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)
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 11
[ Page 7591 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a group of 45 grade 3 students from William Watson Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. They are on tour in the Legislature this morning with their teachers Mrs. Joy Singbeil and Ms. Rita Shaw, along with several parents. Would the House please join me in making them welcome and extending to them our wishes for a good day in beautiful Victoria.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply B.
I wish to advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be convening in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.
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).
W. Hurd: It was interesting to follow the course of debate in the Social Services ministry estimates yesterday, in particular the statistical breakdown the minister uses to analyze the client base of the ministry. I wonder if the minister could confirm reports that the biggest single increase in the caseload is, in fact, single employable males. Does the ministry accept the figure of approximately 72,000 as the increase in the caseload over the past 15 months or so?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll get you the exact numbers, but that is for singles and would include both men and women.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could confirm the status of dependents between the ages of, say, 18 to 20 who are living in a single-parent household. Are they able to apply themselves, or are they categorized as dependents? Has there been a change of policy with the ministry in dealing with those particular individuals?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The question of whether a young person over the age of 18 is eligible to apply doesn't pertain to the question of whether they come from a single-parent or a dual-parent family. We deal with the individual needs of a person who is applying for income assistance. There is a needs or eligibility test for that person.
W. Hurd: Can the minister then advise the committee whether there has been a change of policy in dealing with these particular single males or women who may be living at home because of an inability to find employment or any other circumstance? Has there been a change of policy in defining whether they are dependents within a household? Or are they now finding it easier to apply for benefits as individual recipients?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps one of the things I can do is provide a bit of framework for the member's questions. Eligibility has to do with a needs test that an individual or family unit has to pass, by law, to qualify for income assistance. There has been no change in the eligibility qualifications for singles or the young singles the member is focusing on.
Back to the member's specific question, if a young person, age 18 or 19, is living at home and the whole family unit does not qualify, the individual does not qualify. The member has to take that into consideration.
W. Hurd: I would certainly assume that the minister would welcome the opportunity to correct a misapprehension that seems to exist out there that single males or females living in a dependent situation or living under the same roof with parents are finding it easier to apply as individuals. If this isn't the case, I'd welcome that assurance from the minister.
[10:15]
I guess the rationale for my question is that by far the largest increase in the caseload appears to be single people, as the minister has acknowledged. Given the fact that the unemployment rate in the province has actually nudged marginally downward, and if we're to accept the rationale of the minister that the soaring caseload for individuals is based strictly on immigration to the province from other locales, there appears to be some reason for people to speculate on exactly why we are seeing such a dramatic increase in the caseload, particularly involving individuals. I'd certainly welcome the assurance from the minister that she's satisfied that this does not represent a change of policy for the ministry and that when it comes to dealing with households in which there may be single employables living, in fact the rules are the same as they've always been.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Absolutely. There has been no change in those qualifications. But there is a good opportunity for us all to take a look at what is happening, not only here in British Columbia but also across Canada. I know the member wasn't available yesterday when we went over some of the statistical information about the impact or pressure on caseloads in other provinces. But for the member's information, Alberta, our neighbour right to the east -- a very conservative jurisdiction -- is seeing a caseload growth of 21 percent at a time when this province has also seen a significant growth, but nothing to compare to Alberta's. The caseload pressures on all provinces, particularly the ones that are considered strong economic provinces, are significant. There is a
[ Page 7592 ]
significant impact because of the number of people who are coming looking for work -- Canadians who qualify as Canadians to be eligible for the social safety net that we value as Canadians. But there are other pressures in addition to the in-migration from other provinces.
Those pressures are brought about by some of the global restructuring that we in Canada and indeed in North America are facing. Here in British Columbia we're positioned very well because of our ties to the Pacific Rim. We have a strong and growing economy, but at the same time we are seeing that the jobs that are being created are lower-wage jobs, many part-time jobs and jobs that are of seasonal duration -- in particular, because of our resource base. That has impact on individuals' earning ability. When we look at the statistics for the last three decades, we see that for the first two decades -- the decades which you and I, Mr. Member, grew up in -- we saw a significant growth in the standard of living for families. Between 1980 and 1990, that standard of living was pretty much stagnant. There was no significant increase in the standard of living for a family. The only reason that it held steady was because of the increase in dual-wage earners: families supporting themselves with both partners in the workforce, which became the norm in qualifying for a mortgage. That means that individuals who are trying to support themselves, or single parents who are trying to support children, are that much more vulnerable. We know for a fact that the minimum wage has not kept pace with the cost of living; in fact, it has fallen behind both here in British Columbia and in other provinces. There are significant economic structural barriers to individuals being able to support themselves.
I'm not sure whether the member has teenage children. But the reality is that some families are able to support that extended transition to adulthood, until that child can get out on their own and support themselves, but many families cannot. Many families are unable to support their children through that extended transition, and many of those young people find very little hope under the kinds of economic pressures I've outlined. Again, rather than looking for scapegoats or blaming the victims, I think it's incumbent upon all of us in this House, and indeed in British Columbia, to pick up that challenge and provide real choices. Through investing in young people and in the strength of the people who built this province, through our employment and training programs and through B.C. 21, this government is providing an action plan and real choices, rather than pointing fingers.
W. Hurd: Certainly I welcome that summary from the minister. One of the purposes of estimates, of course, is to analyze where the money is being spent and why it's being spent. I don't think scapegoats necessarily enter into it. The purpose of the line of questioning, given the soaring increase in the cost of social services in our province, was to try to explain those increases by analyzing exactly what type of client base is being served and what changes are occurring within this ministry. What I hear the minister saying and what I see happening is that by far the largest increase in the costs of this ministry is related to the number of single people who are coming in, or have to come in, to avail themselves of social service benefits. I think the minister would agree that the entire nature of the ministry is changing. As the minister has acknowledged, we're not seeing an exponential growth in the number of dependent families as much as we're seeing a different type of person who needs help in our province. In attempting to analyze where these people are coming from and what their needs and backgrounds might be, I certainly look forward to the minister's figures on exactly where the largest percentage increase in caseload has been. Just because we are asking the minister for a breakdown of how the social services client or recipient base has changed over the past 16 months, it's certainly not a case of the opposition blaming the victims.
Could the minister advise the committee what steps are taken by the ministry when it has reason to believe that claims from a household might in some way be in violation of the rules? Do the front-line people in the ministry have an opportunity to thoroughly investigate these types of reports? Do they have to rely on outside information? Perhaps you could take the committee through the process when a front-line worker does have reason to believe there might be ineligible claims coming in, for example, from single people in a relationship who may be occupying more than one residence.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to go back and reference the question around providing programs that target specific client groups. I remind the member of an announcement through B.C. 21: a partnership between our ministry and the Ministry of Forests, where we are providing actual jobs in the silviculture industry along with training support for people on income assistance. In particular, single males could and would take advantage of those job opportunities. For many communities in this province, given the changes in the resource base that we are seeing, there are not options for people to support themselves. This B.C. 21 initiative, which the government has supported through our ministry and the Ministry of Forests, provides those opportunities for single people and all of our clients to be gainfully employed and to get the kind of training that will provide for a successful attachment to the workplace -- something that can last much longer than the program itself. So this government is targeting specific needs in specific communities and client groups in recognition that unless there are opportunities and options for people on income assistance, we aren't serving them very well.
Secondly, on your question regarding verification for people on income assistance, I'll refer to a system rather than a specific target group. Whether it is employable single males, couples or single parents, the verification process is the same and is rather extensive. I can understand that the member has perhaps not had an opportunity to review the information that I provided the House in this past month, but I welcome the opportunity to go over it again. The system that is in place in this ministry is a comprehensive and extensive one. It does not lend itself to a two-minute clip on TV
[ Page 7593 ]
very well, but an interested member certainly has the opportunity to become familiar with it.
We begin with our ability to manage the caseload. Through this budget, you have seen an additional number of full-time-equivalents to enhance the front-line capability of the work our administrative support and financial assistance workers do. Front-line workers work with our clients both in providing them with information and support to ensure that their stay on income assistance is short -- because that is our goal -- and provide them with opportunities for training and employment. They also ensure that the verification checks are done and that the documentation is available to ensure that the needs test is completed properly, because that is our first line of defence.
We then have a number of additional ways of checking. We have a very sophisticated computer system, which has been recognized and acknowledged as one of the leaders across Canada. We rely on the technology of that computer system to help us ensure that people are not applying at more than one office. Whether it's a life-skills issue or simply an issue of someone trying to abuse the system, that computer will not accept a dual file. It will not accept a duplication. In addition, if there are some commonalities in the file information -- it may not all be the same -- the computer will kick that out. If there's a duplication in addresses, again, the computer will kick that out. So we have a technological backup to the financial assistance workers.
It goes from that point to checking other systems. We run tape matches between other systems to ensure that people are not applying for more than one part of the social safety net, whether it is WCB, UI or a number of other possible duplications. We have a protocol between ourselves and the postal service that ensures people cannot put in changes of address. Those cheques automatically return to the ministry.
If there are any concerns by the financial assistance workers, or if we receive information from an interested or concerned citizen, those concerns are filed with our investigative team. The investigators then pursue each concern and conduct an investigation. In our consultation with the investigative team, which is situated throughout the province, and through our experience in the last year, we understand that there is a need to specialize. We have concerns in our system, like any other financial system, about sophisticated crime and our vulnerability to it.
Therefore we have announced in this budget a five-member special investigative team and, with the Attorney General's department, have brought on board a special prosecutor. That team will help alleviate some pressures that exist for our investigative team and free them up to spend more time on regular concerns that exist in the system.
I could go on, Mr. Member, but I know that you have other questions. As I said, the system is complex and sophisticated, and there are a number of checks and balances in place. Those checks and balances have been acknowledged by the auditor general.
[10:30]
W. Hurd: I appreciate that response from the minister. However, given the fact that the largest increase in caseload would appear to be single, potentially employable males and females -- and the minister has acknowledged that the rules are the same for all recipients -- would it be a fair comment to say that the fact that we're seeing this large increase in one group -- for example, single people, who may be more transient than families -- has made the ministry's function of enforcing fairness and preventing potential abuse of the system far more difficult? Would that be a fair assessment of what has been happening in the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry's job is perhaps the most challenging job of government. The people who work on front lines in our ministry offices around this province are under incredible pressure. In the past they have not been supported in their jobs to the extent that this government is prepared to support them, both by training and additional resources and, indeed, meeting the challenge. I want to remind the member that much of the information we are dealing with, and much of the concerns and the pressures on the system, are historic. They have existed for a considerable length of time in the province, and we are the first government to invest in the system and invest in British Columbians who are marginalized by poverty.
