Hansard -- Volume 15, Number 23 -- Tuesday, May 31, 1994

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce members of the association of CGAs, who hosted a luncheon for many of us in the Legislature today. Joining us today is Jay Norton, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C.; Bob Vincent, the first vice-president of the association; and Bill Caulfield, the executive director. They were wonderful hosts, and now I would ask everyone to please make them welcome.

A. Hagen: It's my pleasure to introduce a good friend, Christine Hayden, who is visiting in the gallery today and with whom I've had an enjoyable time. Welcome her to Victoria, everyone.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce the jazz band from Semiahmoo Secondary School in my riding, that entertained members and the public on the front steps of the Legislature today. I would ask the House to make them welcome and thank them for their concert.

Introduction of Bills

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill will amend the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to increase the effectiveness of the family maintenance enforcement program. It will introduce a mechanism to make it easier to enrol in the program and to reduce the time it takes to enrol.

The bill will introduce new enforcement mechanisms and streamline enforcement procedures to speed up the enforcement of maintenance orders and make enforcement more effective. The bill contains provisions which will make it possible to reach people who are required to pay maintenance and who have been able to hide their assets and thereby avoid their maintenance obligations. The bill will remove ambiguities in the act which are interfering with the enforcement process and will clarify the intent of the act.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister seemed unaware last week that the Public Service Appeal Board would be moved to Nanaimo. It appeared to us that this was done with an eye to satisfying Joy Leach, the latest of many NDP patronage appointments. Could the minister please advise us what studies were conducted prior to the decision to move the appeal board to Nanaimo?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised that the member would attack somebody like Joy Leach, who has an impeccable reputation. However, for the member's information, decisions with respect to the location of various parts of the public service are made by the public service. Not all of those decisions run across the cabinet table. Otherwise we would constantly be dealing with the location of various employees in different communities.

Nonetheless, as a result of the questions that have been raised on this matter, I have asked for all of the reports with respect to the decision to be brought to my attention so we can ensure that the most cost-effective decision has been made by the public service.

F. Gingell: Clearly the issue has been a disaster right from the start. With appeals limited to in-service applicants, there is no need to move this board from Victoria. Will the minister give us the assurance that if it is better for the taxpayers of British Columbia, she will reverse this overtly partisan decision?

Hon. E. Cull: Perhaps the member didn't hear me. I just said I was asking for all reports on this matter.

I want to tell the member that he is misinformed. The budget for the Public Service Appeal Board has gone down this year. The number of staff has been reduced. Unlike the member, the vast majority of civil servants do not live in Victoria; they live all around the province. We will ensure that they are provided with the best service possible in this regard.

F. Gingell: Will the minister give us the assurance that she will, at the same time, review the decision to move the Motor Carrier Commission to Victoria from Vancouver for another patronage appointment -- Don Johannessen -- when the majority of people who have dealings with that commission live in the lower mainland?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I'm sure the member would like to put that question to the appropriate minister.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Can the minister tell us whether his government intends to regulate or reduce the amount of overtime that employees will be allowed to work in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: It's actually quite a timely question. No, we don't have any plans, but it's certainly an area that begs a look. Upon examination, if it is determined that there are significant amounts of overtime being worked, then it may be a legitimate question for some debate as to whether that indeed should be regulated. In fact, years ago, under labour legislation in this province as I recall it, major employers, at least, required the approval of the Minister of Labour to work excessive overtime. That system has long since disappeared. But again, it's an issue that I think, given the kind of unemployment rates that unfortunately seem to exist in our society....

W. Hurd: The minister will recall being quoted in a Kamloops newspaper to the effect that government used to have the means to regulate overtime. "We need to recapture that power so that the ministry can say to industries with chronic overtime that it's too high." Again to the minister: how long will it be before this government says to the business people of the province: "Your overtime is too high"?

Hon. D. Miller: It's somewhat appalling that when we muse aloud about some ways in which we can address the chronic unemployment in our society, the members opposite are always, always opposed. If that is the position of the Liberal Party in this province -- that it's okay to work any amount at all of overtime, and it's okay to have unemployment, particularly in the youth field, that goes up to 17 percent -- it's a position that we on this side of the House reject.

W. Hurd: My supplemental is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us: when he travels abroad to preach the virtues of investment in B.C., does he also tell them that his government intends to ban or reduce overtime in the province? Does he believe the government should be limiting and saying no to overtime and to foreign investment in British Columbia?

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Implementing provincewide bargaining for teachers without banning school strikes is a recipe for provincewide school strikes. Does the Premier believe education should be...?

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Are you referring to a matter which is before the House? If it is, that would be inappropriate at this time. Please direct your question on a matter which does not reflect on legislation that is before the House, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: My question to the Premier is: does he believe that education should be classified as an essential service, or does he believe that teachers should be allowed to shut down the province with teacher strikes?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have made it very clear that this government believes in collective bargaining and believes in the right of workers to make that decision. It believes in the right of democratic citizens to form their own associations, and that that is something that should be done on a level playing field through labour legislation that this government has brought in. So yes, this government does believe in free collective bargaining. I don't know why the Leader of the Reform Party would automatically assume that it would be a strike and not a lockout, or why the parties wouldn't negotiate a settlement without any strikes or lockouts, as they do in 95 percent of the agreements in this province.

J. Weisgerber: If we've learned anything, surely it must be that there shouldn't be school strikes anywhere in this province. What polling has this government done to gauge the support with British Columbians for a provincial policy that would eliminate school strikes entirely and classify education as an essential service?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It may be okay for the Reform Party to govern themselves by polling and hotlines, but this government is always willing to go back to the basic principles that we stand for, and that's free collective bargaining.

