has been too.
The minister has also made some statements from time to time about how his cabinet is with that, and I would just like to read a little article out of the Canada
[ Page 7556 ]
Poultryman. The minister said at one of these meetings that his cabinet colleagues are not as sensitive to the importance of agriculture as he is. He said further that he had supported supply management ad nauseam with his colleagues and, as a result, he is not as popular with them as he used to be. He reiterated that some urban MLAs don't appreciate the importance of agriculture sectors. "But," the minister said, "I always make the point, even though I don't always carry the day." I appreciate the last comment, but I'm somewhat concerned about the other aspect of the minister's statement, because, after all, whether they are environmental policies or regulations or the cost of water or grazing, they all have an impact. And I'm very fearful when the minister makes that kind of statement, because I'm sure the minister said it as mildly as he possibly could, yet at the same time the impact is felt very much, particularly in the ranching industry.
So my question to the minister is: in light of that, he is doing his best, but is it really true that his cabinet -- and I would not say they are as sensitive -- is as concerned about the agriculture industry as the minister is?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've addressed most of those issues. The fees, the ones that have impacted significantly -- you mentioned the grazing fees and the water fees -- have been frozen. A number of others are under very considerable review. Cabinet has given me a great deal of support.
In other areas, such as Buy B.C., we have about $9.5 million to be divided over five years, the first time in the history of any provincial government. Our budget this year for that is $1.5 million. They have been very supportive of supply and management, which I think is extremely important. We have put in what I think definitely is a strengthening of the agricultural land reserve act, which is presently on the floor of the House.
[3:30]
I think that the cabinet is most aware of the issues that I have been trying to promote as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we are starting to see some of the fruits of that success now in the Buy B.C. program and in announcements which are going to be made toward the end of this month.
H. De Jong: Of course, the $9.5 million for marketing and research is over a five year period. It goes down to $1.8 million, which is no more than what it was back in 1990 in the same type of program. So when the first Buy B.C. program was initiated and costs have gone up in terms of inflation, it's in fact less than what it has been.
On the other hand, I'm happy to hear that the minister has been able to convince his cabinet of certain things. But if he hadn't, a number of letters are available to the minister as well, and I'm sure he may have received copies of these. Here's one from the North Okanagan Livestock Association, one from the Sinkut Mountain Cattlemen's Association, and there are a number more. I could go through a whole raft of them here, all writing about the same type of concern. British Columbia Cattlemen's Association.... What should not be minimized is the concern out there among the farmers, particularly those that have very much at stake, you might say, in terms of the environmental policies flowing out of Victoria. They appear to be not the cleanest strains coming out of Victoria, if I may use that sort of a metaphor on this one.
I have another question on a concern I referred to a bit last week -- about the ALDA program. I have a letter here from a fellow in Vanderhoof, and apparently he had made an application for funding for land-clearing purposes. He writes that in the north there is still a need for this type of funding as there is a large amount of raw land available for expansion of agriculture production. That's really what we are after -- to expand the agriculture production, because it does provide more jobs and a better economy. The reply from the financial development program was that the ALDA program for the year 1993-94 will be announced in late February. Now it doesn't say February of which year. I am wondering whether the minister could elaborate on whether the ALDA program, or some other program where the interest rates are usually a shade better than you would get from the banks, is still available for the purpose of land clearing.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, there is $4.4 million in the ALDA program this year. It was announced, and there are two major changes, by the way. It is announced at half of prime with a minimum of 4 percent, and that is pretty reasonable, even with the lower rates today. The farmer is getting a pretty good deal. There are two major changes, and the most major of those is that 65 percent of this $35,000, which is the maximum allowable, must go toward environmental issues. The other 35 percent can go toward land clearing or whatever. Indeed, environmental issues have taken on significant importance in the government's views. So 65 percent of the $4.4 million would be approximately $2.6 -- I'm guessing a bit -- and the rest would be into.... No, it would be more than that -- about $2.8 million.
H. De Jong: Does that mean that practically any application being made has to have some environmental aspect to it in order to qualify?
Hon. B. Barlee: I should clarify that. The maximum available strictly for land clearing is $35,000. The others, which come under the broad title of environmental concerns, would be waste management, drainage and so on, and could come to a total of $75,000 per farmer, but they are separate entries.
H. De Jong: Given the percentages that the minister noted earlier in the total sum to be used for environmental purposes, and the other sums for other purposes, does that mean that there could be money left over in the fund if it isn't used for environmental purposes? Would it also mean, however, that others who wanted to apply for land clearing or building bunker silos would be denied funding from this loan
[ Page 7557 ]
until near the year-end so they can see if there is a balance -- or could the balance be used at all?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. member is aware that the ALDA funds are usually oversubscribed. We assume that this will the case again this year, especially with the very attractive loan rates of around 4 percent.
H. De Jong: To give an example, this year hasn't been all that great so far for haying in the lower mainland. It may not be all that great upcountry now. There are two ways of preserving such a crop. One, you can try to make hay and fail, and have to burn the windrows or the bales later on, which is an environmental problem. Two, you could apply to build a bunker silo so that you could make that choice before -- when the weather isn't all that steady, you might say -- and put the hay into a bunker silo. You would then avoid having to pollute the air with smoke for days on end in burning that hay crop. Where does the environmental aspect come in?
I have difficulty with this kind of breakdown under such a formula of loans. Surely the minister knows -- and I think every member of cabinet knows -- that the agricultural community is probably the group of people most sensitive to the environment to begin with. So why have such a breakdown in the availability of money? As I mentioned earlier, decisions have to be made by the farmers, and if they don't have the money available to build those bunker silos, they may be forced to burn the hay because it is of an inferior quality.
Hon. B. Barlee: There was significant consultation with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on this. They felt, and I think probably rightly so, that with changing environmental conditions and laws, this 64-35 split was a reasonable breakdown. I do have significant consultative processes in place, and the BCFA is, of course, the most interested party. It is not perfect, but it is probably going in the right direction, considering the early 1990s.
H. De Jong: As I read through letters I've had from the various organizations, in terms of the concerns out there in the agriculture community, I can understand why the B.C. Federation of Agriculture would come out and say, "Yes, we had better accept the 70 percent for environmental concerns," -- 60 percent or whatever. They have actually scared the pants off the farmers. Surely this is a better alternative to accept than none at all.
[3:45]
So I still fail to see, after this discussion, why this fund had to be divvied up -- one for agricultural purposes and the other for environmental purposes. Surely to goodness the farmer, as I said before, is probably the strongest environmentalist in British Columbia -- and the most real. I fail to see why this fund had to be broken up. Those are all the comments and questions I have at this point in time, hon. Chair.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. member touched upon one of the reasons that we have included this as 65 percent. The hon. member stated that farmers are environmentalists, and they realize that the environment is very important. To make sure that it was a first priority -- most farmers might prefer clearing the land first, and the environment comes second -- we felt that it should be written down that 65 percent of these ALDA funds should be for environmental concerns. We've had nitrate problems in the valley and in various other parts of British Columbia as well. We have to address some of those concerns. Certainly there is a public response to this. The farming community generally is very sensitive to the public response, so I don't think that 65 percent of the $4.4 million is poorly spent on environmental concerns.
H. De Jong: I just want to comment once more, as I did last week, on that nitrate problem. The environmental regulations that have come out to date, which would limit a farmer very much in terms of when he can spread his waste products onto the fields, will not solve the nitrate problem, but will in fact increase the problem. Farmers are being asked to spread in four weeks, and they would normally have a whole year or at least the better times of the year -- early spring, early fall and so on. Now the Ministry of Environment is proposing that this be done in two or three weeks in the spring, which will undoubtedly, with the runoff from the fields.... We may have two weeks of dry weather in the spring and usually three weeks of rain afterward, and we all know what the results will be. In fact, there is evidence already of some farmers overdoing it on certain fields, which has polluted the creeks. So I would certainly like the ministry and those who are involved to take a very close look at those stipulations.
Hon. B. Barlee: The codes of practice were developed in very significant consultations with the BCFA. But if there are specific instances -- and there probably are -- we're quite willing to address these through the procedure of our staff in the field. If the member has any specific areas where he feels this is unfair, we'd be quite glad to address those.
R. Chisholm: I have a couple of small questions on taxation left, and then we'll go on to other areas if you wouldn't mind. One is your opinion on this homesite concept, and exactly where this is now in this ongoing study with new tax assessments for farms. I'd like your opinion on that.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
The second question has to do with the gentleman farmer, if you wish. The moneys have been raised from $1,600 to $2,500. The recommendation from the BCFA was $10,000: just how did you get to the $2,500 range? How did that come about, hon. minister -- and, like I said, your assessment on the homesite taxation and how that is going to affect the agriculture land taxes?
[ Page 7558 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: There are several things. There has been an ongoing review with the Minister of Finance, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Federation of Agriculture and a number of other bodies interested in taxation on the household. That has been in the works for a number of years, and the major players are at the table.
As for the increase from $1,600 to $2,500 to be classified as a farm, I think that's going in the right direction. Several figures have been tossed around. I believe the last figure given by the BCFA was $5,000, not $10,000. I know there have been discussions of $10,000, but I don't think that was the actual figure arrived at. This comes directly under the Minister of Finance, who I think rightly assumes that people really should earn a minimum of $2,500 per year, which is $208 a month. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. There may be individuals hiding behind the agricultural community in order not to pay their fair share of taxes. Going up from $1,600 to $2,500 is not really too onerous.
R. Chisholm: Does the minister have any idea when we will see the results of the study on homesite taxation? Is there any estimate of when that will come about?
Hon. B. Barlee: That, unfortunately, is future policy.
R. Chisholm: The Minister of Finance came out with a letter to the beet producers in this province on February 10, 1993. He stated that he realized that 75 percent of the income of the farm was produced off the farm, but that when the fees and assessments were implemented this figure was taken into account. I was wondering what your opinion is of this. I find it rather deplorable that a farmer should have to work off the farm to keep the farm going, and on top of it have this government turn around and say that that is part and parcel of their farm income -- and then raise their taxes, fees, licences and that type of thing accordingly. I would like to know what your opinion is on this.
Hon. B. Barlee: I have had discussions, and they continue with the Minister of Finance. I think I can allude back to the rather enviable record of our farmers in British Columbia. They really are generally in good shape. I don't have any trouble saying that at all. I won't be accused of exaggeration. There are some areas that are in trouble, but not too many. So we are having these ongoing consultations, and some of those taxes that have been alluded to have been frozen, and the others are being reviewed. Pretty good.
R. Chisholm: To change the topic a little, I would like to talk about the Peace River area for a minute.
Last year, in reference to the plight of the Peace River grain farmers, this minister said: "I am saying that I'm not accomplishing miracles this year, but I think when we sit down again next year -- and undoubtedly we will -- you will see a significant shift. I'm not promising anything this year, because I can't make any promise I can't keep." What I would like to know from the minister is what positive changes he has accomplished for the Peace River farmer in this budget this year. Has he considered anything along the lines of ethanol or tax-free fee relief -- that type of thing?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think I can answer that adequately. I thought I answered it adequately the other day. Our Peace River strategy -- and indeed it is that -- is a long-term strategy. We made $500,000 available to the Peace River district, and how that money is spent will involve significant consultation with the various farm groups up there. We also gave another $77,000 for variety trials to see what types of fescues and products are suitable for that area. We gave another $20,000 for technical and professional support, we gve $25,000 for the development of a strategy, and we put more staff up there.
We've gone through some tough years in the Peace River district, and as I mentioned the other day, there is a significant crop failure in about three years out of ten. They are managing this quite well, and one of the things they are doing is diversifying: they're getting into fescues and the backgrounding of cattle. This area is ideally suited for that. We have these discussions with our staff in the area -- and we have a significant staff on the ground up there who understand the problems better than the people in Victoria. This strategy is being discussed at the local level as well. So that's why we have an interministry staff and a consultative process with the people in the Peace River district. Frankly, I think it's much better than it was.
R. Chisholm: Well, it's nice to know that we've spent $577,000, hon. minister, in one area. But just what have we accomplished? There are municipalities up there that are trying to get items like ethanol on the road. They've got plans for themselves. All I am asking you is: what exactly are we doing? What do you foresee as an outcome of these plans? Are new products going to be made available for the farmers to produce, or for industry to produce from farm produce? What direction are we going?
The other thing I wonder about is the management programs. The federal government was supposed to allot us $500,000 on the management side. Has any of this money been used in the Peace River area? How has this money been spent? How much do we expect from the federal government this year?
Hon. B. Barlee: The ethanol idea has been discussed by a committee in the Peace River district, but I believe they realize that it requires substantial subsidies at the present time from the public purse. There is no ethanol production in Canada that has been successful without significant subsidies from the public purse.
The last letter from the Peace River district is kind of interesting. Doug Sumner, who is a farmer-rancher near Hudson's Hope, stated: "For the Peace River agriculture to be revitalized, it is necessary that the residents themselves come up with this plan. In the opinion of the chairman, too many agricultural problems have been imposed by central authorities." We are trying to get
[ Page 7559 ]
away from that. That's why we are putting this into the hands of the Peace River people. That's why they are playing a major role in this long-term strategy. It says, again: "Sometimes these programs are written by persons unaware of local situations." That is why we are there. When it comes to the strategic plans for the Peace River region, we want something that is going to be bottom-up in design and not imposed by people a thousand miles away. Essentially, that's what we are doing.
R. Chisholm: I realize that the people of the Peace should have input into exactly what's going on. They already have people who want to invest in this plant. I don't think it's going to take a great deal of subsidy, and they realize that too. If you talk to the municipalities up there and some of the people, they will tell you this.
[4:00]
The second part of that question was on the farm management program. Last year you stated that you anticipated $500,000 from the federal government. I wonder how that has been implemented. Do we expect another grant from the federal government this year on the farm management program? How are we going to use it?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that requires perhaps a wider-ranging answer. First of all, in the farm business management strategy, last year about $500,000 was available to the farmers of the Peace River district. Now there is $700,000.
As far as the ethanol situation is concerned, if the member looks at other areas of Canada, he will see that this has required tens of millions of dollars of extra funding, or subsidies, from the public purse. A strategy and a plan will be completed by the target date, the end of July, for the Peace River district. We'll take a look at it, but it's a difficult area to launch an ethanol program in and make it pay.
R. Chisholm: I won't argue about what has been subsidized and what has not been; I will argue that 60 plants have been working in the United States for a number of decades. Trillions of miles have been driven on ethanol-based products, and we have plants in Ontario right now. There are companies opening up ethanol, like Mohawk in the Prairies.
All I'm saying to you, hon. minister, is that with EEC squabbling with the United States over the price of grain, we will never win that battle. As long as they are fighting, our grain growers will be in a deficit position. We have to find some alternative, and this is one viable alternative that will help get rid of the pollution in this province, especially in the Fraser Valley. It will put our grain growers back to work, and all the effluent from this system will become human food, cattle food or fertilizer. In other words, it completely utilizes everything.
Another point is that it regenerates itself. It's not like natural gas, and it's not like oil. It's not a onetime item. I think we need to look along these lines. I hope that you and your ministry will spend some time in looking at that.
The Chair: Hon. member, would you deliver your remarks through the Chair, please.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair.
Last year, the hon. minister stated that expenditures in NISA were increased to reflect full provincial participation for grains and oilseeds and expected expansion of the program to include a much wider range of commodities, so you anticipated NISA would not just be grains and oilseeds, but a number of other sectors as well. Has this expectation been borne out, and what sectors does NISA now cover that it did not?
Hon. B. Barlee: The eligible commodities this year are all grains, oil seeds and forage seeds. Red meat producers are also eligible for NISA, based upon a percentage of sales which represents the average value of grain fed to livestock, and, thirdly the current agreement includes all edible horticultural commodities as well.
As for the ethanol plant -- we seem to be stuck on the ethanol plant -- it may be a good idea. The Mohawk plant you were mentioning does not make money. It is subsidized heavily, and I don't want to go back to the public purse for the subsidizing, but this is being looked at by a local planning group in the Peace River district. We will look at that, as indeed we should, but if they have come up with some magic bullet I will be rather surprised.
R. Chisholm: I would like to quote from Knowlton Nash, who was talking about agriculture, and this leads me up into the Buy B.C. end of it. He was quoted as saying: "Today there are 850,000 farmers. Farmers' influence, as measured by the percentage of population that they comprise, has fallen...tenfold from 30 percent to 3.5 percent. As a result, farmers have less and less control over their destiny."
He goes on to say:
"First, there has to be an awareness of the problem. That's where we're at now. Second, there'll be a search for villains. Third, there'll be a search for solutions.
"The third stage and outcome of the debate will be influenced by the first two stages. In order to have a rational, fruitful debate you have to have an aware, informed public....
"If Canadian agriculture is to avoid economic disintegration, it has to do a great deal more than it is in generating broad public awareness of the economics of farming in Canada and its role in Canadian society."
This applies to British Columbia as well, hon. minister, and I am wondering how much we are spending on educating our public as to why we should be in agriculture and as to the importance of agriculture to our society. Is this part of your Buy B.C. program as we presently know it?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, as for the percentage of farmers falling in Canada to 3.5 percent, I think if you had looked at that figure about 80 years ago, over 50 percent of the people in Canada were farmers. That is a fact of life. There are larger farms, and fewer people are farming. Still important.
[ Page 7560 ]
As for the Buy B.C. project, there are many facets to education. For instance, there is education in the classroom -- which is funded not by us but by a private group -- which is very good. The 4-H program -- in fact, I talked to the 4-H people from across Canada in Penticton last month -- is still going strong. A lot of very fine young farmers are getting into farming because of the 4-H program. This is all part of the public awareness which the Buy B.C. program will contribute to.
The old Buy B.C. program was not as effective as it should have been. One of the members talked about the Buy B.C. program in l990. I had some complaints about it. I live in Osoyoos, which is right across from the U.S. border. If I went down towards the U.S. border, a hundred yards from the border was a sign saying: "Please buy B.C." Too late! As I said in the House, with a sign like that you couldn't stop the consumers from going across with a howitzer. It has to be done before they ever think of going across and shopping in the United States.