The challenge and the energy that this government is bringing to this task will not solve the problem or address all of the issues overnight. This ministry does not operate in isolation, any more than this province is an island unto itself. This ministry bylaw is required to meet need, and when an individual applies -- whether a single male, a couple, or a single person with dependents -- there is an eligibility test. If they qualify, we are required by law to provide income assistance. If we did not do that, our federal cost-shared 50-cent dollars -- as they once existed with the federal government -- would be withdrawn. The member needs to keep that in mind.
Secondly, the member needs to understand that there are real barriers for the people who are relying on our system at a time of unemployment. We talked a little bit about the standard of living and how families are making ends meet in today's pressures. The other reality is that there is high unemployment in the province; we are at double digits. The member can likely remember when full employment was considered 3 percent. The federal government now considers full employment a double-digit number. Many people are lining up for jobs. People who are older and have more experience in the job market have a better opportunity for employment than do the singles who have yet to make the transition from high school into the workplace, and that is also a barrier. So we have designed many of our employment and training programs to enable single men and women to get some job experience and then be able to take that next step towards self-sufficiency and independence. So we are crafting our programs, and they are based on the real-life experiences of those people we are serving.
[ Page 7594 ]
W. Hurd: Again, I appreciate the detailed answer. My question, however, wasn't a complicated one; I was just trying to seek the input from the minister. When dealing with the largest percentage increase of single people in applying for benefits, this obviously imparts upon the front-line workers a greater degree of challenge in assessing claims and applications, and in dutifully following them up to ensure that benefits are being dispensed fairly and prudently and that the checks and balances are in place. Surely the minister can acknowledge that when dealing with single employable people, doing that checking is a greater challenge for her ministry than it would be if you were dealing with families. Is that a fair assessment of what is happening out in the front-line offices, where they deal with single people who simply do not necessarily have the roots or community ties, who have been in the community a shorter duration and who may be here today and gone tomorrow? That in itself would impart a greater degree of difficulty for the ministry in handling and dealing with their ongoing claims.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to acknowledge that it does present a challenge to the ministry. One of the ways the ministry meets this challenge is by having a good 40 percent of single employables pick up their cheques at welfare offices. We actually have an opportunity for those people to come in, communicate with the office as to their status and verify that they are still at the same address. In addition, we are looking at our policy around home visits along with the enhanced audit team. As the member well knows, we have been looking at every aspect of the system since well before January. We have been dealing with the concern around securing the system ever since we received the auditor's report on an audit of the previous government's work in 1991. Since that time we have brought in a number of enhancements to the system, many of which I referred to earlier. In addition, we brought the discussion around caseload pressures and the client base we are serving to the national table with the other provincial ministers. We began looking at the system nationally in trying to identify barriers and design more proactive programs.
Yes, we are concerned about the ability to manage the system in a very effective, accountable way. We are reviewing all aspects. Just to repeat, 40 percent of the employable singles pick up their cheques. In transient areas the number is considerably higher than that. In areas where we have significant concern and we know there is a high turnover, we have people come every single month and pick up their cheques from the welfare office.
W. Hurd: Given the changing demographics of the province and the different areas of growth, do the front-line workers in the ministry office have the ability to tailor a program within a region to deal with their client base? Or are we dealing with a rigid bureaucratic structure that forces the same standards of enforcement and monitoring across the board in the province? Obviously there are certain Social Services ministry offices where you would see a higher percentage of single employable males than you might see in an outlying area of the province with a relatively stable population. Do the ministry workers at the front line have the ability to assess the differing problems of their offices? Are they empowered to make any changes at that level to deal with a client base that might change from month to month?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to start by acknowledging that our ministry is governed by legislation. The conduct and expectations of every person in our ministry, including myself, are governed by the laws of the land. Understanding that there is that accountability in the system and that our legislation interacts with the Canada Assistance Plan, I want to make the point that each and every community in this province is different. The client base from north to south, from big city to small town, is varied, and the relationships that our ministry offices have with their clients are varied.
In a small town, our ministry staff likely knows everyone, knows the circumstances, knows how best to assist people and how best we can tailor our programs to meet their needs. Our ministry is the most decentralized ministry in government. We actively support both community involvement and the initiatives of our ministry offices. Many of those ministry offices have told us, both through practice over years and through our communications with them, that they have different concerns. We support them in addressing those concerns. As an example, we have designed a number of our employment programs to target community-specific issues. Our RISE programs were designed specifically to meet community needs and are tailored for those needs.
As far as managing the system, I refer back my earlier comments about having employable singles pick up their cheques. The overall average for the province is 40 percent, but I've very clearly said to you that in areas where there is higher turnover, we support the offices in requiring considerably larger numbers of people to pick up their cheques. I think that's a darned good indicator that we have a flexible system, a system that will meet the individual needs and demographics of the community. There are other examples of where we have tailor-made the administration of the program to meet community needs not only through the provision of service but also in meeting some of the pressures or challenges of the system itself.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise us whether the number of complaints launched by third parties into welfare abuse has increased in the past year? Have more complaints been received at district offices than in previous years? If there have been, can the minister identify what staff might be additionally available in the coming fiscal year to deal with those increases in third-party complaints?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure if we have the numbers here with us; we'll certainly get them for you if we don't. I think it's fair to say that there has been an increase and that it has paralleled the increasing
[ Page 7595 ]
pressure on the system. As to whether or not resources have been increased, those increased resources made the headlines of one of the provincial newspapers, and I'm sure the member saw it. Those are allocations in the budget where we've actually been able to staff up to meet both the pressure of the caseload and the pressure of accounting for the system.
[10:45]
I think there needs to be an acknowledgment that at a time when governments are under significant fiscal pressure, the work done in this ministry in the last year leading up to the Treasury Board request has gained significant confidence from Treasury Board and from my colleagues, where we saw investment in the system and in the work that people do in our ministry. That was a considerable accomplishment. It was a recognition of the value in carrying out a reform agenda that was more proactive and that supported people on income assistance to get back into the workplace. At a time when most ministries were under pressure to cut back, our ability to account for the system created a climate where Treasury Board saw this system as worth being invested in, both in resources and in personnel.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister could share with us some information about the process for third-party complaints that might come in, for example, from landlords or from people who might be living in the same house and file a complaint. If that complaint were to go directly to the RCMP, what would the minister expect to happen? Would it be the responsibility of the RCMP to interact with the ministry in some way? Would they initiate an investigation on their own? Perhaps the minister could clear up some of the confusion that exists as to how the complaint or allegation of fraud is dealt with by these two organizations: the investigative process within our ministry and the RCMP.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have a very good partnership with the police forces in this province, whether it's the RCMP or city police forces. In that partnership, when there's a complaint or a concern around criminal activity to either the RCMP or our ministry, we work together. We support the RCMP or the police forces in doing the investigations. Likewise, when we have significant concerns we often involve the RCMP directly with the investigations that we have underway. It's a very good complementary system. I think it's important that we recognize that there are concerns with other financial systems as well. If there are concerns in our system around criminal activity, it is important to acknowledge that we are perhaps in a better position to actually complement and support the work of the RCMP because of the expertise that exists in our system. We have trained expert investigators on staff. Very shortly we will have a sophisticated crime unit that will be able to work not only with the RCMP but also with CLEU and Interpol, because some of those sophisticated criminals are impacting other systems and an expertise much broader than the local police force is required. Where we are able to bring that expertise and that partnership together, and soon along with a senior Crown prosecutor, we believe that we will be in a fairly good position to crack down on the abuses in the system that we're concerned about. We recognize that because the system is a complex one, it takes that level of sophistication and expertise to complement the investigations the RCMP or the local police force are involved in.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise us whether her ministry has a zero-tolerance level as to what action is taken once a fraud has been uncovered? Is there any policy currently on the books that, as a preference to court action, desires to have the money repaid? If that policy exists, is she satisfied that it doesn't come at the expense of a clash with the RCMP who, I suppose, under their mandate are required to investigate fraud and to follow it up by simply addressing a charge through the court system? Is there a clash between the policy of the ministry in electing to attempt to collect the money and the RCMP approach, which really is more restrictive? If fraud is demonstrated, the RCMP obvsiously has a responsibility to bring that information before a prosecutor and proceed with a court action. Does the ministry have a policy that discourages the process through the courts and seeks instead to collect the money by dealing directly with the client, convincing that person of the error of their ways?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There's absolutely no policy that would discourage a criminal prosecution where a prosecution is warranted. We work very closely with police forces; they recognize that. Where the support of the ministry's investigative team and the ministry's systems are concerned, indeed we help and complement their work. In many of those instances, they are not able to do the work because of their workload and the pressures on their system. Our investigators actually enhance and support the work over and above what the RCMP are able to do. Quite frankly, member, it is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
In addition to that, I want to emphasize that we have a goal of zero fraud in our ministry. We have designed our system in such a way that we try to prevent fraud first and foremost. I went through examples of how we manage our caseload, how we ensure eligibility and how we put in place technologies to fraud-proof the system. We would much rather prevent abuse in the system than have to clean the mess up afterwards, and that's why we have sophisticated technology in place with our computer systems -- and tape matches, etc.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether she has employees in her ministry who are charged with the responsibility of trying to retrieve benefits that have already been paid out? Is there a function within her ministry charged with that single responsibility? Or is that responsibility a part of a specific branch within the Ministry of Social Services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Both our financial assistance workers and our investigative staff take repayments. We need to talk a bit about what those
[ Page 7596 ]
repayment agreements are. For instance, a single parent babysat and did not declare the earnings. Somebody reports it, or that person raises it with the financial assistance worker a month later, saying: "Gee, was I supposed to declare that?" The answer is: "Yes, of course, you were." So a repayment agreement will be signed, and that amount of money will be deducted from their income assistance cheques in subsequent months.
In addition to that, before we replace money in the case of lost or stolen cheques, an agreement to repay that amount is signed between that person and the ministry. The money is not just returned or duplicated. A repayment agreement is signed to have that amount of money deducted from subsequent cheques. So the repayment agreement is used in a number of different instances, and depending on the individual situation and the judgment called between financial assistance workers and investigators, a decision is made as to whether or not there's a repayment, and/or whether there is the potential to lay a criminal charge.
W. Hurd: I would assume the minister has accurate statistics on the growth in the volume of these repayment agreements made by the ministry. Can the minister advise us whether those agreements are growing at a faster rate within the single employable caseload, or is it generally an across-the-board increase? Regarding the problems in the repayment area, is the ministry dealing more with single employables than with families? Can the minister provide the committee with any statistics of that nature?