J. Weisgerber: It's incredible to believe that the government would poll people to find out how popular the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister Employment and Investment are and not ask British Columbians what they think about an issue as important as strikes in the school system.

J. Weisgerber: Can the Premier tell us that the government really doesn't have any idea how British Columbians feel about this important issue?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government has listened to the people of British Columbia. The people have said that the collective bargaining system allowed by Social Credit -- I'm not quite sure what they'll be called next week, but they're called Reform this week -- under an act they brought in created the unworkable situation that students, parents, school trustees and teachers have had to face over the last five or six years. This government has preserved free collective bargaining, but it will be bringing some sanity to that, so that kids can be in schools and parents can make sure their kids are getting the skills they need for the 1990s.

K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. It's increasingly apparent to the official opposition that the Workers' Compensation Board is greatly mismanaged. In 1991, 42 percent of wage-loss claims were paid within the standard 17 days; now only 30 percent are handled within 17 days under this NDP government. My question to the minister is: how can he justify this rapidly declining level of service to injured workers in light of the fact that today there are more WCB staff and fewer claims being processed?

Hon. D. Miller: It's becoming increasingly evident to me that the Liberal opposition doesn't do its homework and doesn't really know what it's talking about. I would remind members opposite that the WCB is run by an appointed board of governors drawn from the business community, the labour community and the public at large. I would remind members opposite that the system in British Columbia is 97 percent funded. Let's compare it to the systems where the Liberals are in power across this country -- including in Ontario, where they drove that system into a $12 billion unfunded liability. As we look at those Liberal governments across the country, we see Quebec, 57 percent funded...

Hon. D. Miller: The members rise all too often without the basic facts. In my absence last week, that same member rose and made what I consider to be a spurious accusation.

K. Jones: The minister really has it wrong when he starts to claim that the NDP is doing a fine job. In Ontario the NDP has an $11.4 billion unfunded liability. That's the kind of operation.... Here we've got almost a half-billion-dollar unfunded liability.

The Liberal opposition WCB review panel, which held its latest forum in Prince George yesterday, has learned that serious inequities exist among the regional offices of the WCB in terms of the level of service provided to injured workers.

K. Jones: For example, recent statistics illustrate that in Richmond it took an average of 42 days -- I'm getting to it, hon. Speaker -- from the date of registration to the determination of eligibility of a claim, while it took only 22 days in Prince George. My question to the minister is this: why is he content to watch over a WCB that is unresponsive to the needs of injured workers, and why does he expect injured workers to further suffer from a WCB that is out of control?

Hon. D. Miller: Isn't it interesting that the Liberals in Ontario are pointing to the British Columbia WCB system and saying: "That's where we'd like to be"? Isn't it interesting that the Liberals in Ontario are going to solve the problem they created, that staggering debt, by reducing benefits to workers? Isn't it interesting that the Liberals in Ontario have set a target of 75 percent funded? British Columbia is 97 percent funded.

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In view of the lack of resolution to the west coast salmon dispute with the United States, talk is now running rampant about a salmon war. Can the peace-loving minister please tell the House what commitments he has received from the federal authorities concerning the specific measures they have prepared to undertake to protect the B.C. fishermen who are caught in the crossfire?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As we speak, specifics with respect to the national fishing plan are being worked out between the stakeholders, the federal and the provincial governments. The specifics won't be available until early next week, but the principles behind any plan will be that we have to be cognizant of the conservation needs and the needs of communities up and down this coast. You won't hear the words "fishing war" from me, because I don't want to see a fishing war.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, the words that we're using refer to a national fishing plan which would be aggressive in protecting British Columbia's interests.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the purposes of discussing the Ministry of Social Services estimates. In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 30.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've been informed that Imogene Jackson and Linda Olsen from my constituency are visiting here, watching us as we debate matters of state. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think there was a full airing, as I read the Blues, of the issues before the Land Commission. I'm sorry I wasn't here to be able to participate. I was in Vancouver helping to launch a major communication strategy on Buy B.C., which we know will help the farmers of British Columbia.

We anticipate doing as much as we can, within the financial means of the taxpayers of British Columbia, to support farming. A lot of what we have to do is clearly not just financial. It has to do with making sure that they can continue to carry on activities unencumbered by unnecessary intrusions from outside. One of the purposes of the agricultural land reserve is to preserve that land base. I'd just like to close because I think we've had a good airing, and we're going to get into it section by section.

I have to say, with respect to some of the comments that have been made about what happens to land values in the land reserve, that some of the indications we have are that land prices within the ALR follow urban land prices. They go up when urban land prices are up, and down otherwise.

I just have to remind members, too, that affordable, good agricultural land will provide a comparative advantage to our farmers over other farmers who are involved with ever-escalating land prices. I am assured by the Land Commission that sufficient land exists outside and can be negotiated for development. It may well be that we have to manage growth and not just let it spill over onto the most easily developed land. But worldwide, we have problems in agriculture that have to be addressed by consumers and citizens of countries. It's a fundamental choice that we make in our society to preserve the very substrate of agriculture, which is the farmland.

These amendments are there to secure the land reserve, to make it more efficient and to allow us to work with those municipalities that want to work closely with planning activities. We need to recognize that over the last couple of years, the Land Commission has begun to move back to one of its original purposes, which is to assist in the management of growth and to be more proactive in working with the local municipalities. But that doesn't mean just offering land to be developed at the will of the local governments. There's going to have to be direction for growth and development into that land that's outside. I need to remind people that some 45,000 hectares outside the agricultural land reserve in the lower mainland are available for development. It isn't always where particular municipalities want it, but it is there.

I think the growth of British Columbia will continue apace, with the land reserve in place and stronger than it has ever been. I look forward to getting into the next phase, which is to go that extra mile to support farmers who have chosen to stay on the land in the agricultural land reserve. With that, I move second reading of Bill 30.