So indeed we're taking a long-range look at it -- a well-thought-out strategy. I think the strategy will work. We studied 43 jurisdictions right across North America and found that the loyalty in British Columbia appears to be higher than anywhere else in North America, with the possible exception of Oregon. So I think we're going in the right direction.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, the minister didn't answer the question. The question was: what are we doing now, either through Buy B.C. or through your ministry, to educate the public as to why agriculture should exist and be supported in British Columbia? That was the end question, and if I could have an answer to that, hon. minister, I would appreciate it.
Hon. B. Barlee: We have done this in our pilot projects, which were launched last year. Our pilot projects have done this. Thrifty's is one of the recipients of the pilot project. They've expanded from nine to ten stores; their business has gone up dramatically. In fact, the other day -- in case the member is wondering -- our tomatoes from the greenhouses of B.C. were $2.69 a pound. We have to go head-to-head with tomatoes coming in from California and Florida at $1.69 a pound. Now, you'd think the public at large would buy tomatoes at $1.69 a pound. They are not doing this. According to the produce manager, we sell twice as many tomatoes as those coming in from Florida and California. So the British Columbia consumer is certainly getting onside. Otherwise, why would they buy tomatoes -- which are much better-tasting, of course, because they're fresher -- for $2.69 a pound, when they could save a dollar a pound and buy some other produce from some other part of the world?
So this program is working. That's why stores like Thrifty's, Safeway and Overwaitea are onside. They realize that it's an important part of their long-term strategy as well. We have a lot of people sitting at the table. This program should be applauded, not attacked, because the program is good. We spent months preparing it, and it's effective.
R. Chisholm: If I recall correctly, you were cancelling the program when I went to bat. I went across the country, and tabled documents from five provinces stating that a Buy program for our province would be a good thing. And it was reinstated after the lettuce and cabbage fiasco.
Unfortunately, hon. minister, we already knew what was going to happen in the Thrifty's stores. We already knew, by the lettuce and cabbage fiasco, that the consumers' interests would be sparked and that they would buy B.C. produce. That was proven in that time frame. We went through this Thrifty's program, which you take complete credit for. But I think you'd better get the British Columbia Marketing Board in there too, because they seem to have had an awful lot to do with it, but not very much from this government. And Thrifty's themselves had a bit to do with it too, if I recall correctly.
But on to other little comments on Buy B.C., which is a very good program if it is implemented properly. One of the ways we're not implementing it properly is in duplicating industry's efforts. Why, for instance, in creating a logo, does it seem we are duplicating industry's efforts? I have talked to a few people at the marketing council, and they have stated that you have full, legal use of that logo if the ministry wishes. All I am asking is: why are we duplicating efforts?
[4:15]
You talk about the council. I hear rumblings that they are not exactly happy, that they gave you a letter that asks for $2.5 million in the first two years of the program. It has not happened. I would like to know exactly where you are going with this. Are we going to cooperate with the industry out there, or are we going to be at loggerheads and have five logos in this province? All we are going to do then is weaken our efforts. Are we going to have this council that the minister has created actually do a viable job, or are they not going to be listened to -- and then have to complain about not being able to implement a program that they were brought together to design? Could we have just a few of your comments, hon. minister?
Hon. B. Barlee: I am delighted to put this on the record again. We have 16 business people, union people, producers and processors on the minister's advisory council. Every one of those 16 individuals is still there, working for nothing, working for the people of British Columbia, because they believe in the strategy and the thrust of this program. Indeed, you couldn't forecast. When they have a significant promotion, the average increase in sales and actual traffic in a store is 2.5 percent. Thrifty's came up between 9 and 10 percent. It blew them away. That's why they have just come out with 5,000 T-shirts. That's why they have opened a new store. That is why we placed 27 new products on the shelf.
The average increase in sales was 168 percent over a similar period the year before. Those are their figures, not ours. All of the 29 companies that took part said yes, yes, yes, yes, all the way down the line. They love the program. That's why they are sitting at the table, because it is a good program. It is not a political
[ Page 7561 ]
program. This is a program designed to help the producers and the consumers and the farmers of British Columbia. It is a long-range plan. It is working well. When you get three or four times the average traffic in a store than you have in any other promotion, it must be considered a success.
R. Chisholm: I don't think it is quite as successful as it should be; it should be much more successful. The concept is very good. The money is there. It has not been allotted very well, and maybe the program has not been very well thought out. Maybe some people have not listened to the council. The council has stated that they had a program and it was shelved, and the minister went on his own way. We had programs -- like Thrifty's, as I said -- which were part and parcel of the council and not just the minister. I talked about the logo, for instance, for greengrocers. This is from the council. It says:
"The question of the logo is significant in many ways, the most important being as a marketing tool which will represent the member's products. That logo must demonstrate everything the industry association stands for, while at the same time representing quality and value to the consumer. Its use should be the domain and decision of the industry association. Government would be best advised to encourage industry association and development not be impeded by duplicating efforts. We need more steak than sizzle."
The point is well made that we are duplicating efforts, and we need a logo. If these people have been using this logo for a number of years, they already have a clientele that recognizes it. When this organization has allocated and said that legally the ministry can use the logo, why has the ministry not taken that into account and possibly gone with that logo that people recognize?
Why is the ministry forcing the industry to use the government logo, especially when this logo is recognized? Why isn't the B.C. Food Marketing Council recognized for its endeavours, too? That would glean cooperation from them, further enhancing this program. I would like to hear a few comments on what I just said, if I could, please.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'd be delighted to comment, hon. Chair. The food industry can use any logo it wants. Under the advisement of five members of the minister's advisory council, we said we should look at this logo. We had ethnic testing, consumer testing, every possible type of testing. They liked it; they are adopting it. Do they want to use another logo? Be our guest. They advised us they liked the new logo. It's a good logo; it suits them. Everything has been done right, and this was under their advice.
R. Chisholm: I'll quote from a letter, hon. minister, that was addressed to you from your council. We never did get an answer on the first question. The consensus of the council is for the communications program component to be a major priority during the initial years of the program, with $2.5 million as an overall budgeted goal for year one.
Respectfully, I ask: why wasn't this adhered to, considering this is your council? These are the minister's chosen people. Hon. minister, to make this council work properly for the benefit of all agriculture in British Columbia, we should listen to them. Your comments, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'd be delighted to comment on that. First of all, we have $9.5 million over five years: we used just over $400,000 last year; this year, it's $1.5 million; our target for next year is $2 million; the year after that is $2.5 million; and the last year is $3 million. That adds up to $9.4 million plus -- we leave some change. When we spend the public's money, we spend it very carefully.
The core of the Buy B.C. program is a partnership with business. I won't name the major vice-president of a major concern in British Columbia who was not invited to sit at the table. He insists on sitting at the table because he thinks it's a good program. He's not of my political persuasion; I didn't twist his arm. He thinks it's a heck of a good program. That's why all 16 members are still there -- no one has resigned. It's a round-robin discussion; there's a lot of brainstorming. These are the experts in the field, and we give them their lead.
So you have to pry pretty hard and dig pretty deep to find something wrong with the program. The program is not perfect; that's why we're increasing the elevation of funding. We tested all the way along. We tried a pilot project. We tried it with Thrifty's and the restaurant association. If it works, we continue and elaborate and expand on that. This is the only way a program can work. We looked at 43 other jurisdictions, five across Canada, and 38 in the States. We can't do much more than that.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, you had to be forced into the decision of going with the Buy B.C. program, hon. minister. You were cancelling it, if I recall correctly. That's why people had to do battle with you to get it reinstated.
The Chair: Hon member, address your remarks through the Chair, please.
R. Chisholm: Through the Chair, hon. Chair.
I'll go on to another area, hon. minister, but it's still Buy B.C. I'm going to use your quotation from Hansard, March 24, 1993. You say:
"So with this program, which we launched in conjunction with the B.C. Restaurant Association, we thought we'd get 50 restaurants at first. We don't throw money at stuff; we look at it very rationally. We try a pilot project and see if it works. What we did, of course, was to look all across North America and study 43 jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. We were told that consumer loyalty was very low. Well, consumer loyalty isn't low, and -- certainly the member for Chilliwack will be very pleased to hear this -- consumer loyalty in British Columbia is probably the best in the country. So our second pilot project numbered 100 restaurants. We got those hundred restaurants -- and they pay $50 to join -- in 72 hours. And was it a success? Let me read from Terry Spence: 'The second pilot project, launched only yesterday, involves 100 restaurants in the Victoria area.' These
[ Page 7562 ]
restaurants range from the Empress, right down to the mom-and-pop, right to the ferry service. 'All of them are featuring special menu items from British Columbia growers or producers. Brian Mulroney will spend a million dollars on an overseas trip that doesn't generate one job for a Canadian or one dollar for a Canadian company'."
I would like to hear your observations now, a month and a half later, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the observations speak for themselves. Last year the greater Victoria restaurant association had 225 members. This year they have 405, and they charge $160 a restaurant. So they must think it's working, otherwise they wouldn't have 405 members, obviously.
Hon. Chair, the member said I was thinking of cancelling the Buy B.C. program. I don't know where that came into any press release at any time whatsoever. That's a mendacious statement and simply is not correct.
H. De Jong: This discussion has been rather interesting. To compare the Buy B.C. program with the first year that Henry Ford came out with his first car, there were probably some people who bought it, and others who were very leery of buying a Ford car. It was something new and different. Henry Ford has, over many years, made improvements to the initial Ford car. If you try to find the initial Ford car in today's cars, you'd have a hard time finding any similarities, other than a motor, seats, a steering wheel and wheels. They're all different.
So I see the Buy B.C. program. I clearly recall when we launched the first Buy B.C. program in the spring of 1991. There were about 100 people in the hotel in Richmond. They were all connected with agriculture in one way or another. There were producers, processors, retailers -- a whole gamut of people involved with agriculture. Perhaps some thoughts went through their minds as to the reality of the program -- whether the government was really going to carry through with it -- because those questions are always in the minds of people. But at the same time, there was also a lot of support, and a lot of good comments were made. In fact, there was good recognition of the program by the media as well.
The minister mentioned that some things were not quite right; the sign was too close to the border. Perhaps he was right in that aspect, but I should also note that at that time much work was being done through the chambers of commerce in the various communities. The chambers of commerce in Abbotsford, Penticton and a couple of other towns very close to the U.S. border were very interested in it. In fact, they paid part -- or in some cases all -- of the cost of the signs being placed at strategic locations in those communities. So there was interest right from the word go, you might say, in the Buy B.C. program. I'm very happy that this program is continuing and that we see the continuing participation in the program of more people in a more direct way, because everyone will benefit from that.
I have a question on the previous item we talked about in terms of the different types of fescues now being tested in the Peace River area. We all know it is a seed-growing country, and perhaps these farms are completely fixed up to do the harvesting of those seeds as well.
[4:30]
This initiative has been put on by the government, and I know the people in Peace River and Dawson Creek -- from meeting them a few years ago -- are very interested in working together for the good of the agricultural community. There are some really good displays of what they're doing there. They are very innovative people; and certainly if there is a chance to make a buck -- you might say -- or to be successful with any kind of fescue, or any other type of grain that they may be able to grow up there, they would do it. But what kind of assistance is given to these producers who do the testing? Do they require additional equipment or parts for machinery -- be it combines or whatever -- to separate the seed from the straw or grass? The assistance should be provided to farmers directly so that testing doesn't necessarily have to be done on an experimental farm but can be done on ordinary farms in an experimental way.
Hon. B. Barlee: It requires a bit of a rambling answer. That $77,000 plus the staff help, and previous tests done in that area will help the Grain Producers' Association -- they are essentially driving this program, and we're leaving it to their expertise. If they think some of that $500,000 is more correctly steered into this program, that will be a recommendation we will look very closely at.
As far as the hon. member's previous comments on the original Buy B.C program., I plead mea culpa -- I am guilty and I think it was a fair comment on the hon. member's part that I was a little too critical. But I must reiterate that there are literally hundreds of producers onside in this program, because the cross-border hemorrhage -- as the member for Abbotsford well knows -- is significant: about $5 million a day, much of that in foodstuffs. So part of this program is to address that continuing hemorrhage, which has a dramatic effect upon our economic viability as a province.
R. Chisholm: Back to the quotation I read earlier, which was in the hon. minister's own words. Like I said in Hansard of March 24, l993, I have here in my possession a letter that expresses some serious reservations about this promotion. It says:
"How can an event be organized in two weeks and expect to obtain a reasonable evaluation of the effectiveness of this type of promotion? I am concerned that poor planning and implementation will turn restaurateurs off and prohibit them from participating in similar programs in the future.
"How are the organizers of this event going to teach the chefs, managers and service staff about B.C. food and beverage products in one week? Brian Messant will be the first to acknowledge that there is an unbelievably low level of knowledge about B.C. food products at the restaurant level.
"Why is the Restaurant Association putting together a promotion that requires implementation during peak season? Restaurateurs traditionally avoid promotions during hectic periods.
[ Page 7563 ]
"There is a noticeable absence of fresh British Columbia products at this time of year. Are the restaurants going to be using frozen vegetables, frozen seafood and canned fruits?
"How can support organizations like the B.C. Wine Institute get on board to enhance the program with one week's notice?"
I think this program is a very viable program, but when it is rushed and implemented improperly, it goes off the rails and doesn't accomplish what it could accomplish. For instance, during this restaurant program, they were promoting even coffee as being a British Columbia product, and I have yet to see coffee beans grown in British Columbia. Maybe we should be putting a little more thought and effort into organizing before we do things. Maybe then this program will become viable, like it should be. Your comments on the restaurateur program, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: I have elaborated to some degree on the pleasure of the restaurant association and my consultation with them. It was a two-week window, not a one-week window. In fact, it was successful, and I will tell you why. One waitress, who won the most-meals-served award, served 705 British Columbia meals in ten days. That is 70 a day. That's pretty good. As far as the coffee is concerned, we processed that coffee in British Columbia. And the B.C. Wine Institute took part in the program. Virtually everybody took part in the program, and they want to repeat it again. I think the proof is in the pudding. If the restaurant association want to repeat it, they must think it is fairly valuable and that it works.
R. Chisholm: It is too bad that the council doesn't agree with the minister. In another document, it says: "Given the seasonal scarcity of fresh local produce, it is highly likely imported seasonal products will be ordered in lieu of British Columbia produce. Monsour is concerned that the key ingredients in featured British Columbia meals won't be grown in British Columbia." Hon. minister, I would like to hear your comments on that.
The other portion was this. Apparently, this was supposed to be a 60-40 split of costs -- 60 percent industry and 40 percent government. The cost was around $35,000, I believe. Was this ever adhered to, or did this not come about?
Hon. B. Barlee: I would like something clarified for the record. The member keeps saying "the minister's advisory council." He is referring to the B.C. Food Marketing Council, which is a separate entity entirely, not "the minister's" advisory council.
He talks about B.C. food not being available. Well, the ferry system of British Columbia served more than double the number of meals exhibiting turkey, fish and B.C. beef than they ever had before. They considered it a resounding success. The turkey producers certainly considered it a resounding success. And the major ingredients of the meals were there -- the fish, the wine, the beef, the turkey, and it goes on and on.
This was not a bad time to try it. There isn't as much fresh produce in November and December. Of course, we all know that. But this was a pilot project designed to see whether the people of British Columbia would continue to buy British Columbia meals, and some of those restaurants -- a significant portion -- continued to carry that program after the two-week period. When they continue to carry a program after the two-week window we gave them, that must be a sign of success.
R. Chisholm: I don't think I'll get into an argument here. Considering what documents I have read from our industry documents, they are not too happy. The time of year was December 17-30, and as we well realize -- I agree with you -- there is no fresh produce, and all the rest of it. Either way, the industry wasn't happy. Whatever you want to call this council, they are the minister's council; he invented them. He didn't listen to them. They are not too happy about it. They were never too happy about his restaurateur program.
On to another area. Is it true that money from the Buy B.C. program is paying for ministry administrative costs to the tune of $200,000 a year? Are you charging the Buy B.C. program for ministry costs?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the cost is right in line -- about 12 percent of the total cost. Out of every $8 that comes out of this program, only $1 is spent on new individuals who are driving it. That is one of the areas. We've added a few staff members, because it's an extremely important area. I don't think that 12 percent can be exhibited as a grandiose amount of money to spend on putting together a promotion and getting it off the ground. I think it is quite reasonable.
R. Chisholm: The second part of that previous question was about the 60-40 split with the industry -- roughly about $35,000. Did the ministry pay the 60 percent, or did the government foot the bill for the program?
Hon. B. Barlee: Industry contributed the equivalent of $35,000 in kind: in meals, which they contributed; in in-store promotions; on a very successful banquet at the end; and in their own types of promotions, using extra staff time. Certainly some staff did a superb job of promoting it.
We have a long way to go. We know that of the 10,223 restaurants in British Columbia, only 52 use British Columbia wines exclusively. I certainly change that whenever I walk into a restaurant. In fact, I walked into a restaurant the other day and suggested it to the owner. He said: "Don't bother. I've already done it." That's what I like to hear. He used to have two B.C. wines on his menu -- Theo's in Penticton -- and he now has 21. That's a pretty good jump.
R. Chisholm: The government commitment to this program is $9.5 million over five years. What is the industry's commitment to this same program?
Hon. B. Barlee: The maximum government contribution is 50 percent. We are aiming at going down to 10 percent. We hope that when we get the $3 million in year five, we will be able to lever -- and this is by no
[ Page 7564 ]
means assured -- $30 million from industry. Industry is interested. They are coming up with their share of the dollars just like that.
R. Chisholm: I gather that this 50-50 program is the market development program, if you will. When will this be implemented? Does the industry know the details of it at this time? Have they already made submissions to the program?