Hon. J. Smallwood: At this point in time we don't have the actual numbers here, but the advice I have gotten is that it is relatively flat. The amount of money that is actually retrieved through repayment agreements is rising slightly over time, but not significantly.
W. Hurd: When the RCMP disagree with a decision of the ministry to pursue a repayment schedule rather than laying a criminal charge, what steps would they be able to take? How would they be able to convince the ministry to change its mind? The minister is aware that there have been complaints -- no one knows how broadly based they may be -- of frustration made by individual RCMP regarding decisions by the ministry to pursue repayment versus proceeding with a charge and going through the court system. Are those types of disagreements in any way isolated by the ministry and examined or re-examined? When RCMP officers, particularly in the municipality of Surrey, have actually gone public with some of their complaints, is the minister satisfied that those are isolated cases? Can she tell us whether the RCMP is in fact showing increasing concern about the policy decision to elect repayment as opposed to proceeding with a court action?
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member needs to know, first of all, that there has been no change in policy. The system of repayment versus charges has been in place in this ministry for a long time. In addition to that, if the RCMP has a concern, it is their responsibility and role to lay a charge. There is no way that this ministry would interfere with that through the work it does. In fact, the point I made earlier was that we encourage and support the RCMP in the work they do. The working relationship we have with the RCMP and other police forces is complementary. Where they are unable to do some of the investigations, we complement and do those investigations for them and provide them with the information when there is a concern about criminal activity.
On the issue of repayment, I will take the opportunity to restate for the member that that decision is based on the circumstances of the individual and the magnitude of the problem. Surely the member is not suggesting that if there is a legitimate error, we should do anything short of asking the client we serve to repay that money. But the flip side of that coin is that if we have evidence that there has been abuse, we ourselves would pursue that, in cooperation with the RCMP.
This gives me a good opportunity to quote a letter that was written to us by the officer in charge, Chief Superintendent Cummins, who our ministry works very closely with as far as policy and overall systems relations between ourselves and the RCMP. He actually commented on the policy work that we have been engaged in, referenced the public comments of some individuals and indicated that the facts do not support such an inference. Perhaps I'll read the whole paragraph for the record:
"It is most unfortunate the audience is left with the impression the minister sought to dictate to the RCMP how or when it should conduct its investigations. The facts do not support such an inference on the part of the minister or, for that matter, on the part of any members of your ministry."
The concern raised by an individual police officer was investigated by his superiors. He was asked for the data to substantiate his public claim and was unable to produce that information. The letter goes on to talk about the allegations of significant abuse in the system, and again the point was made that the documentation is not there to substantiate it. I don't want to dismiss the concern, because we need to acknowledge that there are concerns both of the police forces and this ministry. In the last 18 months we have worked to secure the system, enhance our staff's ability to meet the challenges and enhance the technological checks and balances in the system. We have chosen to address the problem and ensure, to the best of government's ability, that the vast majority of people whom we serve on income assistance are assured that they can get the support and service they need to move towards self-sufficiency.
[11:00]
W. Hurd: Again in terms of the number of repayment cases, can the minister provide the committee with information about what percentage of those overpayments may be the result of an individual reporting the excess income? What percentage might result from the ministry uncovering the information
[ Page 7597 ]
that the recipient was receiving other information? Are we dealing with a very small percentage of cases where the information is volunteered by the recipient? Do the majority of the repayments, by far, result from the ministry making the determination through its own investigative sources that overpayments have occurred?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have that level of sophistication to be able to identify it case by case in a provincewide roll-up. That information is kept at the local offices through case files. The work that we have underway, with the enhancement in our audit team and the support that we are providing through our enhancements in the investigative front-line workers, will begin to build that central database and will be able to ensure that we can measure our successes as a ministry. The work that the auditor conducted in 1991 pointed out for the second time -- he made the same references in 1980, with the previous administration -- that while the ministry's procedures for dealing with income assistance payments appeared to be reasonable for minimizing incorrect payments, the ministry needed to do more work to ensure that there were ways of measuring. You've hit on some of those issues. Our ability to enforce, put policies in place and enhance the system is acknowledged and complimented by the auditor. But then he goes the next step and says that we need to provide a measurement whereby we can measure the success of those efforts.
W. Hurd: I have a couple of additional questions to the minister about this problem area in the district offices. When the district office had been making payments to a single employable person and then subsequently made a determination that the individual may have been receiving other income and that a repayment was due, but that individual could no longer be located, would it be a routine matter for the ministry to seek the assistance of the RCMP in determining the whereabouts of the individual? Or are those overpayments simply written off? Can the minister advise us on the nature of this problem and how widespread it might be?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm going to again state for the member that if there is a significant concern and the potential for a criminal charge, of course we would involve the RCMP, and we work very cooperatively with them.
R. Neufeld: I have a few questions following up on what the member for Surrey-White Rock asked regarding employable males. Your government relaxed the rules about having to search for employment before you could receive welfare or social services. The minister is shaking her head. I believe that those rules were relaxed in December. If they were not relaxed, could she please explain what the procedure is now for someone who is single and employable to receive welfare. You have spoken consistently throughout the estimates so far about rights and legislation and how rules guide what you have to do. Maybe you could just explain a bit more as to why you relaxed those rules.
The Chair: I would just remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member needs to check his facts. There has been no change in the eligibility requirements or the expectations of single employables. It is a legal requirement that employable persons seek employment. When they refuse to do so, they will be cut off.
Actually this gives me another opportunity to talk about employment and training initiatives not only in our ministry but also through B.C. 21 and in partnership with other ministries. Where we recognize that there are barriers to employment, we are trying to support people on income assistance. The single employables are a target for many of those programs, which provide opportunities for them to make a successful transition into the workplace. If we have a job for someone through a number of our job creation programs, we expect the person to take that job. As I said, if they refuse or do not avail themselves of that opportunity, they no longer qualify for income assistance.
R. Neufeld: At one point in time it was a prerequisite to prove that you had been to a number of places and that you were actively seeking employment. Can the minister tell me whether this procedure is still in place? It's fine for the minister to say that there has been a job created by government and that the person is expected to take it or they are going to be cut off social services. What procedure is in place for those people to go out into private industry, where the jobs have to come from? The minister can talk about jobs all she wants, but if we don't have the private sector supplying jobs in this economy, I'm sorry, but you're not going to have money to run your ministry. So what rules are there now? Do they specifically have to come in and say they went to two, three or four different places, and give the names of the people they spoke to?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The question is a varied one. There has been no change in policy. It's the same policy that your government had in place for requiring employable people to seek work. Regarding your reference to job creation, in some communities in our province -- and I know of a couple off the top of my head -- the unemployment rate is 27 and 30 percent. That means that the private sector has failed to provide those opportunities. Where there are no options for people, government has filled that role by investing in people on income assistance and trying to support them back into viable employment.
That gives me an opportunity to again talk about the forest worker enhancement program. We are not only investing in people on income assistance, but investing in the economic infrastructure and supporting people in training to provide them with the skills so that they themselves can become contractors. Not only is there a partnership between public spending and economic infrastructure, but support in providing people with opportunities to move into the public sector and create jobs themselves. There is a real ripple effect.
[ Page 7598 ]
In addition, we have a very popular program called Employment Plus, where we partner with small business. We top up wages for small business, which provides an opportunity for them to fill a job which they may not have been able to afford in the first place. We have a very successful relationship with the private sector, not only in job creation but also in partnering economic and social goals of this province. For the private sector to be concerned about the increased pressure on the tax system.... I think many business people are acknowledging that the marriage between social and economic goals serve us both well. By getting people back into the workplace, it takes the pressure off all of us, because when people are working they are paying their fair share of taxes and are participating.
I want to refer back to the process you first raised. While we have not changed the qualifications for people to seek work, we have enhanced the reporting process over and above what your government had in place. We now have a cheque stub on which a person on income assistance sends in a report of their status each month. So we now have regular reporting of any changed status for a person on income assistance, over and above what your government did a year and a half ago.
R. Neufeld: Is the minister confirming that single employables must go out in the workplace and prove that they have searched for jobs, and where they have searched for jobs? Is that correct -- that we have not changed the policy?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's correct. It's the law that they must certify monthly that they have been searching for a job.
R. Neufeld: I would like to go a little further into the job creation program and Employment Plus. The minister is fully aware that this is my first term. I am also aware, through the records and what I have read, that the previous administration that she speaks about all the time, that never really cared about social services, and that's why we have the problems we have today.... I totally disagree with her.
That program was initiated by a past Social Credit government. You may have changed the name, but topping up wages if businesses hire people who are on income assistance has been in place for quite a while. That's nothing new to your government. It has been in place; you just carried it on. I'm glad to see that you're approving it and saying how good a program it was, because it tells the people out there that Social Credit instituted some good programs through the years.
The question I have is about the forest worker program that is just newly created through B.C. 21 and was announced in Prince George simultaneously by you and the Minister of Forests. Could the minister explain to me what effect that program has on companies that were already in the business of tree-planting in British Columbia? There are quite a few. I know you can't speak for the Minister of Forests, but you should be able to speak to it some, because you're doing it together. Can you explain what effect that has had on businesses that were already in place and doing that kind of work? Are some of those small businesses now sitting idle because the government itself is in the business of tree-planting?
[11:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, the government has always been in the business of tree-planting. It's not a change. The program is an enhancement of programs that have been in place for a number of years in this province. There is additional money, which means there will be additional trees planted. It's an enhancement to communities: it's providing a skills base, and many of the businesses that I'm aware of, welcome that enhancement in that skills base because it provides for additional opportunities in forestry generally. Where you have more skilled workers, you have a higher opportunity of managing those forests in a more effective and efficient fashion. The change in that program, regarding the comment that the member made on the Employment Plus and forestry programs, is that the previous administration used people on income assistance and did not provide enhanced training opportunities to them. We know by our analysis of those programs that where those training opportunities were not provided, those people were not as successful in continuing their attachment with the workplace. In other words, they fell back onto welfare.
The more often that happens to an individual, the higher the loss of self-esteem is and the harder it is for them to get back up for the next try, so we have invested in training. We know from the analysis that we have done on successful programs that where we are able to enhance an individual's skills level, their success rate is considerably higher in remaining attached to the workplace -- some 60 percent over five years. We have built on the successes of programs that the previous administration had in place, and we have developed those programs in an attempt to ensure a successful bridging back into the workplace.