YEAS -- 49
Marzari	Priddy	Edwards
Zirnhelt	Garden	Perry
Hagen	Dosanjh	Hammell
B. Jones	Lortie	Smallwood
Cull	Harcourt	Gabelmann
Clark	MacPhail	Ramsey
Barlee	Pullinger	Janssen
Evans	Randall	Beattie
Farnworth	Conroy	Lord
Streifel	Sawicki	Jackson
Stephens	Gingell	Hurd
Farrell-Collins	Dalton	Chisholm
Tanner	Jarvis	Anderson
Warnke	K. Jones	Symons
Boone	Hartley	Lali
Schreck	Copping	Krog
Kasper
NAYS -- 8
Weisgerber	Hanson	Serwa
Wilson	Tyabji	H. De Jong
Neufeld		Fox

Bill 30, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's my pleasure to put forward Bill 12 for second reading. This legislation will repeal the existing Library Act and replace it with a new revitalized act that will provide a solid foundation for the continued vitality of B.C.'s libraries well into the twenty-first century. Libraries are among our most vital resources and are a rich source of inspiration, recreation and instruction and an important repository of the cultural heritage of our province. Libraries are central to the educational and social infrastructure that helps British Columbians compete in the global markets of today's knowledge- driven economy.

A strong library system will make a vital contribution to Skills Now, our government's forward-looking skills training program for British Columbians.

C. Tanner: I believe that the mover of this motion deserves the attention of the House, and we should all be prepared to listen or leave.

The Speaker: The point is well taken, hon. members. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has the floor and would appreciate the courtesy of an opportunity to speak without interference. Please proceed.

Hon. D. Marzari: In light of the growing need for easy access to information, we need a Library Act that looks to the future. The present act is locked into the past. It has evolved only slightly from the Public Libraries Act of 1919 and has only seen minor amendments since 1978. The new Library Act, introduced through Bill 12, will modernize outdated and obscure public library legislation, protect public access to free basic library service and help make library boards more accountable to local government -- those people who pay for them.

Developed through three stages of consultation over the last seven years, the act offers new opportunities for local governments to meet the changing needs of their communities, without undermining the established library systems that continue to meet the needs of British Columbians who rely on them.

This bill provides a choice of two library authorities: municipal library boards for municipalities and adjacent areas, and regional library district boards for larger geographic areas comprising municipalities and rural areas within one or more regional districts.

Existing public library associations and integrated public library systems will be supported under the new legislation, although no new ones will be established. Municipal library boards will be incorporated with powers appropriate to their management responsibilities. Regional districts, rather than school districts, will now represent rural electors on regional library district boards and participate in sharing the cost of library service.

In addition, every library board operating under the act will be required to provide free access to basic library services, including borrowing privileges, to the people they serve. This guarantee of public access to core library services represents a major improvement over the vague and partial provisions in the old act. Our public libraries should be open to all British Columbians -- rich and poor, young and old -- and the new Library Act makes such access everyone's right.

This legislation maintains the strong tradition of community involvement on library boards balanced with accountability to local governments. It clarifies provisions respecting councils' powers to approve and amend municipal library budgets and makes regional library district budgets subject to the approval of representatives of municipal councils and rural directors. Most of all and most important, it ensures equal and fair access to information for the people of British Columbia. I'm happy to move that Bill 12 be read now for the second time.

C. Tanner: I rise to reply to Bill 12, the Library Act, just now introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I suppose I'd better set out my position right at the beginning and tell the members of this House that I got this portfolio as a consequence of moves on that side of the House. I end up speaking on libraries, even though I could be pointed to as having a vested interest -- not personally, but my wife does run a business which helps to support my political activities. As long as everybody understands that in the first place, I feel I can continue in discussion of this bill.

This is an interesting bill because in actual fact, while the member who introduced it referred to 1919, that 1919 bill was a reconsideration of a bill that came out of this House in 1891. That's the same year this province set up a library outside here and also set up a fleet that went up to the Yukon and gave me a living, happily, for a number of years also.

There is an interesting facet to this bill which I think we should all be aware of. I would like the minister's reassurance, when we come to discussion of the bill, that what I see missing is what is presently in the bill that we are totally replacing. While I appreciate we should be talking to the principle, to illustrate this principle I need to refer to a specific part of the present Library Act, section 39, which guarantees that:

In this new act, which entirely replaces the old act, I don't see the word "free" anywhere. I'm not absolutely convinced that in the rewriting of the act, we do have a free library service. There is another point in that same section, which says: "...but the board may charge fees for other services as it thinks necessary." That means, in my view, that in the original bill they wanted it to be free, but there was some choice. I don't see that same choice in this new bill, and I would like, when we get into discussion of the various sections of the bill, to be assured that in fact it is free.

There will be members of this House that I suspect will say that libraries are one of the areas in which perhaps a more conservative -- I use the word knowingly -- government might want to charge a fee for service. I would be against that. I believe that library service is an essential part of our lives in this province. However, I do have some problems with the fact that the library service in this province comes under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would have preferred to see it either in the Ministry of Culture or in the Ministry of Education, which seem more appropriate to me. The only reason I can see for it being in the Municipal Affairs ministry is that that's where it's administered; it's not where it's appreciated, necessarily.

There is another facet of the bill which worries me somewhat -- and again, when we get to the details, I would like the minister to address it. As far as I can see, there is no definition of a librarian. I think the minister should give some attention to thinking, in the future, of bringing in a librarians act, in the same way as we have acts for other professions -- for example, lawyers or architects. I believe librarians are professionals and deserve their own act, so that they can operate and manage themselves in the same way as the other professions do.