Hon. B. Barlee: Very briefly, the brochures have been out for months. Applications have been out for months. Applications are flowing in. The first major announcement will be made on June 29, I believe.
R. Chisholm: The PR program, as we know, has been shelved, and you've sent out new tenders, I gather. Can you tell us exactly where we are in the public relations program at this time?
[4:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: There was no departure from our original program. Our first advertising agencies -- all 12 of them -- were British Columbia firms. There was a mistake made; I acknowledge that. So I insisted that it be retendered to a British Columbia firm. The agency chosen is Windrim, Kleyn and Lim, which is a Victoria firm owned by Victoria residents. It is entirely a British Columbia firm, and that's the way it should be. The money stays in British Columbia, and it circulates in British Columbia.
R. Chisholm: I am very glad to hear that it is going to a British Columbia firm. You're absolutely correct: money that is spent here will stay here and increase our economy, whatever facet we're looking at.
The next question I've got for you is: what is the rough breakdown of the expenditures for the Buy B.C. program over the next four years, and what do you see happening...?
The Chair: Hon. member, please, through the Chair.
R. Chisholm: My apologies, hon. Chair.
Through the Chair to the minister, what exactly do you see happening to this program in year five? Do you see -- I realize it's kind of hypothetical -- this continuing in some form?
Hon. B. Barlee: We think this program will be so successful that the 50-50 funding will go to 60-40: 40 percent government, 60 percent industry; then 30-70; then 20-80; and possibly we'll reach the ultimate target of 10-90. Certainly industry is extremely interested in this program, and I think they can see the long-term value of it, partly because they are sitting at the table and have not moved, and have done a considerable amount of work for the province of British Columbia -- gratis.
R. Chisholm: How long will organizations that are applying to this program have to wait before they can implement programs? Two months? Three months? Does this depend on the size of grant they're looking for?
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Chair, a few minutes ago the hon. member wanted me to slow down the process; now he wants me to speed it up. This is difficult to do when you're given rather divergent directions. There is a process. Every three months we look at and monitor the number of submissions coming in. It varies from group to group, and, of course, it goes right through the season. The heavy part of the season is from June right through to about -- when you take in the berry season -- early October. Those would be the heavy times, and we would adjust our program accordingly.
R. Chisholm: Roughly how long do you foresee these submissions to the program taking, and would that depend on the size of the program itself? A third question: do these submissions have to go before Treasury Board, or are these completely internal to your ministry?
Hon. B. Barlee: Within the ministry we are allowed to approve up to $100,000. If it goes from $100,000 to $250,000 -- the maximum allowed under this program -- it is still within the ministry but requires approval from the chair of Treasury Board. So that's essentially it: $1,000 to $100,000 is within the ministry entirely, with no outside approval required; from $100,000 to $250,000 is within the ministry, but with approval from the chair of Treasury Board.
R. Chisholm: What would be the time frame on these submissions -- just a rough assessment? The other area I wanted to inquire about is whether all the farming or the agriculture concerns have been informed of this program, or whether there are still segments out there that might not know about it. How much of this money does the minister feel will get down to the actual hands-on farmer?
Hon. B. Barlee: We've announced it on a number of different occasions. In fact, when I came back from Prince George, it was on the radio ten times in five hours, which is pretty good. Then we sent out 1,100 letters to the various groups, and I think that is a step in the right direction. As far as the approval process is concerned, those under $100,000 generally take up to about 30 days. Those from $100,000 to $250,000 might take up to 60 days, but they have lots of lead time on them.
R. Chisholm: My last question on this again refers to your council. I am getting very strong vibrations that they are not too happy. They had a meeting, which you did not attend, where they talked about not being considered seriously. Can you reassure me, and possibly them, that their concerns and their issues are being taken seriously by the minister and the ministry staff?
[ Page 7565 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: That is news to me, because the program was designed by my advisory council. I go to the experts. There was deep consultation with the advisory council on the logo, and a number of members said: "This is the logo we should go with." So the thrust of this program is through the advisory council. The member must come back to look at the advisory council. Absolutely no people have come to me and said: "I don't think it is worthwhile." They have been there for month after month after month. They are still there, so it must be working.
H. De Jong: To change the subject, I wonder about regulations of the dairy industry. I know that there are, and always were, quite a number of regulations that were totally outdated in terms of facilities, particularly with the changes in the industry. With milking parlours coming in, there was always a problem in terms of the attached dairy and milking parlour in one building, because a set of doors were required between the dairy and the milking parlour, and there were several other regulations. I don't want to be too specific, but I wonder whether these regulations have been reviewed and changed over the last couple of years to basically come to age with the new equipment and the new methods of dairying. The breezeway that always used to be talked about between the milk house and the barn was still on the books a couple of years ago and should have been removed long before. I wonder whether these regulations have changed by now. That's very important, so that when an industry is progressive in its way of doing business, to be as effective and efficient as possible, those regulations change along with that.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I think the hon. member has put his finger on it. Things are changing. We have an ongoing, in-depth review right now on the changes affecting the milk industry and the dairy industry. Certainly, there are going to be changes; there are changes. That review will be continuing, with significant consultation with the industry at large.
H. De Jong: That's basically the extent of the questions I have for the minister. I certainly have appreciated the dialogue that we have been able to have during these sessions. I want to wish the staff the very best in carrying out the regulations as they pertain to the industry. I would like to see the staff work very closely with the agriculture and fishing industries, so that when problems arise, they can be quickly looked after and possibly remedied. I will be most happy to submit to the minister the names of those farmers who have problems with their septic fields, so that these problems can be looked after as quickly as possible.
R. Chisholm: That will probably wrap it up for the Buy B.C. end of the discussion, except for one question. Has Vancouver Island been taken into account as being a separate entity with separate problems that need separate solutions, such as what happens with the markets in the mainland and the Island? Has that been taken into consideration at all?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that Vancouver Island is part of the mosaic of farming, and any applications made under this program will be taken on the merits of the application.
R. Chisholm: The hon. member behind me didn't put me up to that question, by the way.
Hon. B. Barlee: I was wondering about that.
R. Chisholm: There is actually one more question on this. I believe we are producing as much as we can at the present time, and we are creating an awareness, which we need to do. We are creating a market. Are we in due course assisting the farmer, if there's more demand, to fulfil that end of this program, because that will become a very viable component?
[5:00]
Hon. B. Barlee: That's what our staff is there for. We look for niche markets. As a market is found to be economically viable, the farmer naturally gravitates toward these markets. I think that's the general thrust of the program. We have some marvellous commodities in British Columbia, whether it's hazelnuts or blueberries. The number of commodities we have really surprises me -- as I said before, about 280.
R. Chisholm: Along with the Buy B.C. program, is a program being utilized to encourage markets in schools and in government buildings? Is there an ongoing process in which you are trying to get our products into these organizations, which are a definite marketplace that we should have been in a long time ago?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that we have actually done quite well. The B.C. Liquor Board is very much onside. You mentioned B.C. Ferries. If I remember correctly, the head purchaser in foods for B.C. Ferries is a man named Mr. Wong. I have a standing invitation to go over and visit him on the Tsawwassen side, which I am going to do. He loves the program, and I'm very pleased. You will find that virtually everything on B.C. Ferries -- with the exception of the coffee and a few other items -- are B.C.-grown, and coffee, of course, is B.C.-processed.
R. Chisholm: I guess the biggest one I was concerned about is the school lunch programs that the minister's government is pushing, which is a good thing. But will the Buy B.C. program supply those when they are put into place in the schools?
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps I can illustrate that better by mentioning that I was at the Vancouver Community College about ten days ago, and I questioned the individual department heads very closely. Virtually all of them who had not shifted into B.C. product are shifting into B.C. product. We have had ongoing discussions with the University of British Columbia as well. We have made some impression on the school lunch programs people. This is probably going to be a little longer than we anticipated. Some of the
[ Page 7566 ]
government areas, such as B.C. Ferries, the Vancouver Community College and others, are coming onside very quickly. Others are slower to react.
R. Chisholm: I would like to change the subject somewhat and talk about environment. Of course, we know that there are an awful lot of new environmental laws affecting the farm industry, and the farmers are going to have to react to these laws.
I have a few questions about it. With all of these laws coming into place, are the farmers being educated by this ministry as to the possible liability that the farmers have? Are they being informed directly as to the consequences of these environmental laws, and what impact they will have on their particular farm or industry, whatever that may be, as to financial implications and liability in the Criminal Act or the environmental area?
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps I should very quickly read this into the record. "The British Columbia Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing a number of things. The agricultural waste and soil management plan is supported by the ALDA loans," as we discussed before, hon. member. "The Agricultural Environmental Protection Council is basically initiated by the BCFA and its peers' involvement. Agricultural practice and waste management is developed by the BCFA in conjunction with our own ministry." The Canada-B.C. soil conservation program is another one that is quite significant, and quite important on farm waste treatment options such as composting, solid-liquid separation and so on. And there is the IPM, which is a $100,000 increase this year. So we are making significant inroads in that area.
R. Chisholm: The new code of waste management practice for livestock, poultry and ranchers requires the farmer to store manure so that no pollution can happen. This is very expensive and will make some farms non-viable. Is a plan being considered by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Environment -- or in conjunction with each other -- to assist farmers with this major capital expenditure?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, farmers have never been allowed to pollute the water streams or even the surface waters. This is just a relatively new realization, and 65 percent of the $4.4 million ALDA program is designed to do that. We have our own staff helping the various farmers plan their waste management, so it's working fairly well.
R. Chisholm: The ALDA program has insufficient funds to meet current agricultural needs, especially where these environmental implications have been brought to bear. Is the government considering topping up this program to ensure that a viable program continues? You talk about $4.4 million and a 35-65 split, but it's still not going to be enough to do it. In the meantime, farmers will be charged with polluting the environment.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a reasonable question. The $4.4 million allocated to the ALDA fund is approximately what we have to maintain that program from year to year. As the member well knows, the $4.4 million dollars comes as the base -- and I feel that's about right. There is an emphasis on environmental concerns, so that 65 percent is well placed. There has been ongoing consultation -- as I've mentioned before, not to the point of ad nauseam -- with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the committees they have set up.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to get your observations on a couple of other subjects. The BCFA lobbied strongly to have the provincial government halt any move to establish wildlife management in areas where this will negatively impact on agricultural areas. The government is developing a new initiative, the protected areas strategy, which will form part of an overall provincial land strategy. Where does the Delta land, Roberts Bank, fit into this strategy -- especially with your government's private member's bill that will make a sanctuary in the best agricultural land in the province?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think I can say without qualification that the farmers and the environmental groups in Delta are working closer than they ever have in the last 15 years. We have, as a ministry, had ongoing discussions with several other ministries, including the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. So this is a multilevel process involving ministries, various groups and, of course, the municipal council of Delta.
R. Chisholm: Deer have become a major problem to the tree fruit growers and are having a negative impact. Control methods are very costly and generally ineffective. Is this minister going to supply financing for field testing of solutions? And if not, is this minister lobbying the Environment minister to help finance a solution for this problem?
Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member for Chilliwack mentioned deer. He could have mentioned bear or geese. He could mention mountain sheep in the Similkameen district. They're all problems. The Ministry of Environment is aware of this; we're aware of this. There are some problem wildlife committees all around the province. An extremely active individual in the Okanagan is one of our staff members, Brian Baehr. He's the go-between between the farmers and Environment, stating our case before Environment. Some of these individuals have used all the funding to build their own deer fences. I can think of a number in the Okanagan and Similkameen districts who have done this. But it has always been a problem. It's been a problem for a hundred years, and it's something that we will have to resolve in the long run. I think I can safely say that generally the deer problem in the Okanagan, except around Winfield and a couple of other areas, is not as bad as it was 20 years ago.
[ Page 7567 ]
R. Chisholm: The first question is: are both ministries working on this problem, or is it being done just by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Environment? When farmers have a problem, they need to know which ministry to address first. The second part of the question relates to the environment again. How many provincial farm inspectors are there in this ministry now?
[5:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll answer those in sequence. First of all, there is very close consultation between the two ministries -- Environment and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Secondly, perhaps the member for Chilliwack could be more specific about inspectors. We have some inspectors in the dairy area and some in the fish area, but generally speaking, I would like to be a little more accurate in my reply.
R. Chisholm: I am talking about the dairy area. Due to new environmental guidelines, increased work by health inspectors and the general public's interest, etc., is there any plan to increase the number of inspectors we presently have doing this work in the dairy industry?
Hon. B. Barlee: We believe that the number of inspectors is around six. It might be seven or it might be five. If the member wishes to have a precise count, we will get that to him.
R. Chisholm: The second part of that question is: do you foresee an increase in that number, especially with all these bills on environmental matters that are being passed in the Legislature, which will greatly affect the farm industry?
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps we should be a little more specific on this. We have inspectors, and in the dairy world that means that we inspect the quality of milk to make sure it passes the health standards we require. The Ministry of Environment works with a peer group as far as the other impacts of various pieces of legislation on the dairy industry.
R. Chisholm: I would like to change the topic somewhat and go into the tree fruit area. The minister has decreased funds to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority from $3.8 million in 1992-93 to $1.8 million in l993-94. Why were this organization's funds cut so dramatically -- by $2 million?
Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, we used the first law of efficiency: don't go looking for more money when money is already there. We used accumulated funds that had been left over from other years in the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, so there was no cut in programming under the aegis of the OVTFA.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair to the minister, just a verification: are you saying that there is absolutely no cut in the programs, research and development or whatever in the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's correct.
R. Chisholm: The next little area is: when he was in opposition, the minister was very keen on Dr. Helmut Becker's study. I quote the minister: "...the Okanagan has a great potential to produce some of the best wines in the world." That's from Hansard on July 23, l990; the minister might remember. Does the minister still believe this? How does the minister plan to foster the wine industry when no money is allocated to assist this industry?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have Chris Coletta on our fruit marketing program, who is one of the driving forces behind the estate wineries in British Columbia. She is there; she is excellent too, I must confess.
We have also instituted in agrifood tourism strategy, and we're concentrating on a wine tour. We are setting up a wine tour in the Okanagan this year. The Ministry of Tourism contributed $50,000. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food contributed $50,000, and the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association contributed $100,000. That is a $200,000 program.
The wineries of B.C. have grown dramatically, as I alluded to the other day: 36.84 percent growth in one year -- over 200,000 extra litres of estate wines. They're excellent. If I may elaborate on that slightly, the late Dr. Helmut Becker said that because of the peculiar balance of acids and sugars in the Okanagan, the way the sunlight hits it and the clarity of the climate, it would probably be one of the best areas in the world for white wines. Our white wines took London by storm just under two weeks ago. We sold thousands of cases of pinot blanc. We went down to one of California's big fairs in Orange County -- I mentioned this before -- and took Orange County by storm. We won four out of the eight prizes; you can't do much better than that.
R. Chisholm: When in opposition, the minister claimed that in the Okanagan, due to free trade, 3,500 acres of productive lands shrank to about 1,200 acres in 1990. At that time, he wanted the government of the day to ensure that the 3,500 acres were put back into production. To date, this has not happened. What is the minister doing to ensure that these 3,500 acres will come back into full production and not become housing developments or blacktop? What funds is the minister allocating out of his ministry for this project?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think we have made great strides -- about 2,000 acres. Of that, 900 are now in grape production. That is in several years. That's significant. Secondly -- and this will come up for debate in the House this week; I certainly hope we all participate in the debate -- we are strengthening the ALR. That will keep the lands in the south Okanagan in vines. In one year we have lost about 1,130 acres from the ALR. Am I close? That is under one-hundredth of l percent. So in 100 years we'll lose 1 percent if we continue at that, and I don't think I'm going to be here.
The Chair: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands on vote 14.
[ Page 7568 ]
C. Tanner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It says Third Party here, but you recognize, of course, that I'm not one of those.
The only licensed meat-packer on the southern end of Vancouver Island is about to close, unfortunately. It's privately run. It will necessitate anybody on the south end of Vancouver Island who wants licensed butchering done to go to either Port Alberni or, dare I say, Chilliwack. Is the minister aware of this? Has he any recourse for those people butchering on the south end of Vancouver Island?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think you're referring to Island Meat Packers. We are aware of it. We are looking at the situation now. It's difficult for several reasons. One is that Alberta essentially has tried to buy the meat-packing industry. So we have some problems there.
C. Tanner: I appreciate the minister's candour, but has he any solutions?
Hon. B. Barlee: I wish I had the magic solution for the hon. member. There are no magic solutions at this precise moment. We'll be looking very closely at it to see if there are some innovative and creative ways we can rescue this company.
C. Tanner: Could I bring to the minister's attention a company in Duncan called Westholme Meat Packers, which I don't think is licensed but perhaps could be persuaded to become so?
Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, I've been on the farm and in the slaughtering plant. It is a private concern; that's correct. He's doing extremely well. He's a diversified farmer. He grows new potatoes, sells beef cattle, butchers and does five or six different things. That's probably the way to go up there. His grandfather was in the business, then his father, now this generation and his sons as well. Referring back to Island Meat Packers, this is unfortunately one of the difficulties of private business. But it is a private business decision, and it makes it difficult for us to intervene in any meaningful way.
K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister some questions about a $4 million replant program in the tree fruit area. Of the $4 million replant program for pears, apples and soft fruit trees that was announced in January 1992, could the minister give us an idea of how much was paid to the growers and how much went to administration?
Hon. B. Barlee: The budget for 1992-93 was $1.75 million, and we spent between $1.5 million and $1.6 million. The 1993-94 budget was $2,040,000. It doesn't say here, but 550 acres were replanted last year, which I think is significant.
[5:30]
K. Jones: The second part of the question was: how much did the administration of that program cost?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have not broken down the total administration costs into categories all through that program in the various parts of the Crown, but we have a total figure. The total cost for the Crown was almost $9 million -- $8,971,000. Out of that, just over 14 percent -- $1,235,000 -- was on administration. That would include mapping, programming, planning, strategy and all the rest. It is reasonable. Most people would accept that as a fair figure.