The other comment I would make is that I have openly acknowledged where the previous administration has a good history and complimented members of the third party on that work. There has been good work done in the past. Obviously I have significant concerns around the direction and overall management of the system, but I will readily acknowledge where there are successful programs and attribute that credit to the source.
R. Neufeld: I fully understand that the province has always planted trees. What I'm saying is that in the past the trees have been planted through the small business program. Those were let out in contracts, and I suspect there will not be as many contracts let now that the ministry has gotten into it directly. The Ministries of Forests and Social Services have together gotten directly into tree-planting, and that will of course eliminate some of the contracting out that has been done in the past. Just for the minister's information, there were less trees planted in the first year of the NDP administration than there were the previous year or the year before that. So your government's tree-planting
[ Page 7599 ]
record is not all that good, but maybe this is a way to pick up the amount of trees you're going to plant.
I would like to go a little further into the tree-planting and training part of it. I would remind the minister that there has been training of workers in the past; this is not something new to the NDP government. I think we all realize that we want to get people off social assistance and into the workforce. But when we do that by creating government jobs, taking money out of the B.C. Endowment Fund to pay for those jobs, that will run dry in time because that's all that's happening in the interim. It's politically driven to look like you're creating all these jobs, but this money is coming from a pot that was there before. How can the minister continue to supply these jobs in the future? Are they always going to be government-driven jobs? Or is there going to be some success in that a lot of these people will get out on their own and create their own businesses, contributing to the system through taxation and employment that way?
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I would like to remind the member that we are doing Social Services estimates and that a great part of the question he posed has to do with other ministries. I just ask him to keep his comments fairly directed.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's a little difficult. In the last number of hours, both yesterday and today, the members from the third party and the government's opposition have been telling us we're either not spending enough or we're spending too much. Now it's that we're planting too many trees or we're not planting enough trees. It really is quite a quandary for government.
I think the member has to get his head around the fact that these initiatives not only invest in people by providing an opportunity for self-sufficiency -- certainly that is the goal of the income assistance program -- but also provide an opportunity for success in continuing to be attached to the workplace and contributing to their community overall. In addition to that investment, there are some numerical realities. These programs are very cost-effective. The employment opportunity program saves $2.40 for every dollar spent on income assistance. So, by investing in people through an opportunity for work in their community, we're actually saving welfare dollars. By any number of our programs.... We have information that will show you very clearly that for every dollar spent in the community tourism program, for example, we saved 41 cents in income assistance. There's a direct saving for that program. We have direct savings for most employment programs that we invest in for income assistance recipients, not only for them individually and the investment in their communities but in direct savings to the system. In some of our programs, at the very least it's a break-even; we spend dollars on employment programs and break even in what we would be paying if that person was still on welfare. So there are a number of benefits not only to individuals but in the investment in economic and social infrastructure in communities all around this province, and in direct savings to the ministry's budget as well.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the savings that will come through those kinds of Employment Plus programs, but I'm talking about programs that are totally financed. It may be a saving to the ministry if the funding comes from B.C. 21, but where does the funding for B.C. 21 come from? I know this gets out of the estimates for Social Services, but I'm sure the minister is aware that the money comes from the same taxpayer who keeps government going. Obviously it's going to be a saving to your ministry, but in the overall picture it isn't a saving. On the Employment Plus programs, I can understand supplementing the wages paid to people working in industry and business so that they can gain some skills and get out in the workplace, because that's really where they have to be to have self-esteem. I agree with the minister very much there.
Could the minister explain to me her definition of workfare?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I want to provide some additional information on the forest enhancement program. The member was concerned that the government would not be letting the same number of contracts, and I'm going to take the opportunity to make the point that the forest enhancement program is new money, so it doesn't in any way undermine the silviculture money that is in place in the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Forests will continue their involvement in the investment in silviculture with their contractors around the province. This is an enhanced commitment from government towards silviculture. I want to share with the member the fact that each dollar spent on this program generates an additional 78 cents in forest enhancement and a savings of 15 cents for each dollar in income assistance.
For just 7 cents on the dollar the participants receive training, work experience and increased income. I think that's a significant accomplishment for government. It's a significant investment not only in forest enhancement and our forests in this province, but a significant investment in people and in the communities. And we save money, Mr. Member. When I say that we save money, I'm talking about the taxpayers of this province, recognizing that when someone proves need and qualifies for income assistance, we are required by the laws of the land, both provincial and the federal Canada Assistance Plan, to meet that need. If we can invest and get all of these wonderful spinoffs for the province, it only makes good sense -- good sense in human terms and good sense in a bottom-line dollar sense for taxpayers themselves.
On the question of workfare, I hope the member understands that instigating a program of workfare would disqualify the province for the Canada Assistance Plan, and being disqualified for those cost-shared dollars would cost this province and the taxpayers of this province a considerable amount of money. To put a dollar figure on it for the member's information, it would cost $800 million.
[ Page 7600 ]
R. Neufeld: I appreciate your explanation about the benefits of getting people to work. I certainly don't have it right down to 7 cents a tree or whatever you came up with, but I don't have any problem with planting more trees. What I'm saying is that I have a problem with government taking over those roles and functions instead of continuing to contract out.
I know that the minister is as aware as I am of where the money for B.C. 21 came from. What I'm trying to say is that if you continue to draw on that well, it will dry up. It's from a pot of money left by the previous administration that your government hasn't recognized. But there was a pot of money there, and that's a fact. The minister shakes her head no, but she hasn't talked to the Minister of Finance lately. When that well runs dry, what are we going to do then?
We have to continue to encourage growth in job creation not within government but outside of government. With the direction coming down on the mining industry from the government, with the Clayoquot decision on the Island, we see directions that indicate where this government is apparently heading. You're not creating any jobs doing that.
[11:30]
The minister talked a bit about workfare and what would happen. She stated earlier that if a person on social assistance does not take a job under this program of forestry enhancement and tree-planting, then they do not receive social assistance. How do you rationalize that to the federal government? Because that almost sounds like a type of workfare. What explanation can you give for that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The requirement through the legislation is that a person must actively seek work. Where there is that opportunity, the person on income assistance has to indicate that they have actively sought that job.
R. Neufeld: The minister said earlier that a person on social assistance who does not take a job tree-planting does not get social assistance anymore. That was an incorrect statement, or did I misunderstand you?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I'm going to state the facts. We are governed by legislation that expects a person who is categorized as employable to seek employment. Where there are employment opportunities -- and we're not being specific about what those employment opportunities are -- we expect an employable person to seek out that opportunity and take advantage of it. If there is a barrier to the individual for that employment, we will speak to them individually, identify that barrier and try to support that person in addressing that barrier to employment. The bottom line is that a person who is categorized as employable is expected, by law, to seek employment and take advantage of opportunities presented to them.
R. Neufeld: Going on to a bit of a different subject that has to with seeking work, your government changed the policy so that parents do not have to search for work until their youngest child becomes age l9. What affect has that had on the increase in your ministry's caseload and what dollar value has that contributed to your ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll get the numbers for you, but the trend of an increase in the caseload of single parents has continued from a trend that began in l991, a year prior to the change in government.
R. Neufeld: Maybe the minister could explain the rationale for changing it from six months to l9 years of age?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think we've gone over this turf before. I'll again take the opportunity to emphasize for the member that we support single parents, as we support all of our clients, on an individual needs basis. We work with them in addressing barriers to self sufficiency. We've developed a number of employment programs targeted specifically to single parents and also bridging and support programs to allow them not only to re-enter the workplace but to support their children. We recognize that what it means for the children of a single parent is that they only have one parent that they can rely on. There isn't a backup. That parent must not only take up the challenge of supporting their children through day care but of supporting their children through providing shelter and adequate clothing and food.
The question earlier was around the paternalistic nature of the way this ministry has in the past related to people. We had a government in this province that felt they knew better than those single parents about how to care for their children. My question was: if the government knew best as to when a single parent was available for work or what the barriers to that employment were, then why the heck wasn't that government taking over the parenting of those children? It was simply a decision to respect those single parents' decisions about caring for those children and to design programs to enable them to move back into the workplace in the most supportive fashion.
R. Neufeld: It's amazing that the minister would stand up and chastise us for "government knows best." I mean, if any government-knows-best programs have gone through in the last 18 months, they have been from your government. It's your government that tends to be saying that it knows best.
The Chair: I would remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair, please.
R. Neufeld: Yes, through the Chair, I don't think that she should be chastising the former government for that.
She talked about Alberta a little bit and how their caseload was up. Alberta, although they don't have six months, had two years. The minister still hasn't explained to me clearly her ministry's rationale for changing the age from six months to 19 years.
[ Page 7601 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The legal definition of a child is under 19.
R. Neufeld: Can the minister then explain why in most union contracts or in most employment in the province, whether it's public or private, that the average is six months to a year of leave. I think that's the maximum, but six months is more the average for a maternity leave. That person has to go back to work again. How do you rationalize that against someone who does not have to go back to work until their child reaches age 19?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It is recognized that the longer any individual is out of the workplace, the harder it is for the transition back into the workplace. We're actively working with single parents to develop a plan that would support them in enhancing their labour market skills. The enhancement and targeting of programs are designed specifically to meet those needs and ensure that as soon as those barriers are addressed we can support that single mother in the workplace. We're working with her to identify what the needs are and put together a career plan that will enable her to support her children.
It is also recognized that the care of two or three children presents a significant barrier to a single mother who is solely responsible for them. I don't know whether the hon. member has been involved in direct hands-on parenting responsibilities. The fact of the matter is that there are no options when a child is sick and reliant on a single parent and a day care placement. That mother has to remove herself from the workplace to care for that child because there is no day care for a sick child. That's a significant barrier to employment.
It makes it very difficult for a single parent to be able to provide for that child. The more children that she is responsible for, the more possibility there is that those barriers grow. A significant portion of single-parent families rely on income assistance. That is reflective of those barriers. The facts are that women only make 60 cents on the dollar, and historically in community norms a woman's wages have been looked upon as a complement to those of a man. How many times has this member heard the justification for paying a decent wage to a male member of the family because he's the sole supporter? There is some reality to that. The impact is that when a woman is the sole supporter, it makes it awfully darned hard to buy the same loaf of bread with 60 cents on the dollar. Those are barriers too. That is a reality that those parents and those children face. So we need to design programs that are supportive, rather than punitive.
R. Neufeld: I have had some experience in raising a family. I have raised a family. I come from a family, and I have had some experiences in that family that you may find humorous, but I don't. For you to stand there and try to tell me that I have had no life experience raising families is totally incorrect. I don't think it is right for the minister to say those types of things. I asked her about these programs, not to chastise the way I was raised, or my life experiences; I'm not chastising hers.