As for the necessity of talking of librarians in the bill, I think there is a question in some librarians' minds as to why there is no definition. I think their feeling is that the variety of libraries this act covers -- from those in large munici- palities like Vancouver to smaller ones in townships and villages of 300 or 400 people -- makes it impractical to expect a librarian to be in every single department. Consequently, they have attempted here to cover that necessity by having one librarian look after a number of areas. I believe that's the way to go; however, I think librarians are concerned by that.

The other concern I have is that I think it's a dangerous precedent for the government to revamp the Library Act in such a way that someone simply appointed by the minister could be put in charge of a library and deemed to be a librarian. For this reason, Mr. Minister, I'm suggesting that a librarians act would be necessary to protect the librarians in that aspect of the bill.

Other than that, my party and I support the bill in general content. We will be making specific recommendations on detail when we get to the next reading of the bill, and I look forward to that debate with the minister.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise today to say a few words on second reading of Bill 12, the Library Act. The Library Act brings in a brand-new statute in the province of British Columbia. It basically repeals the old act and brings in a brand- new statute that has been the subject of some consultation. I commend the minister for bringing it in. I can support most elements of this act, but I do have a number of concerns. I think most of them can most appropriately be raised during committee stage.

One of my concerns that I wish to flag at this stage relates to some crucial definitions. We're living in an age of information; it has almost become trite to say that. Libraries are the repositories and disseminators of information in so many of the communities of British Columbia, small or large. Public libraries are crucial resources, and increasingly so, as we head into an age dominated by technology and the dissemination of information through technological means -- through computers, computer networks, etc.

In this statute we have no definition of a library -- which is interesting. I'm not sure if that's an oversight or if it's deliberate. But the concept of a library is being redefined in terms of a community resource, not just by young people but by library users of all ages. We have no definition in this statute of a librarian, and there are some key concerns about whether or not chief librarians of public libraries, appointed by library boards in our province, should have at least a base accreditation. After all, at the University of British Columbia we have a school of library science. It's one of the best schools of library science on the continent, to my knowledge. That school provides accreditation for a master's in library sciences and other degrees. It trains librarians not only in the traditional skills of librarianship but also in modern management skills. Why would we not have a definition of a librarian in the statute? Why would we not require basic accreditation so that all chief librarians have those basic skills, drawing upon the strength of our educational institutions in the province? That's one question I'm hoping the minister can perhaps address when she winds up second reading of this bill.

There are a number of other issues relating to access to library information. I think the official opposition critic referred to the section in part 5 of this new Library Act that refers to free basic public library service. I think we have to ask whether or not that's realistic in an age dominated by technology, when members of the general public are increasingly coming to libraries seeking information through computerized means. Are we going to be able to live up to the goal of free access? Or are we going to have to deal with user fees of a modest nature in order to access information on the information superhighway?

Increasingly, librarians do not fit the traditional image we have of a librarian. They are traffic managers on the new information superhighway. When individual members of the public come into libraries to seek information through computerized means, I think we have to anticipate whether a modest fee is going to be required for them to use that or

whether computerized information retrieval services are going to be free for all British Columbians. That's one portion of the statute that does not seem to anticipate some changes of the information age.

Bill 12, the Library Act, is an important statute. Libraries are an important resource for all British Columbians. For that reason, I think it's important to go into this bill in some detail, and we should do that during committee stage. But speaking to this bill in principle in second reading, I'd like to say that I can support it, although I do have some concerns which I look forward to raising with the minister at a later time.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to stand in my place and speak on the principles and philosophies of Bill 12. As the previous two speakers have articulated, this has been a total rewrite of the Library Act, which I think has been in place since 1918. It's obviously due, and it's certainly timely that it should be revisited and updated.

The previous speaker pointed out a couple of concerns which I have perceived from a different perspective. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggested that we should have a definition of a library in the legislation. I would be somewhat concerned about that, because I think a library will be different in every community and to define it may reduce the flexibility that allows it to react to the needs of a community. I would suggest that a definition may be a negative rather than a positive.

However, the need for a definition of a librarian is interesting. Historically, in the rural parts of the province, somebody has seen a need in a community, has volunteered to be a part of that process, has evolved into a part-time employee of a library and has ended up being a librarian. If we define it, do we limit those opportunities and, as well, limit the flexibility of a small rural library to have a part-time paid employee? That is a concern of mine, and obviously we would discuss that further in third reading.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands talked about the fact that he was concerned about the fee aspect of the legislation, and the member from West Vancouver, I think, articulated it very well. Libraries have evolved from what we have historically known as a house of books into a house which today houses opportunities for educational purposes, whether they be videos, electronics or whatever. It may very well be necessary for a respective library to look at the cost of delivering a specific service for a specific purpose; it may have to levy a fee in order to offer that service. That option should be open to them. I do not believe that we want to limit services, particularly in the smaller communities, because the library doesn't have the flexibility to charge a small fee to offset the cost of delivering those new services. The technological age is offering us a whole new line of opportunities for promoting education through library networks in the province.

One area where the bill lets us down, given that it's a total rewrite, is where it could have played a major role in promoting the incorporation of many small libraries in small communities into one; that is, if it had had a section to accommodate and encourage school districts and local libraries to put their efforts into one -- particularly in small communities like the one that I live in, where we have a duplication of services within a population of 4,000. The library in the school is used from nine till three, and the public library is used for a small number of hours. Neither can afford to offer a full service to the community. Many times a duplication of those services limits the opportunity to have a lot larger service within that community. We could have encouraged those groups to work together and develop a library that would accommodate school needs as well as community needs, instead of both working on their own and therefore splitting the resources and talent available within small communities. It's too bad that we hadn't put in a clause that would have accommodated and encouraged that kind of cooperation within smaller communities.