K. Jones: What's the long-term benefit of that program?
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Chair, I'll be quite glad to answer that after supper. But perhaps I could recommend that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
The Committee met at 6:44 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On vote 14: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).
[6:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there was a specific question as well as an overall question. In answer to the member's question before we recessed, the replant program is a very important part of the overall strategy. The OVTFA -- if we take a look at the larger strategy -- is there essentially to turn the industry in a new direction. This is to revitalize the industry partly through replant, partly through fertigation and partly through various new methods in the sterile insect release program, new marketing techniques and so on. So this is part of it. They also have an overview of the tourism-agriculture link, which we think is quite important. It's a long-term problem. Over $400,000 has been expended by both governments so far to try to restructure this industry. We're going in a slightly different direction.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to look into the RPP program to some degree, hon. minister, in terms of if it is working or not. What can be done to educate the farmer as to the pros, cons and how to go about it?
There seems to be a bit of confusion when we start talking about it. For instance, I have a letter here from the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, and it states that the growers are not happy to have lost the farm income insurance program, and they feel much less secure with only RPP and NISA. It seems that few growers were able to afford the NISA premiums last year and therefore have not built up an account. They don't like the fact that with the termination of the farm
[ Page 7569 ]
income insurance program, growers no longer have a safety net that recognizes the cost of production. They have a number of cost production disadvantages in British Columbia, such as labour and transportation to market. However, it appears that government wishes to ignore these things in favour of a stabilization approach. In their opinion, it is a mistake to ignore the relationship between market returns and cost of production. Comparing market returns only to low historic prices is meaningless, while RPP is not a pure stabilization program. Growers are very skeptical, as we have seen, about its ability to provide meaningful help over the next several years.
Can the hon. minister explain some of these programs, so that when farmers get them they will start to understand what RPP is supposed to do for them? After all, there are some discrepancies and problems. Maybe you can elaborate on how these could be rectified, and what they can expect in the near future. I'm getting pieces of information such as out of 2,000 growers, only 25 signed on for the program. That doesn't indicate to me that this program is very successful. Part of it might be education, and part of it is changing and amending the program itself. Maybe you can further enlighten me and the farmers of British Columbia as to what you see in the future to rectify the problems.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are a couple of things to consider. Prices again look good this year -- not quite as good as last year. Last year was one of the classic years in the tree fruit industry, and the tree fruit growers did exceptionally well last year with very rare exceptions. This year the prices look good again, which indicates to the average fruit grower: why should he pay money up front for an insurance program, when indeed he may not need it?
We have three or four different programs that definitely afford the average grower some protection: RPP, NISA and crop insurance. Part of the problem is driven by the city of Kelowna and areas like that. For instance, about three and a half weeks ago in Kelowna, somebody sitting right next to an old abandoned orchard that was not in the ALR sold it for $1 million. Well, that's instant retirement for most people, except for me and thee. Therefore it's very difficult to compete with that. I'm saying that the orchard industry, the orchardists generally and even the BCFGA are cooperating with the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. I believe that most farsighted growers will admit -- perhaps not in front of their peers -- that we are going in the right direction. We have delinked RPP and TPAP -- two of the programs -- and I think that's the right direction to go. But it's very hard to convince somebody who's going to get a very good price for their product to pick up some of the programs. In this instance they didn't pay for FII up front; remember that. We discussed this the other day. Years ago they would simply pick up a cheque for farm income insurance at the end of the year, because it hadn't met the cost of production. Now we're asking them to pay up front like everyone else.
R. Chisholm: I don't think you really answered the question, hon. minister, in the way it needs to be answered.
The Chair: Hon. member, it's necessary under standing order 36 to address all remarks and debate in a committee through the Chair. Perhaps we could bear that in mind as we carry on into this evening. Thank you, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, only 25 out of approximately 2,000 growers have signed on to this program, and those 25 basically signed on only because of the replant program. On June 1 the minister stated that he realized that it had problems and that he was going to look into it to correct those problems. Right now banks will not look at the RPP program for loans. What the growers need to know and need to hear from the minister is how he intends to rectify these programs and alleviate their fears.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, there was a meeting ten or 11 days ago with the BCFGA. They approved of the direction we're taking in this program. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but we are flexible enough that we think we can make some revisions that are necessary. So it's difficult, especially in one or two areas of the Okanagan, where the land prices have gone through the roof. Even the orchard prices have gone up from $7,000 an acre to about $20,000 an acre, so we've done this in this area.
When we first came into government -- about 1991 -- the average was about $8,000 an acre, so somebody with ten acres would make $80,000 gross. Now with ten acres they're making $200,000 or $250,000, so that value has appreciated. Their asset value has appreciated as well. We have to look at the whole, the holistic view of it. We think it's going in the right direction, but it's not working perfectly yet. That's why we are engaged in a long, consultative process with the BCFGA. If it doesn't work, I'm quite amenable to going back and looking at it, which is precisely what we've done. Against that, of course, we have to balance land prices, which have gone through the bloody roof, especially around Kelowna.
The Chair: Hon. minister, parliamentary language, please.
Hon. B. Barlee: Ruddy roof? I don't think that was too bad.
The Chair: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on vote 14, within the bounds of standing order 36 and keeping in mind the necessity of parliamentary language and other such things as we enter the evening.
G. Wilson: I've got to say that I realize we're in a British parliamentary democracy, and I think in Britain, that term that was just used by the minister, beginning with "b" and ending with "y," is in fact a functional part of the English language; at least it seems that it certainly occurs many times in each sentence.
[ Page 7570 ]
It was an interesting discussion that we just had with respect to the appreciation of farmland and the retirement values. The minister is saying that the $1 million would be a windfall in retirement fund except for thee and me. Perhaps the minister should join a new society I have just joined -- it's the AACAL, which is the At All Costs Avoid Lawyers Society in the province. If you can avoid them in your lifetime, I suspect that would be enough; if not, it won't even be half enough.
I would like to get the minister's comments on some questions forwarded to me from the wild steelhead campaign. I realize this is taking us a bit away from the questions that have been provided so far this evening. I have given the minister a copy of the five questions, and I wonder if I could go through it to get it on the record for this society which has been contacting me and will require some answers.
The first is with respect to the enhancement program under B.C. 21, which comes under the auspices of this minister. The question being put to you is: why is the government underwriting what generally is a federal government expenditure, rather than trying to force the federal government to honour its commitments with respect to the salmonid enhancement program? I realize some of these have been canvassed by the member for Chilliwack, but if we could get them on the record, we will then be able to provide the wild steelhead campaign offices with the minister's responses to these questions.
I wonder if the minister has a response to question number one: why are we putting this money in when, traditionally, it should be federal government dollars?
Hon. B. Barlee: Looking at these questions, first of all, I can answer one of them from my ministry's standpoint, and that is question number one. Number two is for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Number three is again the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and number four, of course, I can't answer -- nor number five. So two of the five are definitely under the aegis or the mandate of another minister.
On number one, our program does not really duplicate SEP, the salmonid enhancement program, nor does it offset federal expenditures. We believe there is planning needed in this particular area. We feel that a lot of the volunteer groups -- and there are probably several hundred of them in British Columbia -- are working towards salmonid enhancement. The $1 million is led by my ministry -- and the hon. member was not here the other day -- in conjunction with four other ministries. So the lead ministry is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Falling under that umbrella is the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, then the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, and finally, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
[7:00]
Our program substantially focuses on community programs, and I am guessing somewhat, hon. member, that the grants in this area would range from a low of $2,000 or $3,000 upwards. I can't tell you what the top figure would be, because we would have to see if they meet the various criteria. So the federal program has been cut, but this is not strictly a replacement program. We're concentrating on one segment of that program, and that's using the good offices of these community-based programs. Certainly when I presented that cheque in Port Moody, I found that there were many diverse community projects all across the province: in the interior, on the coast, on the Island and so on. So I think it's a valuable program. I regret that I cannot answer questions two and three, because they fall under a different ministry.
G. Wilson: Just for the record, question two is: why is your government planning to spend $4 million on community development projects and hatcheries when there is growing concern among respected biologists and managers about the long-range viability of artificial enhancement? On those community development projects, are they not part of the Build B.C. fund that is administered out of your office?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have only $1 million under this project, and I don't want to confuse it with other programs under the community development programs. So I've explained it relatively adequately in that we are targeting even the very small community programs. We feel that it is an area where we can make significant growth in the salmonid enhancement area.
G. Wilson: I take it, then, that question three, which was essentially asking why -- and I'm quoting now from Hansard -- the impoverished and wholly inadequate budget of the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment was cut by $1.2 million when the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has those additional dollars.... I realize that the minister can't comment on the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, but I wonder if he could tell us what the total budget is for salmonid hatchery enhancement or habitat enhancement under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Hon. B. Barlee: The only money we actually have for salmonid enhancement is under B.C. 21, which is led by our ministry. The other four ministries are aligned with us.
G. Wilson: Having followed these estimates, B.C. 21 was thoroughly canvassed here, so I don't intend to go back through all that. I will try to piece that together for Mr. Brown, hopefully to his satisfaction.
I wonder if I could ask one final question with respect to this. There is some real concern in the Babine area that the hatchery enhancement, which is being done primarily with federal dollars, is creating a significant number of salmon that are being fed into the commercial fishery. As a result of that, a lot of the return that is being picked up off the Babine is also catching significant quantities of steelhead. Steelhead is perhaps one of the most lucrative sport-fishing salmon in the province. With respect to any involvement that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has on that question, could the minister comment whether or
[ Page 7571 ]
not his ministry feels that they have a role to play in monitoring or in some way administering that portion of the sport fishery in the province? Steelhead is obviously a species of fish that must be maintained in British Columbia.
Hon. B. Barlee: As the hon. member knows, we are wandering into another area which basically belongs in Environment, Lands and Parks and to Tourism. Steelhead really does not fall under my agenda. We do, however, have an understanding and a strategy with DFO as far as weed-lines are concerned. When we drop those weed-lines to a certain depth, it allows the steelhead to get through, and that is an advantage. We have a catch-and-release program with DFO as well. We have the catch-and-release and the weed-line programs, and both do impact upon the steelhead in rivers like the Skeena and so on. But this is not directly under our aegis.
R. Chisholm: With the defeat of the national apple agency vote and the loss of the farm income insurance program, growers have suffered a couple of severe setbacks in 1993. Now that the FII and the apple agency are no longer in the picture, they must work at developing a different strategy. The B.C. Fruit Growers' Association will have to turn its thoughts to what policies of both the association and government will give growers the best chance of survival. At the industry level they will have to examine their farms and infrastructure to look for ways to save costs and improve incomes.
They will be looking to both levels of government to do their part, to help create an environment in which growers will be able to survive and be competitive. This may not necessarily involve financial support programs. Government policies must remain consistent with their goal of preserving agricultural land. Currently, some of their policies conflict with that goal: lack of means to control wildlife, for instance, and corporate capital tax and WCB regulation. Strengthening of provincial right-to-farm legislation should be a priority. Does the minister see right-to-farm legislation coming in in the upcoming session? What does the minister see that he can do to enhance this industry and help them survive after these blows?
The Chair: Hon. minister, please answer on the parts of the question that don't involve future legislation.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the right-to-farm legislation does exist today and has existed for some time. As for the economic well-being of the tree fruits industry, out of over 2,000 growers we had two bankruptcies last year. That's one out of a thousand, probably the lowest business bankruptcy rate you'll get anywhere. Certainly this fits in with our long-term strategy for the tree fruits industry. The majority of these growers are doing quite well, thank you -- they'll say they aren't.
R. Chisholm: With this, hon. minister, I will not ask you a question. This is just a statement from Brian Witzke....
Hon. B. Barlee: I know him.
R. Chisholm: You probably do. He's giving how he was told about RPP, and how this thing evolved to where it is now with just him and a few growers he knows. I won't bother asking the question; I'll just send this directly over to you. Then you can look at it, and possibly get in contact with the individual in question and explain the program to him directly. Maybe you can solve his problem that way.
Now I'd like to turn to organic certification. Organic farming and gardening have provided safe and nutritious food in sustainable production systems for several decades. Consumer demand for produce from organic production is steadily increasing. Organic farming is an economic alternative to conventional production systems. The number of organic production units is increasing steadily in North America. Will the minister implement the proposed certification regulations under the Food Choice and Disclosure Act?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm trying to remember what I know about Mr. Witzke; I know him and his wife quite well. They own about 30 acres in the Rutland area. On the open market that land would probably be worth $2.5 million. He was invited to a meeting with our expert in the area, Mike Cowley, who knows the tree fruit industry extremely well. He decided not to avail himself of the services of my colleague. I don't know what his reasons were, but he did not do that.
As far as the organic industry is concerned, there will be an announcement in the immediate future -- I think within several weeks -- that we have resolved many of the problems facing that industry. There are nine major groups in the organic industry. I haven't got the notes in front of me, but I can tell you what their total gross is. It's $5.6 million to $6 million a year. It's a growing part of our economic and agricultural industry, of course. We conversed and consulted with every one of those groups. The majority of them are onside. You may expect a relatively imminent announcement.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, I'd like to ask you one more question that was sent to me directly from the British Columbia Egg Producers' Association. If the minister could answer this for them, I'll quote from their document. It's under issue No. 2, and I don't know if the minister received this or not. It says: "The government postures as promoters of democracy, yet expands its control over agencies and boards." Will the government permit an early return to elected board members of the B.C. Egg Producers?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think the hon. member knows that the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board had lost the confidence of the superboard, which is the British Columbia Marketing Board. I had the unpleasant task of replacing that
[ Page 7572 ]
board. I look forward to the time when we can come back to elected representation on that board. At this precise time, we are monitoring the situation.
R. Chisholm: Is there a time frame, hon. minister, in which they could expect to see this happen, or is it just going to be monitored forever?
Hon. B. Barlee: At the present time, the man in charge of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board is Gerry Zaph. We want to see how he's doing in that area. Generally speaking, the individuals on the Egg Marketing Board -- and I think my memory serves me correctly -- average, in many instances, well over $100,000 per year in net profit. The major producers are doing quite well, thank you.
R. Chisholm: What is this ministry doing to assist the younger generation or new entrants in getting established in agriculture and to ensure that British Columbia will have sufficient producers of food in the future?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we have the 4-H Clubs; they've been there for decades. I think they do a magnificent job. We also have the classroom program, which I mentioned before. We have development programs. The last incentive to young people to get into farming is that generally speaking they have a job for life. Secondly, if they pick well and make some good business decisions, they will do extremely well indeed.
[7:15]
R. Chisholm: What I am striving to get an answer on are the vocational agricultural programs at the college level. What are we doing to enhance programs at the college level -- Fraser Valley College, for instance, or UBC?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have a farm business management program and extension programs, and we are in close consultation with the Ministry of Advanced Education as far as the programs offered in the various colleges and universities in B.C. go.
R. Chisholm: Experimental farms such as Oyster River are shutting down, etc. One problem we seem to have is whether we are going to shut down all of our experimental farms and for instance, maintain a dairy herd at Agassiz. Is there anything in the future that would see that dairy herd shut down? It is very necessary for the health of that industry in this province.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, Oyster River comes under the direct supervision of the University of British Columbia. That is not run by us; that's a decision they make. The research stations in Prince George, Agassiz, Summerland and elsewhere are all federal, so again, they do not fall under our aegis. We carry on demonstration projects, but essentially these research stations do not fall under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
R. Chisholm: I hope that the minister is in contact with the federal authorities running this program and that we do have some input as to what happens with this experimental herd, because it is a very important tool when it comes down to the dairy farmers of British Columbia.
Another area I'd like to get into is credit in farming. When I look at this article, for instance, I see: "British Columbia offers the lowest level of financial support to farmers." I'll cite from it. When you take a look at their diagrams, we offer 16 percent viz other provinces, such as Alberta at 52 percent. Others are: Nova Scotia at 62 percent and Quebec at 67 percent. This definitely tells us about the amount of support that British Columbia farmers are getting from their government. This article says that of all the provinces in Canada, British Columbia provides the least credit to its farmers. Even the eternally impoverished governments of the Maritime provinces offer more agriculture credit assistance to their agrifood producers than British Columbia does. "According to the research done by the federal farm finance task force, Nova Scotia provides 60 percent of farmers' borrowed capital," reports Ken Corraini, manager of credit for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. The financial development programs department, Quebec, provides slightly less, 3 percent less than British Columbia. Regardless, British Columbia farmers are obviously at a competitive disadvantage compared to other provinces. What is this ministry doing, or what is this government going to do -- as far as you can talk about -- to ease this situation, help farmers get credit, and assist them in getting into this costly endeavour?
Hon. B. Barlee: There are perhaps two answers to this multifaceted question. First of all, we have sent a series of letters to the federal Minister of Agriculture stating that we don't like the downsizing in the farming community in British Columbia. It has happened all the way across the country.
Second, the member mentions Alberta, which is composed largely of grain farmers, with some cattle. There is mixed farming in Quebec, and indeed they do need more money, because they're not doing as well as we are. If you look at the Farm Credit Corporation figures, the lowest per capita debt in Canada is among the British Columbia farmers. We don't owe as much, so we don't need as much.
R. Chisholm: I hardly think that that will be a comforting answer to the farmers, but we won't bother going into that any further, because obviously we know where we are going with it.
Is this government negotiating with the federal government to enact legislation requiring that all foodstuffs at retail be plainly marked as to their country of origin? Is this provincial government considering enacting its own legislation on this material?
The Chair: Hon. minister, please respond on the parts of the question that come under your office, leaving out the need for legislation.
[ Page 7573 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: We actually introduced that subject in Halifax last year to the federal government. That is essentially under their aegis.
R. Chisholm: Are there any specific new products being pushed in this province -- such as soybeans and inks made from soybeans, or plastics made from grains -- to help agriculture remain viable and become a more competitive industry? Are we trying to develop any areas through research and development? What products would we be looking at?