I would like to know what training programs are in place to help mothers with children to get back into the workplace. I know quite a few single mothers who are upset with this program -- that parents do not have to look for work until their youngest child turns 19 -- because they have done it themselves. I can list quite a few who have been able to do it. It is not because they have a background of knowing the right person, or whatever. They come from ordinary families, and they are upset with this direction that this ministry is taking. What program is specifically in place to get single parents off of social assistance and into the workplace? What success has it had in the last 16 months since those rules were changed? There should be some measure of success by now.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me provide the member with some additional information, just so he has a clearer understanding about the single-parents portion of our caseload and how motivated those clients are to participate in the programs this ministry offers.
A full 73 percent of participants in employment and training offered by the ministry are women. That's a pretty high involvement, and it indicates a pretty strong commitment to providing for care of their children and looking for real opportunities toward self-determination. Single parents represent 60 percent of those income assistance recipients who take advantage of improved earnings exemptions. That means a full 60 percent are working and topping up their income assistance to provide for real opportunities for their children. Nearly 50 percent of participants in the ministry's employment opportunity program are women, and 30 percent are single parents. So the participation rate of single parents on income assistance is very high for a specific program. This is a highly motivated group.
[11:45]
For me, these figures provide good evidence that people on income assistance are not simply sitting there without developing opportunities for themselves and their families but instead are taking advantage and moving on with their lives. It makes the point for me that single parents do indeed know best about how to care for their children and take advantage of those opportunities to move off income assistance. The numbers speak for themselves.
V. Anderson: A couple of questions on social assistance have come up as a result of the conversation this morning. We've talked about the increase in the persons who are on welfare due to immigration into the province and lack of employment. Can the minister indicate whether the welfare rolls have increased because of the inability of young people, particularly, and of others to get into educational institutions? Many of them probably would have liked to have done that. They are not working or are in an educational institution. In the last couple of years we hit a peak in the number of youth in that particular age group as a percentage of the population. Has either the
[ Page 7602 ]
educational factor or the birth peak of 18 or 19 years ago hit us in this particular period, and are they a part of that figure as well?
Hon. A. Hagen: I ask leave of the House to make in introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Hagen: It's my great pleasure this morning to welcome grades 5 and 6 students from Herbert Spencer Elementary School in New Westminster -- our newest school, which had its official opening a couple of months ago. They are here with their teacher, Miss Taylor, and a number of parents, to listen to the estimates debate of the Social Services minister with members of the House this morning. Would all of you join me in welcoming them to our Legislature today.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the best way to answer the member's question is to talk a little bit about some of the things we are beginning to learn about the caseload. A number of times I have referenced the work we are doing across Canada with the barriers paper in identifying who our clients are throughout the provinces.
I also referenced some work that SPARK is doing on our behalf in trying to put a face on those numbers we quote from time to time. Some of the preliminary work I have seen is fascinating, to say the least. When I was looking through some of the case stories, I was struck by the fact that a considerable number of single employable males have grade 7 to grade 9 education. I was also struck that a considerable number of single women have degrees. Those women not only have significant training but have significant academic skills as well. If you look at the demographics, the reality is that a single male graduating from high school likely will make more money than a single female graduating from university with a degree. That's the reality in the workforce across Canada. There are ramifications for those realities, and the ramifications are that it's very difficult, through a marriage breakdown or other stresses, for that same single female to support her children. That is a societal problem; that's not a problem for income assistance. We are simply the safety net. We simply deal with the fallout from those societal issues, and it challenges us all to address those issues. Very clearly, by not addressing them, it's costing us in both human and financial terms. So when we as government are looking at identifying barriers and addressing those barriers, that's the kind of information that we will bring to bear on that challenge.
V. Anderson: I agree with you that it's important for us to be aware of the actual societal context in which we're discussing these issues, because if we discuss them out of context, then we all draw the wrong conclusions.
You mentioned that many of the males are coming in with grade 7 to grade 9 education. I'm wondering also if many of the single persons, both men and women, coming into the workforce at this time are coming in in part because they have no experience. Increasingly, unless you have previous experience, you're not able to get a job. So without that experience, it would seem to be reasonable that a larger number of young people have to come onto the welfare rolls when they become independent, because without experience they do not get a job -- and this becomes a cycle. I wonder if the minister would confirm or deny that that's a possibility.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's an issue that we've certainly acknowledged, and we are designing our programs to try to bridge young people into employment. Where there are significant numbers of people who are unemployed, with considerably more experience than a person who has yet to enter the workplace, we have come to recognize that the best support that we can give is some on-the-job experience. So we are designing programs not only through the enhancement of our Employment Plus program but also through our RISE programs, where we actually create jobs where there were no jobs before.
I said earlier that we in this province have provided considerable leadership. Our neighbour to the east came and took a look at our programs and took them back to Alberta and put them in place there during this last year. I think there is some recognition across Canada that we are doing some very good work and that we are reforming the system in a very supportive and proactive way; we are not just simply sitting here and being the receptacle of some of the challenges communities face because of economic restructuring.
V. Anderson: Another factor I'd like to clarify is a condition that may be causing a difficulty in our situation -- which we've also referred to, I think -- and that is that the minimum wage has not kept up with the increase in inflation. It would appear to me that a single mother, particularly.... This is not true for a single person. If a single person is working full time and earning a minimum wage, they will receive more in salary than they would by receiving social service payments. But if a single mother is working full time at $6 an hour and has the responsibility of providing for one child -- if my figures are correct -- she would receive somewhere between $200 and $250 less than she could presently receive from Social Services. That single mother would be some 60 percent under the poverty line if she were working full time at $6 an hour, whereas she would probably be only about 50 percent under the poverty line if she were under Social Services. So it seems logical to me that a parent who is responsible for the care of their children will automatically take that which gives more protection to the children, not only in income but also in medical and dental coverages. I'm not saying that their coverage should be lowered; I'm just saying that this is a factor we need to realize. The present minimum wage is one of the culprits, if you like, of the necessity to increase welfare services.
[ Page 7603 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can provide some statistical information. A single parent with two children who takes advantage of all programs -- the flat rate exemption, the $200 and the 25 percent enhanced earning exemption -- and is actually in the workplace as well as on income assistance would have to make approximately $10 an hour over a 40-hour week to break even.
The fact is that income assistance is based on need and family size. Wages are not. Where the number of jobs available at entry level are likely to be minimum wage, that presents a significant barrier to supporting your family. You cannot support a family of three at minimum wage; you can't pay the rent, and you can't feed the children. That's a reality and one of the challenges we have to recognize when we're talking about the barriers for people to participate. Together, with all of the partners, we have to wrestle with that problem.
Recognizing that the time is quickly upon us, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes 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.
Hon. D. Marzari moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
K. Jones: I'd like to continue where we were yesterday, in the office of the government communications department. I'd like the minister to answer or explain why the salaries and benefits for the government communications office have increased nearly 100 percent under the current administration. Last year's -- that is, '92-93 -- salaries were $1,253,979, and the proposed budget for this year, '93-94, is $2,343,470.
Hon. L. Boone: Those don't reflect the figures I have. If you're talking about the government communications office, we show they have in fact gone up a total of $79,000, not doubled as the member indicates. I'm not quite sure what figures he's talking about here.
K. Jones: If the minister would look at the supplement to the estimates, March 31, 1993, and compare it to March 1994, she will see the differences in the total salaries and benefits under government communications office.
Hon. L. Boone: If you look at the estimates book, page 229, you'll see that $2,225,000 transferred into Government Services from all ministries. Those dollars were reflected in other ministries. So there wasn't an increase, just a transfer of the dollars from other ministries into this ministry.
K. Jones: It shows that there was an increase in salaries and benefits. You are saying it was because people were moved from other ministries into government services operations, and therefore you have an increase in your budget by almost $1 million.
The Chair: I bring the committee's attention to standing order 36, which requires debate through the Chair, please.
K. Jones: I stand corrected, hon. Chair.
The minister's indication is that a transfer of staff from other ministries was the reason why there was an increase in this budgeted area. Could the minister respond as to why there would be a $1 million increase in transfers from other ministries? And could she substantiate which ministries took a reduction in their communications staff to accommodate the increase in this ministry's department?
Hon. L. Boone: In the reconciliation at the back, among the expenditures and FTE reconciliations, it shows that there is a transfer from other ministries of authorized FTEs -- $2,225,000 -- to the government communications office. There was not an increase in terms of government spending; there is just a transfer from other ministries into this ministry of dollars that were existing someplace else.
K. Jones: I would like to get down to the specifics rather than the global figures the minister is using. I would therefore like to ask the minister to tell us specifically how many people, from which ministries, and how much budget was transferred into the government communications office.
Hon. L. Boone: The staff is currently trying to get that up. If you would like to carry on with another question, we will get that information to you as soon as we can.
[ Page 7604 ]
K. Jones: Can the minister explain why travel expenses for the government communications office have increased nearly 60 percent over the figures a year ago? Travel in 1992-93 was $69,000. In l993-94, she has a budget of $110,000.
Hon. L. Boone: You can't look at last year's blue book and take the figures from there, because there have been transfers into this section from other areas. The actual travel for this area has gone down $9,000. It's $119,000 for 1992-93 and $110,000 for 1993-94. That is the public service travel for that year.
K. Jones: For clarification, is the minister talking about public service travel in the government communications office for 1992-93 being $119,000?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. The restated estimates are $119,000 for 1992-93 and $110,000 for 1993-94.
K. Jones: The minister refers to restated estimates or expense. Does that mean the actual expense for the past year was $119,000 when the minister had only budgeted $69,000?
Hon. L. Boone: No. It's not necessarily the actual expense.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the actual expense?
Hon. L. Boone: The actual expense for 1992-93 was $40,000.
K. Jones: The minister actually spent $40,000 this past year for the government communications office, estimated $69,000, re-estimated $119,000 and this year puts in a budget for $110,000. Does the minister really know what's going on? It's up and down and all over the place. The process is supposed to be a basis of estimating costs so she can manage her budget to the best use for all of the intended purposes. Surely in a well-managed operation, you should be coming within about 2 percent or 3 percent of your estimated figures and you should have very clear definitions as to why these expenditures wouldn't be meeting that deadline. That's just a matter of good management -- showing figures being very close to your estimated budget.
Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, yesterday we went through several budget-cutting processes, and in those processes we managed to freeze, cut and postpone a number of different expenditures, and travel was one of them. In this area we froze a number of dollars in the travel budget, and these were not allowed to be spent in last year's budget -- and that's good management. That's what we have done: we have tried to keep within the taxpayers' dollars and what the taxpayer can afford to spend during these days.