With those few words, I must say that we in the Reform caucus support Bill 12. We look forward to the clause-by-clause examination of the bill to discuss some of the ramifications of those clauses.

D. Jarvis: Talking on Bill 12, the proposed amendment to the Library Act, I'll say that I'm in favour of it to a certain degree. But there are a few things in it that did raise some questions which are important to keep in mind. Members of our library boards are volunteers, and their status before the community and the law is a little different from that of elected officials and paid employees of a library.

I have several concerns before me that I wanted to mention. I have a query on the need for corporate status for library boards. Is it really necessary for municipal libraries to have corporate status, given that they are presently part of incorporated municipalities? Similarly, there could be a concern raised about associated libraries as well, because they are considered part of the parent institutions. The advantages and disadvantages are inherent, and the corporate status of a volunteer library board should be further examined. We'll probably do so when we come to committee stage.

Another concern I have is the question of their right to sue and be sued. It's both a blessing and a curse in some instances. While the boards could commence actions without municipal council's approval, they could also be the object of actions by suppliers and contractors -- and even members of the public, if they see fit. I believe the advantages and disadvantages of volunteer library boards that are inherent in the right to sue and be sued should be further examined in committee stage.

Finally, as the minister is obviously aware, it's common for libraries to end their financial year at the end of December and receive the funding five or six months later. I'm not quite sure if this is going to be addressed or not. I believe they have just received the funding in my own riding. The boards of the district of North Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver receive this funding six months after their year-end, and I believe it causes them some hardship. It may be suggested that the minister address this situation and perhaps even require that interim budgets be passed to cover this four- or six-month lapse.

Other than that, I should say that I agree with the basic premises of this bill and that I shall be supporting it.

J. Tyabji: I rise in support of the Library Act. I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing this forward. From consultation I have had around the province -- and especially in my riding, where there's a very active library association -- people are saying that a piece of legislation that governs the libraries is long overdue.

There are a number of questions, however, that will come up in committee stage. Although in principle I definitely support the bill and most of its provisions, I will have some questions with regard to how the libraries will be administered and why the boards have been structured in the way they have. I think it's a bit unclear. For example, parts 2 and 3 are very well defined. Does part 4 supersede parts 2 and 3? Do existing associations, which then become

the boards, supersede the first two? If that's the case, in the event of a municipality or regional district setting up their own boards from scratch -- meaning there's no association in place -- and the local government appointing the boards to govern the library, what would happen if an association forms when the library is put in place?

The way the act is written right now, if there's an existing association, that's fine, and the association has a direct say in the governing and directing of the library. But if there isn't, one would expect that in the event of the local government taking the initiative and appointing a board, a library association would form around the library. The way the act is written right now -- at least as I've read it, and when we get to committee stage we might know further -- the board would continue to be appointed by the local government. You would have communities where an association becomes a board, which would then be governed under the Society Act and would have its own bylaws and be constituted on its own empowerment. You would have community direction of the library, whereas the way it's written now -- unless there is going to be a clause introduced or some regulations will come in -- in the places where communities didn't have a library, if an association formed after the fact, it would be almost impossible for that association to have representation on the board unless the local government appointed it, which might not necessarily happen.

I have some question with regard to the definitions. I'm sure there have been submissions to many of the opposition members about the fact that librarian is not defined. As the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi put it, there are different standards of librarian, and because there's a reference in section 51, I think it is, to "qualified librarian," there should be something stating what a qualified librarian is. That's an essential part of the act. I would like to canvass the minister, because the very first definition we come across is "aboriginal government," and there is very little reference to that in the act. Is that going to be coming by regulation, is it going to come later on, or what was the purpose of putting it in the definitions if we don't see it in the rest of the act?

There are a lot of detail questions that have to be asked later. With the principle of representation, when a board is going to be appointed by local government, how does the association, if it's formed after the fact, get itself represented on the board? I think that's a legitimate question. Will we see part 4 supersede the first two parts? It's not written up that way, but maybe the minister has some thoughts on that, and we can go to that in committee stage.

I would also like to talk a little bit about the position of an executive director or how a committee of 13 will be able to regulate library hours and fees.

With that, I congratulate the minister on bringing this bill in and hope that we have speedy passage of some amendments in committee stage.

T. Perry: I wasn't intending to speak in this debate, but in deference to the member for Okanagan East I have to admit that like Sissy Jupe in Charles Dickens' Hard Times, who could not define a horse even though she was the daughter of a farrier, I can't define a librarian any better than the member for Vancouver East can. But I do know one when I see one, just like Sissy Jupe. I think I can still tell one, and I don't think that's going to be a major barrier preventing me from voting in favour of this act.

I hadn't intended to speak for what seemed like a self- evidently good bill, but coincidentally I received a letter today from the chairman of the board of the Vancouver Public Library, Kyle Mitchell, on behalf of himself and the director of the Vancouver Public Library, Madge Aalto, urging me in the strongest possible terms to support this bill. In case you're watching out there, Kyle or Madge, I'm going to be supporting it. I'm going to be voting for it definitely, absolutely and fully as many times as I'm allowed, which is probably only once. But I look forward to doing so as soon as possible.

Hon. D. Marzari: I appreciate the support of the whole House as we carry this bill into committee stage. This is the week that we will be announcing the new library foundation for British Columbia, in which libraries throughout this whole province will stand to benefit from a fundraising opportunity that I think every community should be looking towards taking advantage of, just as the Vancouver Public Library will probably be taking full advantage of it in its first incarnation. So this is an appropriate week to bring this bill into the House for second reading and, hopefully, committee stage.

The bill does not pretend to begin to define a librarian. In fact, one can only say that perhaps librarians should begin that process to define and credit the profession. I believe that that would be a singularly useful activity. The bill does not pretend to define "library." I take the points made by the other side of the House on this issue. Particularly as we approach the year 2000, libraries in the coming decades will be much more than they are now. In fact, the electronic highway, as it is termed, will have everything to do with access to information. Libraries, being the free repository of community access to information, should be the hub of that particular electronic technology, which should benefit us all.