Hon. B. Barlee: We think that with 280 products in British Columbia, the producer has a shopping list. If the producer wants to go into hazelnuts, he can plant a hazelnut tree and it will start producing in seven years. It will continue for 100 years. He takes a chance. We have produced some of the best hazelnuts in the world. If the producer wants to go into blueberries.... There is a blueberry producer in the valley who made $3 million net last year. That's not bad. It may or may not happen this year; I don't know. But I do know that they have a terrific shopping list. They can say: "Well, we'll try this niche market or that niche market." This is a business decision, and we can help them, but we cannot point them. It is not our mandate to say that they should go into such and such. It's a grave mistake to make. They make these business decisions after examining all the criteria: whether there's a market, whether it can grow well in B.C., whether we have good marketing skills in that area, and who we're competing against.
R. Chisholm: Some products that are not viable or competitive could be changed. We have been growing an awful lot of raspberries, which we do not necessarily have markets for at all times, and we could change to other products. There are things we could get into like yellow pears, soybeans and the ink. Are we giving direction or educating farmers as to their options? We may not make the decisions for them, but we certainly can make sure they have the options and the information available, and that is what I'm referring to. We are not necessarily competitive in a lot of our products.
Hon. B. Barlee: I've answered this in about six different ways so far, but I'll answer it again. Raspberries are marvellous in British Columbia, but we have to have a long-term strategy and a marketing plan to see where there's a niche market and to see if we can compete with other sectors in the United States or elsewhere, and part of that drops under the Buy B.C. plan.
Buy B.C. is to educate the consumer, the producer, the processor, the retailer and all the way down the line. It's working fairly well. Out of all these 280 commodities, some will sell well and some will not. That is ultimately a decision made by the producer.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to turn to the area of pesticides. I'm quite sure the minister will say that this is not under his jurisdiction, but I'm going to ask it anyway, just to see if there are answers and who can answer the questions for these people who have asked. What are this minister and this government doing to stop food produced in other countries that are using pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals not allowed in British Columbia or Canada? Is this minister working with the federal government to stop this practice? Does this come under this minister's jurisdiction or under Environment, so that these people can go to the right ministry?
[7:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, licensing comes directly under Agriculture Canada. It has nothing to do with us. We have some input, but not a lot.
As far as the dealers are concerned, this comes under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, but we do have several programs that are impacting on this area. One is the sterile insect release program that costs us $3.75 million, and along with a federal matching grant, that's $7.5 million altogether. It will place us in the forefront of eliminating sprays in the Okanagan, the Similkameen and the Creston areas. And the other one is an integrated pest management system. We're putting a fair amount of money into that, where we use predators to kill the insects that are harmful to the plants. So both of these are going in the right direction.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to quote from Globe '92 for a second on the use of fertilizers. It says that since 1960, farmers' use of fertilizer has increased 900 percent. Their use of pesticides has soared 3,200 percentage points. Loblaw's vice-president of environmental affairs Patrick Carson said: "It's not the kids that are on drugs, it's agriculture."
Hon. minister, this has been going on for a long time. There is an increasing concern regarding the wide-spread use of chemicals and fertilizer in agriculture in British Columbia, especially in areas such as the Fraser Valley with heavy concentration and proximity to water. What is the minister doing to address these concerns? Is there any consultation with the Minister of Environment? Is there any R and D into less potent substances, like the moths you have mentioned?
Hon. B. Barlee: Our integrated pest management system is like a miniature Jurassic Park. We will use ladybugs to prey on other insects that are harmful to plants. The member mentioned that the use of pesticides and insecticides has gone up. We're working in exactly the opposite direction. With the sterile insect release program, the use will go down. I mentioned in this House last week that the scientists from the research station in Summerland said that we will probably be pesticide-free in the orchards of the Okanagan in 1995 or 1996 -- perhaps as late as 1998, but probably not beyond that date. This is a first in the so-called civilized world, so I think we are making some significant moves in this area that are really far ahead of our competitors.
R. Chisholm: There is a growing concern that antibiotics and other substances used to treat livestock are having adverse effects on human health by making us more resistant to medication and thus making it
[ Page 7574 ]
harder to treat several afflictions. Has the minister been made aware of this concern? How is he responding to this potentially serious problem?
Hon. B. Barlee: That comes almost directly under the federal departments, and they allow only a very small percentage of insecticide residues. If you compare our food and drug laws to those in most other parts of the world, we really lead the pack; there's not much doubt about that at all. So we're kind of wandering into an area that is governed essentially by the federal government of Canada.
R. Chisholm: This will be the last question in this area. Hopefully, I'm not wandering into the federal government's area of jurisdiction, but I am sure the minister will let me know if I am. It is on hormones and steroids. The Americans appear to have been doing considerable research in this area, as well as on questions about the use of hormones and steroids in livestock production. Is the minister aware of the results and scope of this research, and has he taken steps to avail himself of this information? What information on the effects of these substances is currently available?
Hon. B. Barlee: We are party to and privy to any research going on in this area. This is, again, essentially under the federal government.
R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister could inform us exactly where the federal and provincial roles start and stop in this area, considering that we are talking about cattle and all sorts of livestock. We are talking about chemicals -- steroids or whatever -- used in this industry. If he could explain where his responsibility ends and the federal government's starts, it might help a lot of people who have questions.
Hon. B. Barlee: Our role is basically an educational and extension one. We have ten different provinces, plus several territories. We could not have ten different criteria or ten different series of rules to govern one of those provinces. That is why it logically develops under the aegis of the federal government.
R. Chisholm: The last question is on R and D. Again, the federal government has 1,200 employees in the fisheries area, and we have about 40. Just what are our responsibilities in the R and D area vis-�-vis the federal government? We have 40 employees, but nobody seems to know what our provincial employees do. What input do we have into the direction of R and D, and how can we ensure that it meets the requirements of British Columbia agriculture and fisheries?
Hon. B. Barlee: In this area, we work on technology transfer, new programs and market diversification, whereas the federal government is entirely responsible for fisheries in Canada -- on the east and west coasts. They call the long-range strategy on the high seas. Right now, we are engaged in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. That is essentially under the jurisdiction of the federal government. We play in that game, but we are not the major partners.
R. Chisholm: I was talking about research and development. I don't think that has anything to do with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We have 40 employees in the research and development area. I am specifically asking where our responsibilities are, and where the federal responsibilities are in research development, with 1,240 employees.
Hon. B. Barlee: The federal government's main thrust is management of the species, whether it is Pacific salmon, steelhead or a number of other areas. They manage the coho, the chinook and so on. Ours is entirely different. We concentrate on improving our position in hake, for instance, which I expanded on at length the other day. We grew from zero tonnes to 6,000 the next year, 19,000 tonnes last year and maybe 30,000 tonnes next year. So they were going in entirely different directions. They have management of the stock. They have to ensure that the stock is not threatened or endangered in any area, and generally they do a good job.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the in-service date is with regard to the sterile insect release facility at Osoyoos?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member is alluding to the start-up date, when this program actually gets underway. The facilities are completely built. They are building up their stock of moths, and the first releases will be next year in the south Okanagan.
K. Jones: At a groundbreaking ceremony on January 16, l992, the minister announced that this facility was expected to be in full operation for the l993 fruit growing season. Yet you say it's a year late in coming into production. Have you been monitoring this to make sure that it comes through on time, or are you just leaving it up to the feds to bring it in whenever they can?
Hon. B. Barlee: In consultation with my staff, we see no problem with this at all. The project is complete. The buildings are complete, and all the equipment is in place. They are building up the stock. They are on schedule. It goes through various phases. We are at about phase two or phase three right now, so there is nothing behind schedule. Money has been paid, and everything is really in place.
K. Jones: Thanks to the minister for that information. Could the minister tell us the actual cost of construction?
Hon. B. Barlee: The original cost was around $7.7 million or $7.8 million. That, of course, includes the federal contribution and the provincial contribution. We came in under budget by several hundred thousand dollars -- around $500,000 -- so that is pretty good management.
[ Page 7575 ]
K. Jones: I'm not quite clear on the answer to that. What was the B.C. budgeted amount, and what was the actual total cost?
Hon. B. Barlee: This was a fifty-fifty division between the federal government and the provincial government. The total budget was $7.7 million, so half of that is $3.85 million. We will spend about $3.75 million on that, so we saved about $100,000. The federal government saved $100,000. It's run by a local board, with expertise in the facility itself.
[7:45]
K. Jones: So the minister is saying that the actual cost of the facility was $7.5 million, which was shared equally between the province and federal government. This program was intended to bring about a natural environmentally-friendly method of going after the codling moth. According to your press release, it's going to employ some people. How many people actually are employed in that program?
Hon. B. Barlee: The employment, both full- and part-time, does not fall under the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which is a Crown agency. It does not fall under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is a government ministry. It falls under the local regime, and they tax in the areas.
I might add, to perhaps clarify it slightly, that this program was tried in a pilot project in the Similkameen around 1976 and worked extremely well. So we're not throwing money away -- at least, we don't think we are.
K. Jones: I was not asking who funded. I just asked how many people were employed in the facility. Is it possible to give us that, since you showed enough interest in it to put out a press release?
Hon. B. Barlee: If my memory serves me correctly, it's around 20. But I think we should get that precise figure. That would be 20 full- and part-time, but the precise figure may have fluctuated somewhat. We would have to get that figure from the sterile insect release facility board.
K. Jones: I'd just like to read part of the press release and ask the minister if what he's told us is really what he meant when he put out this press release. "The facility will employ 22 people year-round and an additional 25 on a seasonal basis, and is expected to be in full operation for the 1993 fruit growing season."
Hon. B. Barlee: Full operation, in any plant, is going through the various phases. To put this into elementary terms, the plant is built first; it has been. It is staffed; it has been. The strategic plan is put in place; it is. They are now stocking the millions of moths they need to complete phase three or four. So everything is on schedule and progressing the way it should be.
K. Jones: Thank you very much for confirming that. Basically, we really have a program, which the minister announced at the groundbreaking, that is going to provide a means for eliminating -- or seriously cutting down -- the threat caused by the codling moth to the apple industry. Although the press release says it should have been in operation for this fruit growing season, I take it he's saying that it's going to be in service for next year's fruit growing season. I'll leave it at that and go on to another area.
Hon. minister....
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, hon. member.
K. Jones: I guess it was last summer that the minister made a trip to Japan and Hong Kong and developed a lot of interest in B.C. trade through the contacts he made there. Could the minister give us the detailed results of his mission? What, specifically, can we measure today as a result of your visit there?
Hon. B. Barlee: It was a rush visit, of course. We made some good contacts. We have major customers on the island of Hokkaido, who deal in herring roe, and customers in and around the main island around Tokyo who deal in surimi. We made some excellent contacts -- one of whom was a Japanese multimillionaire called Ogawa. He flew down the Island against buffeting winds last year just to come to the Empress to see me. He was interested in a project with some other British Columbia entrepreneurs.
As I mentioned in this room about three or four days ago, you have to build up your alliances with the Japanese very slowly. Some of them have done business for a thousand years. We are making some good progress. We have some good Japanese customers, and we believe in being very careful with our Japanese customers. I think it is paying us significant dividends. Our sales to Japan are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is business you take care of.
K. Jones: I'm really pleased to hear that we have so much successful trade. Could the minister actually tell us how much increase in trade or any other benefits we receive specifically from him being over there? What value did the people of British Columbia get for their investment in him travelling over there?
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Chair to the hon. member, I'll give you a classic example. I've gone over this before, too. You seem to be filibustering. Hake was 6 cents a pound. Last year we got $1 a pound. That's 16 times as much as we got before, essentially, because of the Japanese. We do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business. For every person in B.C. -- man, woman and child -- we get about $100 immediately from our fishing industry. Our industry -- agriculture, fisheries and food -- has grown from $210 million in 1972 to $2.1 billion in 1992. That's geometric growth. That's pretty damned good.
The Chair: Hon. minister....
[ Page 7576 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: Excuse me. That's pretty good. Please delete that phrase.
K. Jones: The hon. minister is just getting a little enthusiastic about his salesmanship. He got carried away, I'm sure, hon. Chair. He really takes this job seriously and gets very enthusiastic about it, so I think we could probably allow that little problem there.
Hon. minister, there was....
The Chair: Hon. member, there is a requirement under standing order 36 that the debate be directed through the Chair, please. Thank you, hon. member.
K. Jones: Yes, hon. Chair.
There was a cooperative federal-provincial action taken last summer in the area of cross-border shopping. The minister put out a press release that extolled what they intended to get out of it. I would just like to ask the minister as a matter of accountability one year later: what has occurred as a result of these actions?
Hon. B. Barlee: The precise figures on the question before the last one are that we gained $23 million in our overseas seafood products export business last year. I know my trip didn't cost very much, and when we make $23 million, I think that's money well spent.
As far as cross-border shopping is concerned, we had to convince the federal government in Quebec City that our figures were accurate. The federal government felt that our figures were inaccurate. We proceeded to tell them what our findings were, and our figures indicated that there was $7 billion to $9 billion flowing across into the United States from the various parts of Canada. Our figures also indicated that British Columbia's loss was $1.7 billion -- a figure I'm repeating again. I'm sorry to bore the hon. Chair. This is $5 million a day.
We have adopted a long-term strategy. The federal government has been rather slow to move on this. They are coming onboard, but it is a slow and tentative progress. To that end, we have hired Rob Boyd, the head of Ravenwolf Corporation and Ravenwolf House. He isn't a Madison Avenue advertising man, but he's a very innovative thinker. I think he's creative. He will help solve the problem, which is driven by a number of different things, so we will finally lay this to rest. There are a number of reasons that people go across the border: cheaper prices, adventure, lower gas prices and service. There are maybe a dozen different reasons. I'm trying to put it to rest. We don't know all the reasons. He is working from the U.S. side, because he wants to find out how they drove our traffic down there. With a total bill -- a hemorrhage -- of $1.7 billion a year, we hope to stop only 5 percent of that traffic. That would be $85 million a year: 85 times 15 is about 1,250 permanent jobs in British Columbia. He's on phase one, which cost $29,000. If he's successful, we'll put him into phase two. This is the way you manage business. If he's successful again, we'll put him into stage three. We are the only government in Canada that's doing this, and the other governments, such as Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, are very keen on what we're doing. We will let them know at the next provincial and federal agricultural ministers' conference, which is about 12 days hence.
R. Chisholm: I've heard from the minister what he thinks of my final subject, cross-border shopping. I just want to quote a couple of things he said when he was in opposition, and at other times. For instance, the minister said:
"We have people working in British Columbia going across to the United States -- they call them the gas and milk crossings -- since the free trade agreement came into effect. In March, April and May of l988, 53,000 cars per annum went across the border crossing at Pacific Highway. It's now 121,000 cars per annum. At Aldergrove, it was 45,000 cars in '88. In '89, it's 75,000 cars. These crossings have jumped from 400,000 to almost 600,000 in one year. And that's not the end of it."
[8:00]
I would like to inform the minister that every time this provincial government puts up a litre of gas by 1 cent, it jumps in Sumas. The Sumas border crossing has increased in volume so dramatically since the free trade agreement that they have had to build a larger crossing with more lanes to accommodate the congestion of British Columbians going to the U.S. to shop. It did decrease for a while, but the day the price of gas went up, they filled Sumas again. I made a phone call to the border crossings going into the United States to confirm that. Every time we increase the price of gas, they are going across the border; and when they go across the border, they buy their agricultural products; and when they buy these, we lose between $5 million and $8 million, $4.5 billion, or whatever it is in the future. If we take a look at the Royal Bank cross-border shopping causes, I understand what the minister is trying to say. But there is a problem, and the problem is partly us every time we raise the gas. Every time we do this we end up sending people south, and if you want more proof I can gladly give it to you. Your comments, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'd like to give you some proof. The lowest average price of gas in Canada is in the riding of Okanagan-Boundary, which is mine. It averages about 46.9 cents a litre. It is not the gas war; this is average.
So I know a fair amount about the price of gas. I also know that the previous government had a policy of raising the price of gas 1 cent every three months, or 4 cents a year. We have been in power almost two years. That 1 cent has not come on board yet; it will this fall. That is 1 cent in two years -- one-eighth as much as the previous government -- in a time of economic downturn.
As far as more lanes in the various crossings is concerned, that is the federal government's decision. It certainly is not my decision. I daresay that 1 cent a litre, which in two years is about 1 percent, is under the cost of living. I don't think we can be heavily criticized on that.
R. Chisholm: Seeing as we have come this far, then I will quote back to the minister something he said
[ Page 7577 ]
when he was in opposition. This was July 23, 1990. Your words, hon. minister:
"The industry is complaining that the reason people are going across the line is the cheap price of gas. But I'm saying that this government benefits from that. Sure, the dairymen lose $72 million, but the government gains. Why does the government gain? The government gains because this government -- who say they don't tax consumers -- taxes them to the blasted hilt. This government charges more per litre than the federal government, and they're greedy as the devil. The federal government charges about 11 cents per litre. The provincial government charges 12 cents. That's 23 cents between the two of them. Is there some tacit agreement between the oil companies and the provincial and federal governments?
"I can go across and buy Shell gas in the United States for 32.9 cents. I come to Victoria and pay 59.9 cents. What does Shell make on it? Well, let's examine Shell's role. Shell makes a gross average of 37 cents a litre in Canada in Canadian funds. What does it make in the States? It makes 24 cents a litre, so it's making 13 cents a litre more. Instead of paying 59 for unleaded gas in downtown Victoria, you should be paying 46.
"Is there some sort of agreement between the multinational oil companies and the provincial and federal governments? It sure looks like it. Every penny of that tax produces $25 million or $26 million in direct revenue to the provincial government. So that 12 cents is producing about $250 million, if my figures are close. I got several figures from the ministry; they varied somewhat. I am saying that you are penalizing the dairymen. We're letting these people pick up gas in the States because you are making $250 million. So what if the dairy industry is losing $72 million? So what if Canadian jobs are going down the drain? This government is making $250 million on charging our consumers a heck of a lot more than they should be paying for gas."