K. Jones: The minister started off with $69,000 last year. She went up to $119,000 -- that doesn't sound like a cutting process -- and then ended up only spending $40,000. How does the minister explain that variance?
Hon. L. Boone: As I explained to the member, they were dollars that were transferred from other ministries into the GCO budget. They were not excessive dollars or new dollars coming into the ministries. They were dollars that were taken from other ministries and put into this budget; therefore the budget increased. When we were trying to save money, we looked everywhere to save money. As I said last night, every single operation in this ministry was asked to make sacrifices and to take the pain of saving the dollars, and GCO was no exception. Therefore the dollars were saved in that area with regard to their travel.
K. Jones: It's very commendable that after the fact, when the demand came for cutting the budget, the minister was able to get the managers under her to cut various amounts. But why wasn't the travel estimate closer to the actual basis? Why didn't she insist on getting the budget down to near, say, $30,000 or even $20,000, in comparison to the $69,000, relating the actual to the original budgeted amount. When new money came in, why didn't she say that was too high? Why didn't she cut that budget then and not allow it to go up to $119,000? It seems like a failure in control of the management of the ministry as the year has proceeded, even with combining and transferring ministry staff. Surely the minister has to have better control than that.
Hon. L. Boone: I think the fact that it came in at $40,000 shows that we have extremely good control of the dollars. Had we not had control of the dollars, we would have been overspent. We made the necessary cuts; we made the necessary savings in dollars to make sure that those moneys were there to put into the overall reductions of government. My staff have done an excellent job of maintaining control of this budget. The fact that we have come in under budget speaks very highly of their control and management skills.
K. Jones: I have no question about the ability of the staff. I think it is the leadership that needs to be looked at. It is the responsibility of the minister to provide that kind of leadership. Up until now, I don't think the minister has really had control of the ministry. She has been riding on the backs of the administration, which is very competent. She hasn't provided the direction, when changes have occurred, to bring it down. She gets forced and ends up cutting and getting it down to a level where it probably should be. Maybe it could even be smaller. Government communications could probably be eliminated, if you really looked at it seriously. There is probably no justification for this propaganda department. I would like the minister to give us a comment with regard to that.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't think there needs to be any comment with regard to that. If you want to talk about my competency, talk to anybody else. I am not going to stand here and defend my own competency. My staff
[ Page 7605 ]
speak for themselves; they are extremely competent and very good at what they do.
GCO serves a very worthwhile purpose in this government, and in any government, to get the government's message out. I make no apologies for the dollars that are spent in getting the government's message to the public.
K. Jones: Will the minister table the cost of the pre-budget mail-out that went to....
The Chair: Hon. member, it is not possible to table documents in committee.
K. Jones: I am sorry. Will the minister provide to this committee the cost of the pre-budget mail-out that went to each homeowner in the province?
Hon. L. Boone: The total cost for the prebudget mailout was $254,000. I'll give you the breakdown, because I'm sure you're going to ask for it: $55,000 was for writing, creative design and preproduction; $94,000 was for printing; and $105,000 was for postal distribution.
[10:30]
K. Jones: Could the minister also provide the same information for the Clayoquot publication?
Hon. L. Boone: I did that last night: 20 cents per copy was the cost, and I told you the 20 cents per copy included everything -- production, printing and mailing.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the detailed costs of the Clayoquot householder preparation, design and production?
Hon. L. Boone: The design and cost of production of the Clayoquot householder was $60,000.
K. Jones: The minister yesterday said that $50,000 was the basis under which tendering occurred for government communications. Was this Clayoquot contract tendered? Was the prebudget contract tendered?
Hon. L. Boone: The original estimates were actually under $50,000, therefore it wasn't tendered. It went over the estimated amount. Windrim, Kleyn and Lim was the production company that had that.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the pre-tendering or pre-letting contract estimates were for those projects?
Hon. L. Boone: It was under $50,000. I'm not sure what it was.
K. Jones: It sounds like very loose budgeting -- very conveniently below $50,000 so they don't have to go through a proper tendering process. I think this is an embarrassment to the minister, using a $50,000 mark as a measure and then say that anything they want to give to their friends is under $50,000. It doesn't matter what it comes in at afterward, because they can overrun their budget by $10,000 or $100,000. There seems to be no control in the hands of the minister as long as it's going to her friends. The real problem here is....
Hon. L. Boone: On a point of order, hon. Chair, I would ask the member to quit referring to this company as a friend. I do not know this company; I know no one in this company. I resent the implication that GCO is handing out contracts to friends. I would ask the member to please keep his points to what is factual.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The rule that is followed in committee is the same as in the House. The debate is tempered within a finite degree on one side of the line of order, hon. members. I would ask that we bear that in mind as we carry on in the debate today.
K. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will definitely take that into consideration.
The real fact is that the government has, first of all, set a basis in order to make it look like they have some guidelines by which contracting for various publications is done. Then they make sure that no matter how big the contract is going to be, the estimate is under the $50,000 threshold. How it comes out in the end doesn't matter. That shows a complete lack of management. It's a case of fiscal irresponsibility in dealing with tens of thousands of dollars. It is completely unacceptable for a minister of the Crown to be flippant about that approach to taxpayers' money.
Hon. L. Boone: Was there a question?
K. Jones: What action is the minister going to take this year to correct this problem?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, there is no problem with this. Yesterday I read out a list of contracts that had been given out, and most of them were under $50,000. There has not been any process to give these out to friends or insiders, as the member seems to be insinuating. As I stated last night, there has been a review of communications and a review regarding the tendering process and how those things take place. We are currently working with various people out in the field -- with companies -- to establish a tendering processing that meets their needs and the government needs as well. There has to be recognition that there are times when tendering does not work, such as when there is a need, and something has to get out quickly. In those cases, they have to have the ability to meet those requirements. But we are in a process.... The companies out there are currently reviewing the tendering document sent to them, and we will be working with them to ensure that what we do as a policy, with regard to tendering, is one that meets the clients' needs and the government's needs as well. It is not going to be done single-handedly. As I told you yesterday, I am not going to stand here and promise changes to a process that is currently under review.
[ Page 7606 ]
H. De Jong: I would like to dig into this tendering process a little more, because I think we would all better understand why there are certain limits set in terms of the bottom figure before they go to tender. I can understand that the tendering process is not economical if in fact a tender is a small one and the repeating type, for certain documents to be printed or whatever the case may be. So my question is: what would it take in terms of time turned over into cost to prepare a tender document for a specific purpose? I understand that some are more detailed that others because of the nature of the contract. So that we understand, why was the route chosen to go under the $50,000 by quotes rather than bids? Why is the limit set at $50,000 to justify the tendering process not being used. It is costly, as I know from my municipal experience.
Hon. L. Boone: We are merely maintaining a policy that was set in place by the previous government -- the $50,000 -- and we haven't changed it. None of the tendering processes have been changed since the Social Credit government was in power. I don't know why they chose $50,000 as the amount, but they did. We are maintaining that. We are currently in a review process with the various companies to see what a good level is. At this point, as I said, we are in the middle of this review. We're in consultation with companies, and we will be making changes based on that. But the policy that is in place is exactly the same policy that existed during the Social Credit regime.
H. De Jong: A further question, then. I assume that the jobs below $50,000 -- the printing of some brochures -- are not tendered out because they do not meet the overall top figure of $50,000. I understand that normally two or three quotes are taken from various companies which government has generally dealt with. In that process, unlike the tendering process where a bid bond is taken, once the bids have been given out to the successful tender, then the bid bond is turned over into a performance bond. When a project is agreed upon simply by a quote, is some sort of performance bond given by the successful company in the acceptance of their quote for the job?
Hon. L. Boone: Government does not require bid bonds or performance bonds. One has to recognize the costs involved. You were asking for the costs. I'm not sure what the cost of a request for a proposal would be, but I do know that substantial cost is involved in setting up an art display of what you would do for a particular brochure and those sorts of things. I don't think many of the companies out there -- certainly we'll hear from them -- anticipate that it would be valuable for them to put in a tender for a $10,000 project. The cost involved in writing up the proposal, putting it forward, getting the staff involved and bringing all those things together probably wouldn't warrant the $10,000 they'd make in the contract.
The $50,000, as I stated, was in place before. That will be reviewed, as everything else is, when we are doing the review and consultation. But most companies out there have indicated that there has to be a level at which it's not a tendered process. As I say, we do not have a bid process. There is no performance bond given with government contracts.
H. De Jong: I suppose a company getting that kind of bid by a process without tender would make sure there is enough holdback money for the firm to ensure that it provides what is being requested by the quote initially. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Companies are usually paid after they have performed, not beforehand. So if they don't perform, they don't get paid.
K. Jones: I found it interesting to hear the minister's comments that she was not going to agree to any change while she had a process under review. When you put a process under review, you generally have agreed that you are going to make changes; otherwise you are wasting your money. I hope that the minister really meant that she was going to wait until the review was over to make changes, and that she is very seriously considering making changes in the process, because the process is greatly wanting. I've heard that from people in the advertising business, who have approached us with great concerns about the present process. They feel that it is unfair, that it's being misused and that only certain people are allowed to bid on contracts -- there's a real litany of problems within the whole administration of the government communications office. I think the minister is going to have to come up with some major changes in that area. I'd like to ask the minister what process is used to select companies for these various contracts?
[10:45]
Hon. L. Boone: Four or five are selected to bid on a job. They are selected based on their past performance on the jobs that they've done, on a number of different criteria of professionalism and on the economics -- their experience there. Then their bids are reviewed by a panel, which consists of somebody from the ministry, a member from GCO and sometimes somebody from the Purchasing Commission. There is usually a panel of three reviewing these bids and making sure that the company that gets the job has done so based on their competency and the best performance.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why this process would be used? And why has it taken over a year and a half for the minister to even look at it, when there have been complaints about the process brought to the minister right from day one -- right back to the core contract? Yet her ministry has continued the process used by the Social Credit government, which many people over the years -- including your own party and your critics -- have criticized as being a very improper contracting process, and a totally unfair one to all of the people who are participating in the industry. I would also like to know how this process allows new people to come into the industry -- unless they happen to have friends in government or be former directors of communication with the NDP.
[ Page 7607 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I'm a little tired of this member slandering a group that does very worthwhile work on behalf of the government, and contradicting what I said last night. I told you then that I have not received a single complaint from anybody within the industry about not being treated fairly. Contrary to what you say, the core process was not criticized by any of the companies involved. In fact, they all knew that the process was not flawed, that it worked very well, that a tender went out, and that a panel reviewed that tender. The member seems to think because NOW Communications got a contract that it had to be flawed. Well, I am telling the member that that's not true.