The bill does rationalize and bring into focus a model for the distribution of the service itself. It starts to relate, in a more accountable way, the Library Association and library boards of this province with municipal governments and regional districts -- which very often fund them -- bringing taxpayers' dollars into the provision of literacy and services to promote literacy. That is the nature of the focusing that happens in Bill 12.

How can we bring the activity called "library" into the tax framework in a way that municipal councillors and regional districts -- those who end up paying the bills -- can best afford? They work best with those people appointed from the community who wish to sit on library boards. This Library Act respects the diversity that exists in existing communities and does not denigrate them or put them down in any way. In fact, it respects and wishes to work in partnership with those associations that have formed voluntarily. The bill attempts to give the exercise focus, and it attempts to give libraries the status in the community that they richly deserve.

Nothing in this act precludes future activity or future definition. Nothing in this act precludes the possibilities for multipurpose centres or multiple functions in communities. It would encourage school and community libraries to continue their partnership. Nothing precludes community colleges or universities from thinking more about community use. The important thing about this bill is that it pulls the functions of the libraries into the late twentieth century and looks forward to the twenty-first century.

Bill 12, Library Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's my pleasure to put forward Bill 25 for second reading.

This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation, along with two additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act that were designed to meet some very particular needs in the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam and the communities of Fraser Lake, Fort St. James and Telkwa.

This bill continues our initiative to modernize the legislation administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and to enable local governments to serve their communities more efficiently and effectively. Modernization is a flexible, balanced and practical program of legislative change that involves consultation with local government representatives, particularly with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. It has three goals: to empower local governments with the authority they need to deal with today's challenges, to streamline legislation that governs their day-to-day business and to clarify provisions that have been made in years gone by that might have become obscure over the decades.

The amendments related to the Municipal Act in this bill give those local governments that want to undertake social planning explicit authority to do so and to include social policies in their community plans. They make local governments more autonomous by reducing the constant need for ministerial approval of certain bylaws, and they straighten out some minor administrative wrinkles experienced during the 1993 general local elections.

In addition to these amendments, I'd like to remind the hon. members of my intention to introduce a House amendment during committee stage, extending the filing deadline for candidates' financial disclosure statements for civic elections. This amendment is a one-time-only, commonsense response to problems experienced with a new piece of legislation in last November's elections at the local level. This is not a retreat from our strong position on disclosure of election campaign expenses.

Other amendments introduced in this bill provide the additional authority needed by the Islands Trust to improve its administrative procedures. And they address issues of concern to the city of Vancouver, through traditional amendments to the Vancouver Charter generally raised through these bills.

I'd like to stress that these proposed amendments are part of an ongoing legislation modernization program. More can and will be done on an annual basis to improve and help local governments do business at the local level.

C. Tanner: The minister and I very rarely get up together. But we've got a surfeit of bills today, so I guess the other members can enjoy our company this time when they don't often get that opportunity.

An Hon. Member: Oh, great. I'm looking forward to this. It's going to be a good afternoon.

C. Tanner: I knew that would get them going. Now at least I've got their attention.

Bill 25 is, as any member can see, an omnibus bill covering a number of subjects. Of course, we'll be discussing those at committee stage. It is really difficult to have a total point of view on this bill, because it covers so many subjects and a number of bills.

I notice that last year we passed a Municipal Act of some 555 pages and took a great deal of time to do it. In fact, some members of this House spent a lot of time in committee stage on that bill. One must wonder why we are here, just one meeting of this House later, and at it again. It says one of three things: either they were remiss the first time; or some of the suggestions we made on this side of the House have been taken to heart. Or alternatively, some of the stuff was so badly drafted last time that very shortly after, they had to come back and amend it. As a consequence, we will be addressing these items with very close attention.

A subject which I am particularly interested in is the Islands Trust amendments. While I welcome these amendments, because I know that's what the trustees and the trust bureaucracy want, they don't go nearly far enough to address the very serious problem we have in the trust, and that is a basic one of representation. That's got to be addressed quickly -- hopefully in the life of this parliament.

Definitions to the Municipal Act are, in my opinion, an admission that we're in the municipal business here, when we should be leaving it to the municipalities to be doing a lot of those things. I don't know why we have to act as Big Brother to the municipalities. There's an interesting innovation in this act, when there's a discussion of social planning -- just a very brief reference to it. I suspect that's going to bear some interesting repercussions for the minister.

Finally, I cannot let go of the fact that while the minister is going to bring in an amendment allowing members who omitted to file their returns to late file, particularly those who got in by acclamation or who were acclaimed, she is not bringing in an amendment -- at least, not to my knowledge -- allowing them to forgo the $500 fine. I believe that's an omission on the minister's part.

You can obviously detect from my remarks that there's a great deal to talk about in Bill 25. We will be addressing that in great detail during committee stage. In the meantime, we look forward to that debate.

L. Fox: Before I get into one of the real property rights issues that is contained within this bill, I want to first thank the minister for recognizing and bringing forth the legislation which allows Fort St. James, Fraser Lake and Telkwa to sign a franchise agreement that's been sitting on their desks for about three years. There has been ongoing correspondence from myself as well as from the municipalities to the ministry, requesting this legislation so that they could legally do something that in fact has been in place and been happening for some time. It was very unfortunate that they got left out of the equation back in '88 or '89, when other communities along that same pipeline were allowed to sign those agreements. These three communities, for whatever reason, fell off the table and didn't get the same permission. So I congratulate the minister for bringing that forward, and thank her for doing that.