I agree with these comments of yours from July 23, 1990. They are even more relevant today. The tax on gasoline has increased, giving the government even larger profits. On top of that, this government has increased the cent-per-litre taxation that you are talking about. We are talking about how Build B.C. has a right to tax them again. That is going to produce more cross-border shopping. This is exactly what you argued about when you were in opposition. Like I said, the minute that it went up, they went across the border. They filled Sumas. I am sure they filled Osoyoos in your area. I am sure they went across the border. These are areas that your government has control of....
The Chair: Hon. member, please, through the Chair.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for the correction, hon. Chair. Through you, hon. Chair, to the minister, these are areas over which this government and this minister have some control. This minister has to talk to the Finance minister. This minister has to talk to the rest of the government -- Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. This minister must get it through to the rest of the ministries that this is part of the downfall of agriculture in British Columbia. Like you said back in 1990, 1 cent then was $25 million. What is it now?
Hon. B. Barlee: I can't comment on those areas that fall under other ministries, and that is one of them. What I can comment on is market development, and I am saying that market development is the way to go.
When we originally entered this Buy B.C. project, we thought that the average loyalty of the average British Columbian was as shallow as it was elsewhere in Canada. Wrong. We thought that the average consumer loyalty to British Columbian products was as low as it was in most of the States. Wrong. We are in the enviable position where British Columbians care about British Columbia products. They are willing to spend a little more. It is fresher. It is better. We have higher standards, and virtually every retail outfit in British Columbia, with the exception of one, is finding that out. So this is the route we will go, and I actually think we will make a dent in that horrific cross-border shopping. It won't be easy. I'm targeting 5 percent the first year. If we do that, I will be very happy. That will save about 1,250 full-time jobs. Those kids out there looking for jobs in the summer will have jobs. You go with the flow. What you do is find out what the consumer wants. If the consumer agrees, then you have to follow that strategy. That's precisely what we're doing.
R. Chisholm: This policy with gasoline and increases is part of the minister's responsibility. It's part of other ministries' responsibilities, that is true, but he is supposed to be the champion of agriculture, so it is his responsibility to talk to the other ministers and drive home the point that it is causing disruption in our agriculture industry. It is causing hardship, as we have heard, to the tune of $72 million just in one industry, and it's time that it stopped. The minister was very vehement about what he said when he was in opposition. He was very forthright and very abrupt, and I quote what he said, again on July 23, 1990:
"I'm saying that if I were minister, I would have been on them like a flash. I would be on Shell Oil; I'd be on Exxon. I would ask them: 'What the heck are you doing? Where is this unwritten agreement?' There must be an unwritten agreement, because the prices are diametrically opposed."
You are now the minister. Are you going to keep your word? Are you going to get your government to lower the price of gas in British Columbia to discourage cross-border shopping?
The Chair: Hon. minister, please respond on the areas that fall under the direct responsibility of your office only.
Hon. B. Barlee: It is not under the direct responsibility of my office.
The Chair: Thank you, then, hon. minister.
R. Chisholm: It might not be under his direct responsibility, hon. Chair, but I've already explained to you how it affects his ministry, and he was very vocal about it when he was in opposition. Maybe it's time for him to get very vocal now as Minister of Agriculture. Maybe if he doesn't, maybe he is not doing his job.
[ Page 7578 ]
There is great concern in the agriculture industry about the NDP's promise of open government. When a bill is being proposed federally, those affected -- i.e., the farmers -- are given a copy of the actual bill so they can give their input. In British Columbia this is not done. At best, the farmers get a paraphrase of the bill. The first question to the minister is: when will the minister be willing to give them an actual copy of a proposed bill?
The Chair: Hon. member, that question deals with legislation, which doesn't fall under the areas to be canvassed in estimates. Legislation is out of order, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, when will the government start implementing its open government election promise and inform the farmers of upcoming or possible legislation so that they can give some input? Maybe I should rephrase it and say: when will the minister go out and talk to the farmers before the legislation comes down and his hands are tied?
Hon. B. Barlee: I mentioned before, and I'll mention again, that we discussed the Natural Products Marketing Act with the producers. We went into lengthy discussions, and we spent a year and a half with them. They are happy with our proposed legislation. So we've done that; we do that. It's a pattern of ours -- a boring one.
R. Chisholm: If that had been done, hon. minister, there wouldn't be the problem with RPP. They would be well educated and would understand what's happening. They would probably have gone down there and signed up. At least they would have been able to discuss it intelligently with your ministry staff. But out of 2,000 members, only 25 signed up. The rest remain confused and unsure of what you're doing with RPP, and they want to know what is going on.
The cost of farm input has been increasing at the same time as net farm income is declining, because more farmers are forced to take off-farm jobs in order to keep food on the table, and more farm wives have taken off-farm jobs. There was a slight increase in total farm family income. However, even with the additional income, the total farm family income is still below the Canadian family income. What does this ministry intend to do to eliminate these discrepancies and to make farming more attractive to young people, thus ensuring a future in agriculture?
Hon. Chair, another point is that poverty creates pollution. If the farmer can't afford to do what you want him to do environmentally, then guess what? We're going to have more pollution. Your comments, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Chair, I've gone over this to the point of ad nauseam. The average net income to the British Columbia farmer went up by 21 percent in l991; it went up by 24 percent in l992. Again I mention that we had ten bankruptcies in British Columbia -- the lowest in the country. Our total income from the farming community and the fishing community jumped from $210 million in l972 to $2.1 billion in l992. I don't think we can do much better, and nobody can match our record across Canada.
[8:15]
We discuss it with the federals, with all the agencies, with the Crowns and with every group in British Columbia. Frankly, I think we're filibustering the questions. I've answered some of these questions four times. I don't mind answering them again. It must get very boring for the Hansard staff, though.
K. Jones: I'm sorry to hear that the minister is getting so impatient. Certainly there's no attempt to filibuster at all here. We have legitimate questions that need to be addressed; they're of concern to our constituents. I would expect that the minister would show some tolerance and answer the questions as he has been in the past, and not let his emotions get the better of him.
Going back to the arrangements that the minister made with regard to the agreements with the federal Department of Agriculture last year, one of the agreements he reported in the ministry press release was that sufficient customs officials would be in place at the international border crossings to manage the enforcement of existing duties, taxes and regulations with respect to food and beverage products. Have those been put in place?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is not in my jurisdiction. You'd have to ask the federal minister in charge of that.
K. Jones: The minister put out this press release under his name and office. He claims credit for these agreements. Surely he has to be accountable for the agreements he's claimed.
The Chair: Hon. member, that's federal government jurisdiction, as the minister has explained. A new question, please.
K. Jones: It's evident that the minister was unsuccessful in having prevailed with the proposals he claimed to have agreement on. Obviously there were no results from it.
I'd like to go further into this area. I'd like to inquire of the minister: last year there was a demonstration out here that was related to the growing and....
Hon. B. Barlee: Cabbage and lettuce.
K. Jones: Yes, the cabbage and lettuce. The great concern expressed there -- and the minister said he would take action against it -- was the problem of the dumping of foreign products into our province at the time when our growers were just coming to market. Could the minister tell us exactly what actions have been taken to stop the flow of product coming in below market price, in season, thereby making it impossible for our growers to be able to put their products to market? What action have you taken this past year, since that time you promised you'd help?
[ Page 7579 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: This again. I must tell the hon. member: this falls directly under the federal government aegis. I have contacted, sent faxes, written letters and telephoned. It does fall under the federal government agencies. The federal Minister of Agriculture at that time was Bill McKnight. He contacted other individuals within the federal government, notably Michael Wilson and Otto Jelinek of Revenue Canada.
As for the vegetable producers of the lower and central Fraser Valley, for the first time in 20 years they're talking to each other, thanks to us. They literally wouldn't talk to each other for years. You will see this when we make the announcement on the 29th of this month.
K. Jones: I'm glad to see that the minister has been so successful in getting all this cooperation from the federal government and just literally twisting the tail of Ottawa. I'm sure he's taking credit for every ounce of effort he put into it.
Interjection.
K. Jones: Telegram too, yes. He probably ran down the street and told a few other people, too. I think I'll leave that one. It looks like we're not going to get any further answer out of that one.
I'd like to ask the minister if he would table the status of each approved golf course proposal that he has....
The Chair: Hon. member, it's not possible to table documents in committee.
K. Jones: He could give us the status of each of the golf course proposals approved in the exemption to the ALR.
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't have those figures in my back pocket. Usually I'm fairly good at figures, but I think if the hon. member would write one letter or place one 30-second phone call to the Agricultural Land Commission chair, he would get all that information.
K. Jones: I thought it was even cheaper to ask the minister directly. He's supposed to know what's going on. Also, it should be more efficient. The minister does know what he's doing in his ministry or what's going on in his ministry, doesn't he?
Could the minister just tell us: do all the golf courses look like they are going to be in place as he has approved?
Hon. B. Barlee: Those figures are available from the Agricultural Land Commission. Although I have 280 commodities, I haven't every one of those details under my immediate gaze.
K. Jones: Maybe I'll just narrow it down. There are not that many in the Fraser Valley. Could you tell us the status of those in the Fraser Valley?
Hon. B. Barlee: There were several hundred golf courses that came under OIC 1141. Many of them were in the Fraser Valley, in greater Vancouver, on southern Vancouver Island area and in the greater Okanagan area. Those are the areas impacted. Again, I would reiterate that the Crown agency to go through is the Agricultural Land Commission.
K. Jones: We'll not taunt the minister any longer. He's obviously at the end of his tether, and...
D. Lovick: Mercy lives.
K. Jones: ...has literally begged for mercy and release from this torturous task of actually answering a question that's the whole essence of having a series of estimates put forward, and the accountability the minister is supposed to be in favour of. Certainly he favoured it when he was in opposition. But now that he's in government he tries very hard not to have to put up with it.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for their indulgence and their patience at times. Thank you for the information that you did divulge, whenever it was forthcoming. On that note, hon. Chair, we are finished with our questions.
Vote 14 approved.
Vote 15: ministry operations, $66,384,176 -- approved.
Vote 16: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $2,064,553 -- approved.
Vote 17: British Columbia Marketing Board, $469,380 -- approved.
Vote 18: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, $1,820,000 -- approved.
D. Schreck: I move that the committee recess for five minutes, whereupon it will resume with debate on the Ministry of Government Services.
Motion approved.
The Committee recessed at 8:27 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 8:32 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
On vote 43: ministers office, $350,717.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, I am very pleased to be here to introduce the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. Our ministry has developed a clear statement of purpose which I think all of us can
[ Page 7580 ]
relate to, and that's to find ways to save government money. This ministry provides central services to government to reduce the cost of government administration. Services are provided by four main components of the ministry: supply and services programs like the Queen's Printer, the purchasing branch, vehicle management services and air services; information-related services like the B.C. archives and records service, the information and privacy branch, and Enquiry B.C; the administration of public sector pension plans; and programs serving the executive of government, like the government communications office and the cabinet planning secretariat. I'm also responsible for B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Lottery Corporation, the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, the Public Service Commission and the Centre for Executive and Management Development.
I'd like to give you some examples from each of these areas after setting the stage with some facts about the ministry's budget for this year. The ministry has reduced its budget from last year by 8 percent. With some program transfers into the ministry, our budget in its final form is down by 5 percent from last year. In this budget the ministry estimates using 1,000 FTE staff to provide services to the executive branch, to other ministries, to employees, to suppliers and to communities in British Columbia.
The ministry takes very seriously its job to save government money. I'd like to give you a few examples. An independent review of the postal branch by Treasury Board last year determined that the branch saves government $21 million annually by avoiding duplication of services by each ministry running postal services themselves. Vehicle management services' consolidation of fuel billing across government reduced invoices from 100,000 to 1,000 annually, saving $1.4 million. A consolidated maintenance program is proposed for this year, to save an additional $2 million. Bulk storage of pharmaceuticals at the product distribution centre has saved the Attorney General's corrections branch 25 percent on prescription drug costs. Purchasing agents in the purchasing branch saved government $5.8 million on service contracts negotiated for other ministries. The B.C. archives and records service also saves government money through consolidation. Last year, consolidation of off-site storage of files saved government $2.1 million. In our programs to save government money, we are conscious of the use of government's purchasing power to improve regional economic diversification by matching B.C. suppliers' capabilities to the needs of the ministries. A special emphasis is placed on identifying companies which produce environmentally sound products.
I would like to highlight three specific objectives the ministry is concentrating on this year: the B.C. Buy Smart project, implementing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and pension plan governance.
B.C. Buy Smart is a governmentwide initiative which will introduce an electronic bidding, ordering and payment system linking suppliers to government buyers. By using the most recent advances in technology, this project will let government workers order goods electronically. Suppliers will be able to bid electronically and receive payment faster by a purchase card or electronically. The purchase card will be the first part of the project to be implemented. It will be in the pilot phase this summer, with over 500 card users participating from six ministries and three Crown corporations. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports the introduction of the purchase card and its prompt-payment objectives, and I can tell you personally from dealing with individuals who have had to wait for payment that it will be well received by many small businesses.
I would now like to move to the Superannuation Commission, and clarify its role for the record. The administration of public sector pension funds is the responsibility of the Superannuation Commission under the Ministry of Government Services. Under the Financial Administration Amendment Act, the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations manages the investment of public sector pension funds. We have proposed a new management or governance model for the management of public sector pensions and, over the past six months, the superannuation commissioner has been discussing its implementation with plan member representatives and sponsors. The proposed model will bring members and sponsors together on pension boards to resolve issues and provide direction on plan operations. The boards will work on a consensus basis and will focus on problem-solving. Board members will be able to work together with the support of the commission's expertise and other resources to solve issues in this important but complex and technical area. Each board will consist of an equal number of government and plan member representatives. We are hopeful that this new management model will provide sponsors and members better access to the people and information needed to make decisions. We hope, too, that by working together with plan member representatives and sponsors, innovative and practical solutions will be found.
The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will be proclaimed this October and our information and privacy branch is responsible for ensuring all government ministries are ready to live up to its provisions. To date, we are on track with the development of a policy manual. One hundred and ten government trainers have been trained. A system for tracking requests has been developed, and records management systems have been put in place in 80 percent of ministries.
The ministry is also committed to revitalization and reform of the public service and improving the working relationship between staff and management. For example, the Superannuation Commission is reorganizing its staff into teams to provide all pension administration services required, by plan rather than by the type of assistance required.
We are also improving workplace conditions through a telecommuting project, for example. The results of this pilot will be known in the fall, and we will be reviewing them to see if telecommuting can be
[ Page 7581 ]
expanded to other ministries -- something a lot of people will be looking at.
The ministry is also committed to employment equity, as well as training and awareness programs. One area that has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to employment equity is the product distribution centre. There, over 50 percent of the traditionally male stockworkers are in fact women.
Persons with disabilities, such as hearing impairment and physical and mobility impairments, have been accommodated through assistance devices such as wheelchair lifts and lights on phones. More importantly, staff members have responded by learning very basic sign language on their own.
Another area making improvements in employment equity is the agencies, boards and commissions branch. When they started their work, one out of three positions appointed was filled by a woman. Today, new appointments are split fifty-fifty between men and women.
Providing a high level of customer service is also part of revitalizing the public service. The Enquiry B.C. toll-free referral service has eliminated the previous situation where members of the public could be passed to six people before finding the information they were looking for. Enquiry B.C. is handling 37,000 calls a month now.
Before I move on to the Crown corporations I'd like to give you examples of innovations the ministry has made to programs to meet the challenge of reducing the cost of government. Computer imaging and access to 250,000 of BCARS's eight million photographs is being piloted this year with the University of Victoria. The computer access will give students and researchers a vast storage of archival material at their fingertips without having to travel to the archives. Computer access also protects the original photos, as handling is eliminated. This service will be available throughout the province later this year, so that people in the regions will have access to photos now exclusively available to Victoria residents. I would like to encourage everybody to go over to the archives and actually look at this, because it is really an exciting project.
Much of the work done by government involves paper, as forms or documents, brochures or legislation. Improving the way the government communicates by using plain language -- is the goal of the cross-government Plain Language Institute program, newly established in the ministry. For example, using plain language saves government money by reducing rework on forms filled out incorrectly and gives the people of British Columbia what they deserve -- documents they can understand. Even I could understand some of them, and that's a feat.
The need to change the way we do business has been demonstrated by the new B.C. Systems Corporation board. They have directed B.C. Systems Corporation to move to an open system so government computers can talk to each other and to work with suppliers to ensure a wide variety of bids on its major systems acquisitions. For those of you that haven't been across to the convention centre, I'd encourage you to go there if it's still on tomorrow, because they'll show you a wide variety of systems throughout corporations that have put up their displays through B.C. Systems. It is a really well received project here.
BCBC is also moving in a new direction in property management by working in cooperation with municipalities and interest groups, such as on the redevelopment of the Oaklands property and the Victoria accord. BCBC is also committed to improving the environmental impact of its projects and has won several international awards for excellence in energy management. BCBC has reduced energy consumption in its buildings by 61.2 percent, for a taxpayer saving of $69 million -- but here's the grabber: that's since l978. Even so, it's still a lot of money.
The B.C. Lottery Corporation continues to enjoy a reputation as the leader in the lottery world. BCLC is rated among the best Crown corporations by the general public. As well as returning significant revenues to the government, the corporation strives to be an equal opportunity employer and promote government objectives such as regional economic development.
To summarize, this ministry's purpose is to provide services which reduce the cost of government, through efficiencies of scale in the Purchasing Commission, by providing essential expertise in the area of pension management, by avoiding duplication and promoting coordination in the case of these central agencies and by providing unique expertise or efficiencies of consolidation in the case of programs and services. It is important that the money this ministry saves in reducing the administration costs of government can instead be spent on delivering programs such as health care, education and others which improve the quality of life for the people of this province.