The process is in place, and it's working very well. I would challenge you to find anything that indicates that the process was not working in the past, even under the previous government. There was never any indication that any of the tendering processes under the previous government were not done in the best interests of the general public or that they were tampered with. I can tell you right now that no processes or tenders are tampered with. There are no processes that I have been involved in which I have dipped my fingers into to make sure they go to a particular person. Everybody who wants a chance to do business with this government has the opportunity to do so. I have passed on plenty of names of companies and individuals for GCO to put into their bank to utilize. For the member to imply that any kind of fraud or improper process is going on is totally unwarranted. There has been no indication that that has taken place. There has been no indication that anybody has tampered with anything. I would challenge you to give me information that shows differently or to give me proof that that is taking place. If you can't, I would ask you to stop this line of questioning, because you are impugning the character of all those worthwhile people who work in GCO on behalf of the government.
K. Jones: The minister is getting rather testy over an issue that is obviously hitting home, which the government is quite sensitive about, especially when the former director of communications gets major contracts. This is not something that I am impugning; it has been stated in Monday magazine and in the advertising trade magazines. If the minister were to do some reading in the area she's supposed to be looking after, she might be fully aware of what's going on and of what's being said about the process of government.
It's not well received, and it obviously has a serious flaw in the process. That's what we are trying to point out, and we are trying to have the government and the ministry at this time, with a new budget to play with, become accountable for the taxpayers' money, which we are all responsible for. I seriously request that the minister not impugn my intentions or make accusations against me, when it's really her administration of her ministry that is at fault. We're asking the questions of her ministry, and she does not have the answers.
I will carry on to another question. How much printed material was left over following the constitutional referendum last October, and what happened to that material?
Hon. L. Boone: I'll take that question on notice and get the information for you.
K. Jones: Could I ask the minister to stretch her mind or ask her advisers to tell us what happened to that material?
Hon. L. Boone: I took it on notice.
The Chair: Hon member, the minister has answered the question. She'll bring the information back to you. A new question, please, hon. member.
K. Jones: Is there a recycling program within the ministry. How does that work with regard to materials such as this?
Hon. L. Boone: There is a program for recycling. How that works with regard to...? Are you talking about constitutional stuff? With regard to what?
K. Jones: Yes.
Hon. L. Boone: There is a program for recycling. It works, I would imagine, the same as all other recycling processes work; it is collected. I know BCBC has a recycling process for this building. Everything is recycled. This government is very committed to recycling and to making sure that all the paper in this area is recycled.
K. Jones: Can the minister tell us when she will provide that information with regard to the amount of material, and what happened to what was leftover from the constitutional referendum?
The Chair: Hon. member, the minister has already committed to bring that back. I have asked for another question.
K. Jones: I am asking about timing. It is a question of when she will bring it forward, because I want to be able to follow up on it in the estimates and not at a later date.
Hon. L. Boone: As soon as I can.
K. Jones: Will it be prior to the end of the estimates?
The Chair: Hon. member, with all due respect, the question has been answered. Please ask a new question.
K. Jones: In the estimates, $698,189 is being spent this year on professional services. Can the minister explain where that money is going, and to whom?
Hon. L. Boone: Those are for GCO contracts.
K. Jones: Could the minister detail those contracts?
Hon. L. Boone: I gave details of some of them last night. It would take a considerable length of time to list all of the contracts that are given out for some $600,000.
[ Page 7608 ]
As I said earlier, I will get that information for the member at a later date.
K. Jones: Since the minister has it in hand, could she make a copy of it right now and hand it to me, please?
H. De Jong: Last night we had some discussion about decentralization of Government Services throughout the province, and the minister mentioned six regions where special activities would be occurring. I have an article here from the Daily News in Nelson, where I believe a meeting has already been held with the B.C. Purchasing Commission and 12 Crown corporations to inform the people in the area about what is available and what the government is in need of from time to time. I suppose that it also goes back and forth, so the public will tell them what's available in the community, and so on.
To my recollection, a fair amount of that work had been done before through the various chambers of commerce. Most of the chambers of commerce throughout the province are hooked up to the information network, and they can draw a lot of information from that, as can local business people from various communities.
In addition to that, there is a government agent's office in many constituencies and towns in the province. I wonder if we are duplicating, or perhaps in some cases making a triple attempt to draw what is available from the community, and vice versa from government, as to what they may need. Perhaps the minister will explain to the committee what additional work is now being contemplated, or what information that wasn't available to the people in those communities before, is now being contemplated? Or is it a matter of bringing the government around the province on another trip, you might say, for simple exposure more than anything else?
Hon. L. Boone: I appreciate that question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the good work the Purchasing Commission is doing, and what a good job they're doing in trying to bring government business to the small businesses out there and make them aware of what government business they can get. Government business, as you know, does not just tend strictly to the government proper but to the Crowns as well.
[11:00]
One of the sessions you're talking about was here in Victoria. But I, coming from the regions, really am encouraging the Purchasing Commission to get out and make the people in the regions -- the small businesses throughout the communities, the Nelsons and Prince Georges of the province -- aware of what business is available to them. Frequently, a lot of the small businesses tend to think that government business only goes to Victoria- or Vancouver-based companies. We are encouraging all the small businesses throughout the communities to look very seriously at trying to get a part of the government purchasing, which is a huge business out there. It's a large amount of money. If we can get some of those small businesses in those communities -- and the Kootenays, as you know, is really suffering economically right now -- to have access to government business so we can help perk up their sales, and it's done on a good business basis, then I think we're doing a very good job and serving the people of this province very well. We're serving the taxpayers very well too, because frequently we are getting a better cost value for it.
The chambers certainly have some kind of job to do. I don't think all the chambers are aware all the time of all the government business that's out there and how they get access to all the Crowns and those things. So we're out there trying to get that information out, supporting the small business community and the regions, and making sure that everybody has access to government business in this province.
H. De Jong: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I'm not necessarily criticizing the attempt being made by the Purchasing Commission. However, I am concerned -- when we already have government agents' offices throughout the province -- why that information cannot be very effectively brought to the public via those offices, rather than having another group of people travelling around the province. I agree wholeheartedly about the people in the outlying communities. Even in a small municipality such as Matsqui, in the area above Bradner, those people always said: "We out here in Glen Valley are the forgotten lot." That was not so, and I'm sure it's not so with the service of the government to the outlying areas of British Columbia, but British Columbians may feel that way. It's something on a greater scale, as on the western side of the Rockies we feel we're forgotten by Ottawa. So it's important. But at the same time, while government agents' offices and the information network are throughout the province, as I understand -- and the minister may want to check how many chambers of commerce are linked to the information network -- is it in fact essential to duplicate it by this attempt being made at present?
Hon. L. Boone: We certainly don't want to duplicate the services offered there. And we work very closely with the chambers of commerce and the government agents; government agents do supply a tremendous amount of information to businesses. But it was felt that they do not have as much Crown information, and I don't think they have the level of expertise that would be available at these meetings. This is not something that is going to be done on a month-to-month basis. We are out there just one time, getting the information out to people and trying to assist them in whatever way we can. The previous government had a huge display at Canada Place for all the people. People tried to come down for those, but not very many from my area came down to participate. We are taking out a small display and a small group, with the Crowns and the government, to try to reach out to the people and give the information. The information we take will be carried on through the chambers and government agents. They will have better knowledge and more information from us being out there and
[ Page 7609 ]
getting that to them. We work very closely with the government agents -- a very worthwhile organization, and one that is doing a lot of work on behalf of communities, as do the chambers of commerce. We are working with all those organizations to try to coordinate our efforts, so that businesses in the outer communities are as aware of government business as the people in Victoria are.
H. De Jong: I hope that the displays, and the recognition that has been given to British Columbia through the advertising done at the World Trade Centre, are going to remain there, because we are inviting the world to participate in British Columbia. I hope we are not making a trade-off in that area.
Another question arises out of last night's discussions, and it has to do with the personnel who are required from time to time to serve within your ministry. The minister mentioned that these positions are always posted. I have some concerns about simply posting positions. Did the minister mean that they are advertised within the province? I think we may be surprised as to the abilities and talents of British Columbia's people. Having a position posted -- in a government agent's office, for instance -- may not be sufficient, because people are looking through the newspapers if they are looking for a job. I'm wondering whether public service positions shouldn't all be advertised, rather than simply posted.
Hon. L. Boone: I'd be happy to answer the question with regard to my jurisdiction. We were talking about the GCO postings. They were posted outside the normal civil service and advertised in the papers for the regional positions. The broad civil service is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. That is GPSD; I'm going to leave that for him.
K. Jones: I'd like to go into the Purchasing Commission area for a moment. I understand that the minister has received a report on purchasing practices from the comptroller general. Actually an audit was done on the purchasing of computers, faxes and copiers. There had been an extensive review of the purchasing process through a sampling of ministries and Crown corporations. Could the minister table for our review....
The Chair: It's not possible to table documents in committee.
K. Jones: Could the minister make available to us the text of that report so that we could review it with regard to further questions without having the minister repeat what's already in the report?
Hon. L. Boone: The report is currently being reviewed by the Purchasing Commission. We are discussing with the comptroller general the best way to implement a governmentwide approach to the recommendations. The Purchasing Commission will prepare a response to the findings of the review for presentation to Treasury Board. At this point in time I can't make a commitment as to when that will be released to the public.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate why this information isn't being made public? It has to do with open purchasing in the public marketplace by the Purchasing Commission, a government agency. Therefore the public should be aware of what findings have been made with regard to practices that were questionable enough to bring forward recommendations of major changes of the process.
Hon. L. Boone: For the record, there is no indication that there are questionable practices in the Purchasing Commission. This is not my report; it is a report from Treasury Board. I will take it upon myself to discuss with the comptroller general how and when this report will be released. It is obviously not my report to release.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why Treasury Board is making the determination about this? I understood that it was the comptroller....
Interjection.
K. Jones: Could the Chair direct the member who wishes to make comments to speak through the Chair in the future?
The Chair: Hon. member, do you have a question for the minister?
K. Jones: I am attempting to do so, but I was being interrupted.
Could the minister tell us why a report of the comptroller general is having to go through Treasury Board when it is really a matter of administration of her ministry that is being recommended? It is not a matter of costs.