There are other very good points contained in this legislation, and for the most part the bill is very good. The one thing that we must not overlook is the one little clause which essentially overturns the ruling of Hall v. Maple Ridge and a couple of other cases which ruled in favour of the property owner against the heavy hand of government.

There is no question that communities have to be able to plan and zone to accommodate growth and infrastructure needs. The problem is that when the municipality has the authority to put your property into a long-term plan without paying you any compensation, as a property holder you are obviously in limbo. You can't market or develop it, but you do have the privilege of paying tax on it. That's extremely unfortunate. With regard to Maple Ridge, we should be made aware that in the case of one family, whose property was tied up for an extreme length of time, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways eventually bought that piece of property, because they decided this family was a hardship case, and paid $675,000 -- but only after discovering the fact that this couple had virtually no means of servicing the land. At least, that's what we hear from the ministry.

Therein lies the problem. This section of the bill flows contrary to democratic property rights and individual freedoms. If municipalities are going to be allowed to plan your land, my land or whomever's land, then they ought to have the responsibility to negotiate with the respective ministry and purchase those lands at that point in time so people are free to go on and do something else. It's extremely unfair that this legislation allows municipalities to put private property in limbo for untold periods of time. In fact, it may never, ever be developed, because somewhere down the road the criteria and the priorities of that municipality may change.

There is no question that this bill will overturn the case of Hall and others v. Maple Ridge. These people have spent countless dollars and court time defending their rights as property holders. They legitimately should have the right to either sell off this land to the Ministry of Highways -- or whatever agency is looking to buy it -- or market it after the appropriate zoning makes it marketable.

We know that the NDP does not value property rights nearly as much as some other parties. Certainly we in the Reform Party do. But we should point out that at least they should respect the small homeowner or property owner that they claim to represent in government. This particular change in this legislation could affect the ordinary homeowner or property owner and not just a rich landlord, rich developer or somebody in the development field. It could very well be some ordinary, working individual who has invested their life savings in a piece of property because they see an opportunity where property values are going up. This particular act could wipe out that investment, that security. I firmly believe that the minister and the government have not looked at this issue deeply enough and do not understand the ramifications of this particular section of the legislation.

An even greater concern to me is that this legislation will create more hardship cases and more costs to the government. If we look at the Kenkels on 232 Street.... That was the case I referred to earlier. Perhaps because these people supported this government -- I'm not sure -- they ended up paying $675,000 for that piece of property in Maple Ridge. Why not do it upfront? Why not do it at the time that you're planning for it? Why not create an opportunity for the respective ministry and municipality to work together in the planning process? Purchase the land at that point, and therefore take the liability off the landowner. Why not allow that process to happen? This legislation would not allow that process to happen. In fact, it gives the heavy hand to local government to do the planning and zoning irrespective of who owns the land and irrespective of the impact on that particular landowner.

It seems to me that if we're going to be fair in situations like the Maple Ridge situation, then we should look at how to create legislation that is indeed fair to all sides: fair to the municipality, fair to the landowner and fair to the ministry that is requesting that particular plan.

With that in mind, I move an amendment. The amendment is that this motion for second reading of Bill 25 be amended by deleting the words after "that" and substituting therefor the following: "...that Bill 25 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing."

Deputy Speaker: I'm just going to ask the member if he would be willing to share a copy of that amendment with me. I have a question. Perhaps the member could proceed speaking to his motion, and I will have a look at this.

L. Fox: I believe that this particular section deserves wide public scrutiny. This government talks about the fact that it believes in wide consultation from all stakeholders, and I think property owners in British Columbia would want the opportunity to give input. What better mechanism is there to receive that input than an all-party select standing committee? I hope that the minister understands the ramifications and supports the intent, which, I believe, is a very important principle with respect to property rights and the right to own property in British Columbia.

I will wait and listen with interest to the minister's comments with respect to that particular amendment.

J. Tyabji: I rise to support the amendment. It's unusual, I'm sure, for the Alliance and Reform to be supporting amendments in second reading, but the reason I support it is that this bill before us is very detailed and impacts quite a number of other statutes. We've received some submissions on sections of the bill. To be honest, without consulting all the different statutes that are amended by the bill, it's very difficult to know if the amendments are going to impact the public as we are being told that they will.

We received a submission from people in Maple Ridge. The member who moved the amendment was speaking about the Maple Ridge case, and the allegations coming forward from the public about the impact of Bill 25 on decisions -- such as occurred in Maple Ridge -- are very serious. It's not possible to adequately address them in second reading. To some extent we'll be addressing them in committee stage, but I think one could argue quite successfully that by the time a bill gets to committee stage it's almost a fait accompli. Unless you can get a consequential amendment through in committee stage, you won't be able to affect the impact of the bill.

What I find interesting is that these submissions we're getting from Maple Ridge are very compelling. The reason that they're compelling is that they're talking about the direct impact this bill would have on people on an individual level. Their lives would be dramatically impacted.

Without time to look at this bill, cross-reference it to other statutes and study the court cases as they've occurred in Maple Ridge, it becomes extremely difficult to give due consideration to the submissions coming to us from the public. Even if, after addressing the bill, we find out that

those concerns are ill-founded, then we can communicate that to the members of the public and allay their fears. However, if they are well-founded, then we would have the opportunity in a select standing committee to address those portions of the bill that would impact people this severely -- if it would be doing that -- and amend it so that it won't have that kind of impact.

The reason I speak in favour of this amendment is that we have enough legislation in front of us right now to look at, anyway. It's not as if we'd be running out of things to do if we put this before a select standing committee. If we put this to a select standing committee and gave proper consideration to the impact of it.... It does become extremely cumbersome, this being the third year that we've had consequential amendments to the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act that we can get from the library to reference the amendments in front of us right now doesn't yet contain last year's amendments. Although it might be on computer, it hasn't been printed out for our purposes. We know that last year's amendments alone took up over 100 pages.