[8:45]
Before we get into the estimates, I would like to advise the committee that I have with me here today staff from the ministry: David Richardson, Steve Hutchings, Jerry Woytack, Noelle Reeve, Harold Hilton, Larry Lee, Dave Collisson, and my deputy minister, John Mochrie. The Crown corporations staff are not here tonight. We were not sure what time we would get on, and we thought we could deal with the Crown corporations at a later date. Perhaps we could leave the questions on them for tomorrow.
Interjections.
K. Jones: It was rather interesting to hear the comments of the Finance minister and the deputy House Leader, who seem to think that a major ministry such as Government Services, and all of its Crown corporations, should be skimmed over lightly. I think the minister would be insulted if she didn't have a thorough examination of all the work that she's done many months of preparation for and that her staff have worked so hard for. I think that the comments of the two members are really insulting to the whole process.
D. Lovick: Do you know what Bette Midler said about people who can't take a joke?
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
[ Page 7582 ]
K. Jones: If the gentleman wishes to speak, would you ask him to please come through the Chair?
The Chair: You still have the floor, hon. member.
K. Jones: Thank you. I would like to canvass quite a few areas of concern in the ministry.
I really appreciate the briefings that the staff has given us to keep us abreast of what is going on. It is very evident that they have a good grasp of the operation. I have had the opportunity to tour almost every one of the operations, and I hope that the minister will tell us about the day that she did a complete tour of the archives. Could the minister start by telling us what day it was that she visited the archives?
Hon. L. Boone: This is certainly pressing and important. I toured the archives on the second day after I was made a minister, and I was over there two weeks ago when we had the new imaging process put in place.
K. Jones: It was interesting. The official opposition members of the Public Accounts Committee had the pleasure of a complete tour, looking at all aspects of it. It was most unfortunate that the other-party members of the Public Accounts Committee were unable to attend, because I think it would have been very helpful to them.
D. Lovick: I read what you said in Hansard.
K. Jones: Is that right? Amazing.
To The Minister: during the Minister of Finance's savings bond initiative, the Ministry of Government Services, like most ministries, emerged with a reduced expenditure level. Did the ministry continue the cuts during this fiscal year that were done at that time? Were those same cuts carried into this year, or were they re-instituted at the previous levels? Could you give us details of that?
Hon. L. Boone: Some of the cuts carried through from 1992-93, but not all of them.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us which ones were carried through, and which ones were not?
Hon. L. Boone: You will have to give us time, because we will have to go through it branch by branch, and there are a lot of branches here.
K. Jones: That's okay. We've got two and a half hours, or so the deputy House Leader suggested.
Hon. L. Boone: One cut that was carried through was the elimination of one assistant deputy minister and that staff. We still do not have that position, as the entire branch was incorporated within other areas.
A policy that hit everybody right where it hurts the most was when we eliminated pins and flags for MLAs -- that was a tough one. I heard from a lot of MLAs who were very concerned about that, but in this tough fiscal climate we felt that we had to do it.
BCARS reduced office and business expenditures, acquisitions, materials and supplies.
Government House reduced travel, printed cards, invitations, heating and electrical costs. But I can assure you that the Lieutenant-Governor did not complain at all about being inconvenienced, or about his heat being cut -- he was quite comfortable, in fact.
In the legislative buildings we eliminated the computer wiring upgrade and reduced the scope of the systems integration project. There's no funding for the cabinet planning secretariat, B.C. House in Ottawa, and Leader of the Opposition and cabinet offices in Vancouver. For protocol and events, as I said, we eliminated pins and flags. We replaced the carillonneur with occasional guest performances and we also have a proposal for an electronic carillonneur. Are you sure you want all of these things?
We reduced the hospitality budget, funding for the legislative buildings centennial and the open-government initiatives, and advertising. We redesigned long-term service award certificates to reduce costs there.
In the Public Service Commission we reduced STOB 7 and the appeal hearings. Under STOB 40, for the Premier's Advisory Council, information, advertising and publications were reduced. In the information and privacy branch, we deferred the records management upgrade until 1994-95.
Enquiry B.C. eliminated government agents' dedicated 1-800 lines; transferred responsibility for government teleconferencing to B.C. Systems; reduced services provided by Enquiry B.C.; and reduced advertising, office and business expenses, systems costs, and office furniture and equipment purchases.
In community grants, we reduced all the grants there.
I think that's about it, hon. member.
K. Jones: Just taking a look at the last one you mentioned, you eliminated the community grants program. Have you eliminated staff in the community grants area too?
Hon. L. Boone: No, we didn't eliminate the community grants program. We spent over $40 million meeting the requirements from the previous GO B.C. grants. Unfortunately, as you know, last year we had about $2 million put aside for this, but the GO B.C. grants were more than we had anticipated and they ate up the $2 million. But $40 million was actually put into communities by this government from this ministry's budget, meeting past obligations under GO B.C.
There is also the annual grants program, the in-province travel, as you know, the Maritime Bicentennial and some other small things.
K. Jones: The minister gave us a list of items that she's cut. Could the minister clarify if those were the cuts from last year's budget or this year's budget?
Hon. L. Boone: Those are the ones we identified last year and carried forward this year.
[ Page 7583 ]
K. Jones: So, to clarify, those are at the same levels of expenditure this year as last year.
Hon. L. Boone: No, we've reduced further. Our budget came in at 8 percent under last year's budget. We've been under the guiding hand and the heavy thumb of the Minister of Finance. We have been steadily reducing over the past year.
K. Jones: It certainly looks like the Minister of Finance must be within hearing range of the minister's comments, so she can gain a few Brownie points for her next budget expansion or something. There must be some reason for all those sweet sounds with regard to the Finance minister.
An Hon. Member: Is this Treasury Board?
K. Jones: It's hard to tell.
When the minister was talking about the removal of one of the assistant deputy ministers, she accidentally said deputy minister. Actually, that was the case, wasn't it? A deputy minister was moved out of your ministry, and somebody else stepped into it. Could you tell us if that position is still an acting position since it was established almost a year ago?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why it continues to be an acting position?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: The minister doesn't know why she has an acting position in her ministry. Surely the minister would know the status of all the staff members in her ministry and why they are a deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister, an acting deputy minister or whatever. There must be a reason for it, and the minister, who is responsible for the ministry, must have a clear reason as to why that position is in that category. The position previously was a deputy minister position. Why is the position being held on a temporary basis, so to speak, as an acting position?
Hon. L. Boone: Certainly I know the status of all, and I said that I'm not willing to tell you. These are personnel issues, and I'm not willing to discuss personnel issues in this committee.
K. Jones: The title given to a person is really not a personnel matter at all. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're going to be doing the job, or with the hiring or firing of a person. It has to do with what they're called. Maybe it has something to do with the pay rate. Is that a factor? Are they paid differently as an acting deputy minister than they are as a full deputy minister?
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, let's get this clear right now. The three people acting in my ministry right now are doing the full job at the full pay, and they are doing it very competently. This is a personnel matter. You say this has nothing to do with hiring or firing. Well, if you're going to put somebody into a position, that is hiring. That is a personnel issue, and it is not an issue for discussion in this committee.
K. Jones: There are three acting appointments in the ministry. It's almost like a theatrical group. Does the minister really think that we're going to accept the idea that it's a private matter when a person is classified in an acting position? Is the minister waiting for something like the Korbin commission report to recommend changes to the structure of the organization, or does she have some other plans in regard to that?
Hon. L. Boone: This is the last time I will state this. This is a personnel issue that has to do with three positions within the ministry. It has to do with their classifications. I have no intention of discussing this in committee, and I would ask the Chair to rule as such.
K. Jones: I'm afraid the minister needs to learn something about the procedure of estimates, or she wouldn't be asking the Chair to do the impossible. With regard to this, could the minister detail each of the three positions that are listed as acting?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I will detail the three positions. There is an acting deputy minister, an acting assistant deputy minister and an acting communications director.
K. Jones: Is the acting communications director the acting director of the government communications group, or is that a ministry position?
Hon. L. Boone: It's communications within the ministry.
[9:00]
K. Jones: In the press release of November 5, l992, the ministry received a cut of $350,000 in discretionary spending. Could the minister tell the committee what spending was considered discretionary and could be chopped from the budget? And has that discretionary spending been considered superfluous to her ministry and axed once and for all in the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. L. Boone: Some of those are things I've already mentioned, such as pins and flags. It is up to you to decide whether those were superfluous of not, but they have been axed entirely. We've reduced travel. We've had a recruitment lag, holding off on hiring some people. We've held off on doing some renovations. We literally did everything we could to save those dollars. When the time comes and the crunch is on, this ministry is always willing to do what it can to save the taxpayers' dollars.
K. Jones: If the minister had to cut 25 percent off her ministry right now, what areas would she cut?
[ Page 7584 ]
The Chair: Hon. member, that's a hypothetical question. It's out of order.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I thought that the minister, in her seriousness to cut costs, would be willing to answer such a question. It would indicate that she's really willing to look seriously at the size of her ministry in order to see where some reductions in staff could come. It seems like the staff changes have been very minimal. They've basically been a little drab here and a little drab there. Could the minister tell us exactly how many staff changes she has initiated this year over last year?
Hon. L. Boone: I wouldn't call an 8 percent reduction in budget a little "drab." I would encourage the opposition to cut their budget by 8 percent and see how they can do it. Every cut is done with pain and with some loss of service to people, but we have managed to do so.
We did reduce in BCARS. Five were reduced in archives, one in community grants administration, one in management services, one in finance and administration services, and two in information systems. We had a reduction in the Purchasing Commission as well: five in executive and corporate services, three in purchasing and supplier development, two in vehicle management services, ten in the Queen's Printer and publishing, four in warehouse and asset investments, and one in the product distribution centre.
I would say that these pains were felt throughout the system. We did not decimate any one area. Rather, we tried to make the pain as equal among everybody as we could. We did so, as I said, not without expense to our people.
K. Jones: Just to start the ball rolling here a little, I'd like to ask the minister to table, or to present to this estimates committee, the salaries, benefits, severance arrangements and contracts of all her senior reporting people, including the CEOs of the Crown corporations.
Hon. L. Boone: Do you want the salaries and benefits packages of all the CEOs in Crowns, as well as the senior management people?
K. Jones: Including severance.
Hon. L. Boone: Fine.
K. Jones: In the press release of December 9, 1992, the Finance minister announced the hiring freezes for all government ministries. Since there had been conflicting signals from the executive council on this subject, could the minister tell the committee whether or not a hiring freeze is in effect in her ministry, and if any employees were hired during this so-called hiring freeze?
Hon. L. Boone: I think the Minister of Finance has tried to clarify that at different times. There's been no freeze per se. I think he called it a chill or something at one point. We did impose a hiring freeze on our own; I think it was in the latter part of last February. We did that as a ministry directive to try to control costs.
K. Jones: The minister indicated there was a hiring freeze, but she didn't answer the question. Were any employees hired during that so-called hiring freeze?
Hon. G. Clark: I thought I'd enter the discussion while the minister is preparing to answer the question, just for the sake of clarifying for the record some remarks incorrectly attributed to myself. What the government imposed was a vacancy freeze, which I think was a rather excellent innovation. It did allow us to freeze a certain vacancy rate, and allow for some turnover of staff over and above that. So one out of every three vacancies was allowed to be filled. That allowed for sufficient flexibility to ratchet down and preserve a large vacancy pool. So when the budget process came along, downsizing was made more effective and easier, without required layoffs. It also allowed the flexibility for ministries to do some hiring where it's critical and where it was over and above the vacancy freeze. That avoided the pitfalls of other governments in this province historically, or in other provinces in Canada, which have imposed artificial freezes and then had to continue to exempt certain hirings from them. So the vacancy freeze was very successful, and is now being looked at across the country as a model in terms of downsizing, because it allows for more flexible downsizing without the arbitrariness of an absolute hiring freeze. Effectively, a vacancy freeze does often translate almost into a hiring freeze. It is certainly a dramatic slowdown, but it does allow for some continued hiring, particularly when you reach a certain level.
Hon. L. Boone: Further to what the minister was saying, we did hire in superannuation, which is an area that is exempt from FTEs. It is to meet a requirement to process pensions, and I think you would agree that that's an essential service.
K. Jones: This must be a first: the critic dealing with two ministers at the same time. It is a pleasure having the precedent-setting role of having the Finance minister always available. I hope that this is going to occur in all the estimates so that any financial questions can be responded to in a general way by the Finance minister, and then they can be answered specifically by the minister responsible. This is an innovation, and I think the Minister of Finance should be required to attend all estimates so that he will be readily available to handle this type of questioning -- his authority may not be stated by other line ministries. Thank you very much. I appreciate the answers, hon. Minister of Finance.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
The same press release on December 9, 1992, outlined $1,720,000 in so-called program postponements in the ministry. Could the minister tell the committee what programs were actually postponed?
[ Page 7585 ]
Hon. L. Boone: In the implementation of freedom-of-information legislation, some programs were delayed. There was some recruitment lag, and some programs were reduced in advertising as well.
K. Jones: Just to look through the crowd here, I think we are going to have to charge an entertainment fee or something like that. I have never seen estimates so well attended. It must be getting late in the evening, and people are wanting to have a place to sleep.
An Hon. Member: You keep going. You're getting popular, Ken.
K. Jones: I think it's the minister who's popular. Everybody is waiting for her responses.
With regard to those programs that were postponed, the hon. minister indicated to me that something like FOI -- the freedom-of-information and privacy implementation program, I believe that was -- wasn't really postponed. You just didn't spend the money in that budget in time to be able to use it all up during the year. Wasn't that really the factor? You ended up at the end of the year with excess?
Hon. L. Boone: No. We specifically postponed doing some things within that function to enable us to have the money there. If we had wanted to, we could easily have proceeded, but we specifically postponed some areas.
K. Jones: Could the minister specifically tell us what parts of that program were postponed?
Hon. L. Boone: Some elements of the systems development were delayed, and the manuals are currently being put together to instruct people on how to implement the systems. I think that is about all that I can do. Rob Botterell, the head of that department, will be here with us tomorrow. If there is more there, I will be glad to get it for you.
K. Jones: Were other programs postponed? You mentioned that one. Was the money that was postponed out of last year lumped into this year? Or did this year's budget ignore that extra, and just remain at the same level as it was previously?
Hon. L. Boone: As I already told you, our budget was reduced by 8 percent, so there is no way that we could have carried that over into this year's budget -- we lost last year in some of those areas. We were obviously doing it in FOI, but it's not additional dollars there. We have just rearranged the moneys in our ministry. But we have an 8 percent decrease in this ministry budget, so we have done it with very tight control of the dollars, not just lumping it back in and carrying it over to this year.
[9:15]
K. Jones: The minister says that she didn't carry over the money. Therefore the money was not postponed, if that is the case. Unless you carry something forward, you really haven't postponed anything. You may have cut your budget, but you haven't postponed it. To mention an 8 percent saving for the whole ministry has nothing to do with answering the question of whether you made an increase in this year's budget for this particular program, because it is totally irrelevant. You could have cut that 8 percent out of some other program or some other aspect of the ministry.
Hon. L. Boone: There is additional money in FOI, but it's not from our ministry. It's cross-government money that comes in to assist all ministries. Our ministry budget money has not been increased.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much money is actually in that fund and how much money was in last year's fund?
Hon. L. Boone: The amount in it this year is $6,922,536, which is an increase of $894,266. That is the cross-government increase that we get from cross-ministries to help us train for and implement the program within all ministries.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what last year's budget was?
Hon. L. Boone: It was $6,028,270.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why it was necessary to postpone the programs that were postponed last year -- not just FOI, but the other ones as well?
Hon. L. Boone: To save money.
K. Jones: So the minister made a cut in the budget just to save money, but she called it a postponement. Therefore the money wasn't necessary to start with, and therefore it shouldn't have been included in her budget. So she was actually over budget to start with, and now ends up with a truer value for what she should have had last year. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, hon. Chair, we could have done these things last year. We didn't have the dollars to do it; we were asked to cut. We postponed doing those things until this year. We are doing them this year; they have to be done. They weren't able to be done last year, because we didn't have the money. We are postponing them; they're taking place next year. Had we had the money, we would have gladly done them last year. They would have been done then, and we wouldn't have needed the money this year. In tough times, tough decisions have to be made, and that's the decision we made.
K. Jones: Based on that, the minister has made cuts this year. The cuts she has made in her budget this year -- she claims 8 percent in total -- have come from programs that she's now found were not necessary to be funded or could be postponed again this year. Are they
[ Page 7586 ]
being put into next year, or is it just that they've been cut altogether because they've been found to be superfluous or unnecessary?
Hon. L. Boone: There are some things we've done which we've found ways of doing differently, and we've had to look at differently. For example, we have reduced the number of meetings of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities from five to four per annum. The Premier's Advisory Council probably thinks it could use five meetings per annum, and it does provide a very worthwhile service. However, the meetings have been reduced from five to four.
We've made savings in the consolidation of warehousing, and we've managed to save ourselves dollars there. I think that is a good business decision which we can be proud of. Community grants were cut, and we are reducing the dollars coming from some of those areas. GO B.C. was a program that had a lot of outstanding debts, and as those debts are paid off, we're able to reduce some of those dollars there. We've put in various systems efficiencies. We've changed the ways we do business. Some of them are good ways to do things. Some of them, as I said, we've postponed. As for whether the changes are good or not, you'd have to talk to the Premier's Advisory Council for example. But we're doing the best we can with the dollars we have.
K. Jones: The fact is that any expenditure which doesn't have to be made during a time of financial restraint -- and we are certainly in a time of financial restraint at this point.... I think we have to make far greater cuts than we have been already to unnecessary areas of our operation. Is that what the minister would agree with?