Hon. L. Boone: I didn't mention Treasury Board. I said this is an internal audit done by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, and therefore it is their report. As I said, I will take it upon myself to discuss with the comptroller general as to when this report will be released. At this point, that is all I can do. It is not my report; it is not a report I am at liberty to release.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain to me the process under which these reports are dealt with? My understanding is that the comptroller general is working for the people of British Columbia.
The Chair: On a point of order, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
D. Schreck: The rules clearly limit estimates debate to that area of responsibility which is under the jurisdiction of the minster. None of this line of questioning is under the jurisdiction of the minister.
[ Page 7610 ]
The Chair: I bring to the committee's attention standing order 61. Debate should only follow those areas of direct jurisdiction of the minister's office. The minister has indicated that this report does not come under the auspices of her office, so further questioning on this report would therefore be out of order. I would ask the committee to bear that in mind as we proceed.
K. Jones: Unfortunately the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour really doesn't know what he is talking about in regard to his point of order, and I would like to question that advice he gave to the Chair.
The Chair: Hon. member.
K. Jones: The fact is this is actually the...
The Chair: Order.
K. Jones: ...jurisdiction of the minister.
The Chair: Order! Order, hon. member. The minister has stated very clearly that this comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, and she does not control the Minister of Finance on this report. The Chair would take direction from the minister on that issue, but it seems that that was the answer given.
Hon. member, carry on, please, with a new question.
K. Jones: I don't recall the minister's mentioning anything about the Minister of Finance in her presentation today. We did have the honour of his presence yesterday.
The Chair: Do you have a new question, hon. member?
K. Jones: I am continuing with the Purchasing Commission. The question is specifically about a study and a report on the questionable purchasing practices of the Purchasing Commission. It seems like it's more questionable now that the minister seems to want to hide the report from public view.
The Chair: Order, order, hon. member. The question is out of order. Do you have a new question please?
K. Jones: What changes in the purchasing practices of the Purchasing Commission have been undertaken since the minister received the new information about some problems?
[11:15]
Hon. L. Boone: The member hasn't even seen the report. To jump to the conclusion that there are some problems is a quantum leap. The review that he's talking about is not a review of the Purchasing Commission but of the procurement process and operation of photocopiers, fax machines, personal computers and printers -- a governmentwide review. That is why it doesn't belong to me: it was not done in the Purchasing Commission.
There are a number of recommendations, as I said earlier. We are currently reviewing this with the comptroller general. The Purchasing Commission and the comptroller general are working to find the best way to implement a governmentwide approach to the recommendations, because it's not just the Purchasing Commission; it crosses government and into many different areas. The Purchasing Commission is preparing a response to the findings of the review, and that response will go to Treasury Board. The response will identify the actions that we have already taken and address some other items. It will also include the impact of the implementation of the B.C. Buy Smart program, which we are really looking forward to.
As I said earlier, there are a number of recommendations that are outside the scope of the Purchasing Commission, so we are looking through all of these to see how we can best approach this from a governmentwide agenda.
K. Jones: I would like to look at this, then, since the minister chooses not to provide information about the findings of the report. Information came to me that there were questions about the process of purchasing, about the fact that copiers or faxes might have been purchased with contracts that were not required, such as warranty contracts, but that were included to expand the size of the purchase. A whole series of allegations have been brought forward by members of the public, people in the sales area and former staff members.
I wanted to see this all cleared up, so I turned that information over to the comptroller general a year ago. It has taken an extended period of time to do the full audits on this, and I think that it is only proper that the information that has been received should now be brought forward. I hoped that the minister wouldn't hide behind the processes that she's using right now to keep this information, which the public has a right to know, because it would remove a cloud of suspicion from over the public service -- which is made up, in almost all cases, of very fine, honourable people. There have been some problems, and maybe those problems need to be weeded out. This audit was done of various government operations, but basically it still falls under the purchasing processes of the minister before us. Therefore it's paramount for the minister to be forthright with the details of that report, so that the public may know them.
U. Dosanjh: Point of order. This member continually uses phrases such as "the minister is hiding" and "improper motives" and other kinds of innuendoes I have heard in the last many minutes that I've been sitting here. I would ask the Chair to intervene and stop this member from casting aspersions on the ministry, the Purchasing Commission and all the personnel involved in running government business.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I would caution the member for Surrey-Cloverdale on the point of order. Temper your language and debate so that he doesn't cast aspersions on members of the government and on the civil service.
[ Page 7611 ]
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. I would ask the member only to....
The Chair: Hon. member, points of order are not debatable. Would you carry on with the question.
K. Jones: I'm not debating, hon. Chair. I would ask that the member listen more carefully to what was said, and he would have his answer.
Hon. Chair, I'd like the minister to tell us what action has been taken to date to improve the operations of the Purchasing Commission. Maybe we can work from that general statement.
Hon. L. Boone: We're always looking. We received this report two weeks ago, and for us to have any impact.... I think it would be improper to jump in and make some massive changes. But we are always trying to improve the way government does its business -- certainly in the Purchasing Commission.
I mentioned the Buy B.C. program. We believe this program is going to open up government business throughout the whole province -- and throughout the country, in fact -- and will make government procurement available to people who have not normally had access to it. We are trying to make it available through the Buy B.C. program, so that companies are paid faster. I admit, the Purchasing Commission admits and everybody admits that payment of our bills has been a problem in the past. We want to make it so that companies are paid as fast as possible, and the procurement card that we have just given a tender on will assist us in that matter.
So we are constantly looking at ways to improve how government procurement is done, and how we can best get access -- through sessions such as we've done in Nelson -- to make sure that all companies are aware of what government procurement and moneys are available to them, so that people throughout the whole province have access to those things. This is not something we do just when a report comes down; we do it on an ongoing basis, trying to make sure that the public is best served so we can get good value for our dollar and make sure companies also have access to our business.
K. Jones: Has the minister or her ministry examined the structure of the Purchasing Commission as recommended by Peat Marwick?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific. I guess that means we haven't done so too much, if I'm asking you for more specifics. But can you be more specific on this?
K. Jones: The Peat Marwick report that was made for the government at the beginning of the session last year did a review and made some recommendations. Notwithstanding that, is the minister satisfied that the best value for money is being found within the commission?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I am. In my opening remarks I read to you where the Purchasing Commission is saving hundreds of thousands -- sometimes millions -- of dollars in obtaining the best value we can. We've got a situation here where Shirley Boon of purchasing and Judy Cross of postal services arranged for the south central health unit to use courier services to deliver water samples. The annual cost-savings was $800. It is a small amount they save. We are constantly looking for small and large ways, every way we can, to coordinate efforts so we can save the government dollars.
We've offered our services to municipalities, school districts and regional districts. They participate and save themselves a lot of money, for example in the master purchase order for our car rentals and hotel rates that we have throughout B.C. -- which the hon. member uses, I'm sure. These are areas that school districts and municipalities make use of.
We are constantly looking at ways to save government money, and we have done so. In my opening remarks I mentioned some of the millions of dollars we have saved. Bulk storage for distribution of pharmaceuticals by the product distribution branch has saved the Attorney General 25 percent of those costs. We have saved a lot of money over the years, and that is what our purpose in life is.
K. Jones: Have there been any changes to the system of interprovincial purchasing by government in the last year?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: I believe the minister had indicated an interest in the area, and I was wondering if she or the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade had accomplished anything in this area during the past year.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. minister on the part of the question that falls under the jurisdiction of your offices.
Hon. L. Boone: As the member has read, negotiations on cross-Canada trade barriers are currently taking place. We have been working with purchasing groups throughout other provinces to make sure that our companies have access to their markets, and we will continue to do so.
K. Jones: Has there been any attempt to take advantage of purchasing in bulk quantities by joining various provinces together to make specific common purchases?
Hon. L. Boone: The federal and provincial governments cooperate on the purchase of pharmaceuticals.
K. Jones: Is that the only area where there is any cooperation?
[ Page 7612 ]
Hon. L. Boone: There are other areas being explored, but at this point that is the one specific example we have.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us examples of other areas that are being explored at the present time?
Hon. L. Boone: We are looking at shared space with the federal government. I met with the minister, and we are talking about ways to cooperate as much as we can. It is obviously an advantage to us to try to coordinate efforts where we can to give the best for the taxpayers' dollar.
K. Jones: Shared space. Do you mean the province is sharing space with other provinces? Does this have something to do with the joint purchasing process? I'm not quite sure where that got in.
Hon. L. Boone: We share space on warehousing and some of those areas, and we also cooperate with the federal government on asset disposal when we have the large garage-type sales. The local, provincial and federal governments combined find their excess assets and sell them off to try to get the best dollars for the taxpayer.
K. Jones: Do you mean that public asset sales such as those I've heard advertised by the federal government last week also include provincial assets in those processes? There was no mention of the province being involved, nor that there were assets of a provincial nature in that one. Could you tell us whether that was an example of your cooperation?
Hon. L. Boone: Some of them are incorporated in the province's. I'm not sure whether the one you're talking about is or not, but there has been cooperation with the federal government on some of those sales.
K. Jones: Since our leader is present, I will defer to allow him to ask his questions, because his time is limited.
[11:30]
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition on vote 43.
F. Gingell: I was most interested yesterday in listening to the minister's opening remarks. She referred to actions being taken by government to assist people with disabilities. I was wondering whether your ministry has concern for the problems of provincial government employment of people with the disability of stammering?
Hon. L. Boone: We are looking at.... Our employment equity program includes all people with all disabilities, whether they be hearing, speech or physical disabilities, and we're looking to find ways to break down the barriers to employment that are there. It's important that people understand what employment equity is. Employment equity is not necessarily giving preferential treatment, but it is opening doors that were formerly closed to them. So we are working within our ministry to break down the barriers to employment, and to make sure that the Ministry of Government Services is open to employment to everybody -- and certainly that includes anybody with a speech impediment.
K. Jones: I was very pleased that our Leader of the Official Opposition could bring such a very serious problem -- and I mean it very sincerely -- to the minister.
I'd like to have the minister address whether there are any purchasing dealings with American suppliers. Are there any agreements, similar to interprovincial agreements, that would allow us to take advantage of offers that they may have?
Hon. L. Boone: American suppliers can bid on our purchasing tenders in the same way as any other government and company can do. As I stated last year, we do have an exception, but the Purchasing Commission has actually not had to use it in the past year. The proviso is that if we are being unfairly treated by another government in purchasing -- whether it's a provincial government, the U.S. government, or whoever -- then we reserve the right to respond accordingly or to reciprocate. So far, we have not actually had that happen, but there are situations where our suppliers are banned from actually applying or trying to get business in the U.S. So we have put in that policy.
At this time, hon. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 11:33 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]