Hon. L. Boone: No, I'm not going to agree that we have to make more cuts than we've already done. I think we've made a lot of cuts and we're operating an efficient shop right now. We will continue to find efficiencies and better ways of presenting and operating government, whether it be through systems, our Buy Smart program or whatever. Obviously that's what government has to do. I certainly wouldn't say this is a ministry that has a lot of excesses.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell me whether her first-quarter budget indications show that she's on, above or below budget?
Hon. L. Boone: We're on target.
K. Jones: What will you do if the Minister of Finance ends up next quarter with substantial extra costs and tells you to cut budget? Where would you cut your budget next time?
The Chair: The Chair reminds all members that hypothetical questions are contrary to the rules of order and not allowed in estimates debate.
K. Jones: I thought that was a real question, not a hypothetical question, and that we were talking about real money.
In the press release of December 9, 1992, an entry listed under the Ministry of Government Services is "Other." "Other" was chopped by $160,000. If you ask me, that's a pretty significant "Other." What exactly was eliminated in that envelope of money?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm going to have to take that on notice, and we will get back to you. We've made so many cuts over this past year that it's impossible for me to remember them all. We will have to get back to you with that information dating back six months ago.
K. Jones: From the sounds of the minister, she's going to be nicknamed the Slasher. I don't think she's made as many cuts as many other ministries have, and I think she may be exaggerating the amount of cut in budget that she has made. It certainly is a much smaller percentage than many other ministries have had. Maybe the minister shouldn't take so much credit for what amounts to very little.
D. Lovick: You're the one who gave her the name Slasher.
K. Jones: No, I didn't. I said that that was potentially a name that....
The Chair: Order! Through the Chair, hon. members.
K. Jones: In the press release of January 14, 1993, the Ministry of Government Services listed $400,000 in efficiency savings within the government communications office. In particular, what was saved by the GCO which allowed the government to claim a savings of that magnitude?
Hon. L. Boone: Office expense costs.
K. Jones: That's interesting. Office expenses amount to a lot of little things. I'm amazed that the minister could save $400,000 in office expenses alone.
Hon. L. Boone: That would be advertising expenses.
K. Jones: Why was this saving not instituted at the beginning of the budget period instead of at the end? Was there some absence of advertising needs? I got the impression that the ministry had actually increased in size and had certainly expended considerably beyond their allocated budget.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, all parts of this ministry have been willing to share the pain -- GCO took the cuts the same as every other branch.
K. Jones: Is it not true that the government communications office has actually increased its staffing over this past year?
[ Page 7587 ]
Hon. L. Boone: No, but it is true that they are looking to increase their staffing due to a reorganization that took place in GCO. That doesn't involve an increase in costs for government, because they have clawed back dollars from all ministries into GCO to provide something that I am really supportive of, which is regional services. They will be hiring regional information officers in Prince George, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Nanaimo and Whalley to deal with ministries there, to make sure that the information is out there and to deal with the media out in the regions. I think it's a tremendous program, one that I'm fully supportive of.
K. Jones: Does that mean that these government communications or propaganda people are going to be out in the principal ridings, where members of the government are located, so that they can do the propaganda work and sell the party line to the public? Is that the whole intention of establishing them out there? Is your ministry providing the funding for that?
Hon. L. Boone: The government communications office will be out there. They will be working with ministries to make sure that ministries have the ability to deal with the media out there and to get the message from the government out to the regions. The regions, as you know, are not always easy to get information out to. It's a great program and, as I said, it will not cost the government any more money. These dollars have been clawed back from the various ministries. All ministries have had to contribute to this, so there will be no increase in the GCO budget; in fact, there is a decrease in that budget this year.
[9:30]
K. Jones: You say there's a cutback in your ministry's budget, yet you are drawing money in from other ministries. Are you counting that money that you're drawing in from other ministries as part of that cutback; or is it that your ministry is responsible for that cutback but there is really a total net increase -- which is the indication I have?
Hon. L. Boone: No, even with money brought in from the various ministries, there was still a reduction of $481,943 in that ministry -- good ministry, good budget, good planning.
K. Jones: What we have to realize is that that ministry was $7 million last year, and this year it's showing $6.8 million. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: It's a branch of this ministry; it's not a ministry on its own. Evan would probably like it, but that won't happen. Yes, there was $7 million last year and $6 million this year. That includes the increases from the various ministries.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly what that government communications office is doing in its role? Could you describe its role in detail?
Hon. L. Boone: He wants details; we'll give him details. The mandate of the government communications office, known as GCO, is to ensure that government communications and public affairs activities are coordinated and consistent and that they serve the needs of the public in a cost-effective way. The branch is headed by an associate deputy minister, who reports to the executive council. The branch has a complement of 28 FTEs, with 11 vacant positions. Recruitment is in process, as I stated, for those positions for the regions. When complete, GCO staff will comprise a director of coordination, a director of strategic planning, nine communications counsels, three communications coordinators, six regional communications managers and support staff. Members of GCO attend meetings of cabinet, cabinet committees and councils of deputies to provide communications support for government activities. Communications counsels will chair ad hoc staff committee meetings and staff committees, which include ministry communications directors, and serve the communications requirements of key cabinet committees. The work of the branch can be divided into two functions, which are basically to coordinate and control the various communications of government.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how these positions are being filled? They don't appear to be going through the OIC-appointment process. It seems to be NDP hacks getting the jobs by appointment or by special consideration. Is that the process?
Hon. L. Boone: Absolutely not. These are posted positions. They are currently advertised widely. The posted positions will be filled in the usual posted-position way.
K. Jones: The government communications area has been involved in contracting as well. Is that correct? Do they contract outward? In addition to these staff people, do they have contracted work? Can you tell us the total of the contracted amount of their budget? Who do those contracts go to? How are they given out?
Hon. L. Boone: I'll give you the contracts that are here: Canada News-Wire, wire service release distribution; Dennis J. Duffy, cataloguing archival videotapes and developing tape database; Ewing Editorial, TV and radio monitoring; Force Four Production, television production budget phone-in; Hugh S. Hardy and Associates, development of database for direct mail; Levy Show Service Ltd., Commonwealth Games trailer display; Malahat Group, design work; Celia McLeod, communications strategy writing for Aboriginal Affairs; Ian McLeod, Ministry of Finance communications support; Mediaco sound services; Murray Weppler Communications, consultation re jobs initiatives; NOW Communications, Commonwealth Games communications plan; NOW Communications, budget phone-in, advertising and production assistance; Pace Group, Commonwealth Games trailer display project planning; Palmer Jarvis Advertising, design and production of "Budget '93" tabloid; Peat Marwick Thorne, review and report on advertising agencies of record; Peat Marwick
[ Page 7588 ]
Thorne, quarterly audit of province's agency of record; Producers Workshop, design and production of trade mission video and folio; Shane Lunny Productions Inc., production of Premier's speech, prebudget speech; Ann Taylor, "Today's News" editor; Viewpoints Research, focus testing re jobs initiative.
The following contracts were administered by GCO for the October l992 referendum awareness campaign and were funded from contingency funds: Grey Advertising, production of information kits and print and radio advertising; MMC Direct, preparation of mailing lists and project management for direct mailing; Robert Milen, constitutional referendum writing and research.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, as the minister seems to have the values of the contracts in her hands as well, could she table those for the reference of the committee?
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I heard the Chair say at different times that we don't table documents in committee. Is that correct?
The Chair: That's correct, hon. minister. It's not appropriate to table documents in committee.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister could then recite them into the record, or else send them to us in the next day or two, so we could have reference to them.
Hon. L. Boone: I'll send them to you later.
K. Jones: There was reference to direct mail. For what purpose was the direct mail, and what was the total amount of money involved?
Hon. L. Boone: I know that a post-budget mailer went out.
K. Jones: Was the Minister of Finance referring to the cost of his budget mailer as an $800,000 expenditure? Oh, 800,000 people. I thought 1.3 million people got it.
To The Minister: could she tell us, within this year's budget, how many dollars she has assigned to direct mail and how many to tabloid mailouts? How many series of mailouts do you have in the budget this year?
Hon. L. Boone: That budget is not broken down into various mailouts or tabloids.
K. Jones: Are we led to believe that the minister has calculated a large sum of money -- I think it's to the tune of $6.8 million -- and hasn't got a breakdown as to why that money was required? Surely you must do more than just pick it out of the sky. Did you just take an 8 percent knockoff from the last year's budget and say that's the budget? Didn't you have to figure out where the money was going to come from, or why it was going to be used?
Hon. L. Boone: Much as I'd like to think that I could foresee all the communications expenditures and things that are going to come up, I think it's impossible for us to determine all those things. We do a best guess as to what our needs are going to be, based on what we anticipate coming up. This budget is obviously one of those. We can anticipate something else taking place, but government communications cannot anticipate everything the government is going to need to respond to and send a communication on.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly how much the Clayoquot Sound tabloid cost -- what's going out at the present time?
Hon. L. Boone: The Clayoquot Sound mailout cost us 20 cents per copy. I think it's important to recognize just how much we have reduced over the years in householder expenses. In 1989-90 the budget for this area was $1.29 million; in 1990-91, $1.48 million; in 1991-92, $740,000; in 1992-93, $496,000; and in 1993-94, $220,000. So I can't see any accusations that this government is extravagant in its expenditures with regard to householders and mailouts.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much money was expended on the Clayoquot Sound mailout and how many people it went to?
Hon. L. Boone: There was a total print run of 1.1 million, with more than one million going to households. As I said, it cost us 20 cents per copy. That's the information I have.
K. Jones: How much extra was it to have it distributed and printed?
Hon. L. Boone: The cost, inclusive of production, printing and mailing, was 20 cents per copy -- a good deal.
C. Tanner: The minister mentioned some direct mail. Last year there was a direct mail from the Ministry of Labour that went to companies throughout the province. I assume that you were working from a Dun and Bradstreet list -- they sell that sort of list. Could the minister confirm that?
Hon. L. Boone: No, I can't. That would have been done through the Ministry of Labour. They do a lot of their own stuff. That was not a GCO mailout, and I have no knowledge of that at all.
C. Tanner: Does your ministry use a Dun and Bradstreet list at all?
Hon. L. Boone: I'll take that question on notice, and I'll get it for you tomorrow, after I talk to Evan Lloyd, who is not here at this time.
D. Mitchell: Just before we leave the communications side of the ministry, I'm trying to understand how decisions are formulated within government as to which projects this ministry will take
[ Page 7589 ]
on as far as communications go. Clearly some aren't handled by this ministry, and others are. The minister has clearly identified in her opening statements to the committee the role of her ministry in terms of providing services to other ministries and agencies of government. When it comes to communications, which is a very crucial activity of government -- and some would argue the most powerful agency of government in large-P political terms -- how is it determined which projects this ministry will take on as opposed to individual ministries, agencies, Crown corporations and what have you handling their own communications? Who decides?
[9:45]
Hon. L. Boone: That's a good question. It's based on their being broad, cross-government initiatives. If it's cross-government, such as the budget, it affects all ministries. The Clayoquot affects a number of ministries and a number of different areas. Those are taken on as a broad communications effort because they are cross-government initiatives. Initiatives that are strictly ministry-driven, such as a labour initiative or Health's New Directions, are funded through their ministries.
D. Mitchell: For clarification on this, when the Minister of Finance distributes a post- or prebudget brochure, or whatever, that doesn't necessarily come from the Ministry of Finance in terms of the cost for producing or distributing such a piece of information -- if I could call it that, politely. It comes from the Ministry of Government Services. Who would the most senior official in the communications branch report to? Would there be a complex reporting relationship? Would it be directly through this minister? Or would it be to cabinet, more generally speaking, or to a cabinet committee?
Hon. L. Boone: To go back to your original question, some of those things are cost-shared, so some of the costs would come from the Ministry of Finance with regard to the budget, and some would come from within the ministry of communications. Communications directs reports on a much broader basis to cabinet.
H. De Jong: It's an interesting discussion so far. I've been in here for a little while, and the minister earlier mentioned that there had been an 8 percent drop in her budget, which is a considerable amount of money if you look at it. There has been some shuffling back and forth of responsibilities, I guess, and things that used to be paid out of the ministry are no longer. I suppose there is a lot less administration with the lotto funding now, since that is basically channelled into other government ministries. But a 8 percent drop? It makes you wonder. As the minister mentioned, it caused a certain amount of pain within the ministry. On the lighter side, I was just wondering what kind of sedative -- aspirin or Anacin or whatever -- helped relieve that pain. I don't expect the minister to answer that. At the same time, the minister also talked about direct mail being so much less now than it used to be. I think it is also true that during those years when there was a higher mailing cost, it was quite evident that the mail from the opposition party at that time was considerably higher than all of what was coming from the government members combined. Would the minister now agree that perhaps the low-cost figure is a result of very frugal opposition parties in the House?
Hon. L. Boone: That would be nice to think. Unfortunately, the opposition party budget does not come under GCO, so no matter how frugal you are.... Vote 1 will come down, but my budget and GCO will not.
K. Jones: The minister mentioned that NOW Communications has been hired several times by the GCO. Could she tell us under what arrangement these contracts were let to NOW Communications?
Hon. L. Boone: It is standard procedure for GCO to tender all contracts over $50,000. Most projects under $50,000 are tendered, unless there is some kind of a tight time frame and you are unable to do so. But generally speaking, that's the policy of GCO, and projects under $50,000 are not necessary tendered. I believe that both of the NOW Communications contracts are small amounts -- $10,000 and $15,000 -- so they would not have been tendered.
K. Jones: Is that true of these large mailings also, where the printing was done by the Queen's Printer and the distribution was done by postal distribution? The design contract work was under $50,000, so there was no tendering of these contracts. Therefore they were given to NDP friends and insiders such as NOW Communications -- and perhaps there were some others?
Hon. L. Boone: I am sorry, I can't give you the full answer on the Clayoquot mailing. I don't have the information here as to who actually did the work on it, but it is my understanding that a lot of it was done in-house. Earlier you heard a list of some of the contracts. NOW Communications had two contracts, as did a number of different people, and I hope that the hon. member isn't suggesting that we should ban or outlaw one group from doing business with this government. I would hope that the hon. member would give fair access to government business to all businesses out there, including NOW Communications.
K. Jones: I would like to reiterate the minister's actual statement that they should be provided to all bidders on an open basis. That has not been the case. I have heard many in the advertising business say that they do not have an opportunity to bid on these contracts, and that they are being selectively given to friends and insiders of the NDP. Can the minister tell us whether she is going to implement an open tendering arrangement this year on all advertising by the government?
Hon. L. Boone: As I told you earlier, there is an open process. I have listed numerous companies that have received contracts with this government. You have
[ Page 7590 ]
picked out one company, NOW Communications. There are probably 20 others that I've listed.
I've stated earlier that the tendering process currently in place is that tenders under $50,000 do not go through an open tendering process. That would be very costly and very time-consuming for all companies involved. There is access, as I've said, through the process. I know that a review by GCO has taken place with regard to the tendering process. They have mailed out a document -- I think you have a copy of it -- to all the companies out there in order to get information back as to how the process can be improved. Any changes will take place after consultation with those businesses and with the people out there who are doing business.
I find it rather interesting, hon. member, that I have not received a single letter or phone call from any individual in the advertising business who is complaining about not having access to government business.
K. Jones: If I was the minister and that happened, I would think I had a problem with communication to my office and be quite concerned about it.
Could the minister tell me which of these various mailouts were done by NOW Communications -- the CORE mailout, the budget mailout, the Health mailout and the Clayoquot Sound mailout?
Hon. L. Boone: I think I'll have to get that information for you. I know the budget wasn't done by NOW, and Clayoquot wasn't done by NOW. I believe CORE was done by NOW, but I'd have to check on that. I don't think Health was done by NOW, but I'd have to check on that. Actually, I won't check on that. Health was not done through Communications; that was done by the Ministry of Health, and you'll have to ask the Minister of Health on that.
K. Jones: I think I can already tell the minister that NOW did the Health one as well. Shane Lunny did the television production through NOW Communications as well, and the printing process. Could you tell us who did the Clayoquot and who did the budget distribution?
Hon. L. Boone: Palmer Jarvis did the design and production of "Budget '93." As for the Clayoquot, I said earlier that I'd have to get that to you.
K. Jones: I didn't really get a clear answer from the minister with regard to the contracting process. Could the minister tell us if she is prepared to make all of these major contracts -- and I'd say major should be anything over $10,000 -- open tender and available to every member of the advertising community?
Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to answer the previous question: the production for the Clayoquot householder was done by Windrim Kleyn and Lim.
I'll just reiterate what I said. The current policy is that anything under $50,000 is not tendered. That would be very costly and very time-consuming for both government and for the companies involved. I don't think anybody would really appreciate that. However, a review has taken place, and a copy of that review has been sent out to the companies involved and to the people out there. We are waiting for a response and are communicating with them. Any changes that take place in the tendering process will be done after consultation with those people in the field who are currently talking with the GCO. I'm not going to commit to making any changes; I'm not going to say that we're going to keep things as is; I'm going to tell you that we are currently in communication with those people in the field to try and see how we can make this process work better for them.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how long it takes to put out a tender? What method is now used to choose the lucky candidate who would get the largesse of government propaganda printing?
Hon. L. Boone: I really resent the language that comes from the member over there. If I answer that, it's like responding to: "Are you still beating your wife?" He talks about largesse and giving out propaganda, etc. We are not giving out largesse; we are giving out legitimate government business. This is government business that is going out to a number of different people. Some of them are Social Credit; some of them are Liberals; some of them are people who have been doing business with the government for years and will continue to do so.
[10:00]
With that, hon. Chair, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Hon. member, the motion would be that we rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Boone: Okay. I move we rise and report resolutions.
K. Jones: No, you can't report resolution on this one.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were completed in this committee earlier in the evening. The appropriate motion then becomes that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Boone: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
K. Jones: On a point of order, wouldn't the correct motion be to report resolution on the Ministry of Agriculture and then...?
The Chair: No, it would not, hon. member.
The motion before you is that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 10:02 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]