I rise in support of the amendment. A lot of research needs to be done on this bill before we can give it proper consideration. We're being asked to support Bill 25 in principle in second reading, and I don't think we can do that unless we know what the impact of this bill will be on people when it is implemented after passage. Given the allegations that have come before us so far, I think it's very important that we move very slowly and cautiously, and that we bring something else before the House for consideration and hoist this bill.

L. Hanson: I'm not sure that the greatest motivation behind the motion before us is the workload we have in bills. But certainly the principle of private property rights and the confiscation of private property without compensation, if we interpret the bill correctly, are very serious concerns for every British Columbian. The court case in Mission -- I believe it was -- seemed to say that by reserving it for highway purposes, the property rights and the value of that property had been taken away from the owners as a result of that decision. If our interpretation of this bill is correct, it would seem to override that decision and provide circum- stances whereby the zoning for various public purposes could, in effect, cause private land to be confiscated, affecting the value and the owner's ability to enjoy that property as we would normally expect. If the minister recognizes that the confiscation of private property through zoning and other public uses is a very serious concern to all British Columbians, I'm sure that she would consider that very seriously and would at least give us an opportunity to look at this bill further before it is finalized.

C. Tanner: I too am very concerned about that particular section of the bill. I've had correspondence with Mr. Hall and other people in that area who have had a problem. In fact, this amendment in the bill is motivated by not one but two court cases: one against Delta and one against this municipality. Like the other members, I agree that it effects a hardship on individuals.

We must give municipalities the right to plan ahead. It's a classic problem in this province. Because we don't have regional planning -- which was taken away by the previous government in '87, I think it was -- and because we so obviously suffer all over this province from a lack of planning, we must give municipalities and regions the ability to plan ahead. I don't think anybody would argue that point. But when we do that, we must recognize the basic Canadian truism that property rights are sacred. There is no way that we should take away the ability of people to be compensated when planning puts them in hardship.

I don't agree with the amendment, though, and I don't think this is the place to be discussing an amendment. I don't want to see this bill go down, because it's going to get shuffled off into a committee. If the minister would be prepared to give us some understanding that when we come to that clause in committee stage we can have adequate discussion on it, and if we want to make an amendment it will be discussed, I would be far happier using that procedure than trying to give this bill the hoist right now. There are other things that one member has already admitted are of particular interest to his constituency, and I don't think this is the way to behave. We will not support the amendment.

Hon. D. Marzari: I have a few brief words on the amendment. If one were going to engage in a full-scale debate of property rights in British Columbia or in the country, I would not choose this particular amendment to this particular bill to stage that argument around. The amendment in this section in the bill is introduced to clarify a court decision, not to quash it. It was inserted to clarify the role of a municipality versus other planning agencies. There is a thin line that one must tread. In a planning position in any ministry or government, one has to be careful about individual or corporate property rights. But if we read the amendment carefully -- and I can guarantee that we will be reading it carefully at committee stage -- it will inform this House that the amendment is attempting to help a municipality clarify its own position vis-a-vis a court decision about the lands involved in Maple Ridge.

Therefore the government and I are very negative towards the amendment as it has been put forward in second reading, when a more detailed discussion should be engaged in during committee stage.

I would like to make an introduction on behalf of my hon. colleague the Minister of Education. Visiting us in the precincts today are 27 students from Summit Elementary School in Kamloops and their teacher, Mr. Corey Yamaoka. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Serwa: I note that in the gallery is a good supporter of mine in the great constituency of Okanagan West. He's a hard worker, an entrepreneur and a great builder. Would the House please make Mr. John Zuk welcome.

J. Tyabji: In reviewing this bill, as I said when speaking in favour of the amendment to send it to a select standing committee, there are a lot of details that I think can only be examined when looking in conjunction with other statutes and the constitutions of the various groups that will be changed in terms of votes cast and a quorum. There are consistent amendments to these throughout the bill. I have some concerns when I see some of the changes that are being made with respect to votes cast. Rather than there being the reference that's usually made to quorum, we're having a change to two-thirds of the votes cast. That will certainly change the nature of an association's annual general meeting, for example, where there's an attempt to introduce a bylaw which may actually pass by two-thirds of the votes cast but may not be reflective of the membership or the people who would be eligible to vote on the change. That might seem to be a fairly superficial change, but it could have dramatic ramifications, depending on how a meeting is called, how the groups are constituted and how far the number of votes cast is from the quorum that would normally be required when you're introducing a change in bylaw. So that's of great concern.

We see that throughout the bill there is a change with respect to non-resident property electors. That can, obvious- ly, be canvassed in committee stage as to why the minister felt that all these statutes had to be changed in this way.

When we spoke on the amendment to hoist the bill or send it to a select standing committee.... One thing that I think we need to canvass is to what extent expropriation without compensation is going to be allowed in this bill. I think the main reason we needed some time for it to go to a select standing committee is so we could actually find out who's right. There is a basic difference of opinion between the minister and the government, and the members of the public who have reviewed this bill by cross-referencing it with their experiences with the courts. There certainly is a great fear that there will be expropriation without compensation as a result of this bill. The minister has said that that's not true, and I guess it remains to be seen -- either in committee stage or once it's implemented.

I note that one of the statutes that's amended is the Municipal Finance Authority Act. I'm very interested in how section 8.1, which is being introduced in this bill in section 117, is going to be enacted through the Municipal Finance Authority Act and in the way that it will secure the loans, for example. There is some strange wording that we can canvass in committee stage, but it says quite specifically in section 8.1(3) that the Municipal Finance Authority "may lend securities and interest coupons...if the loan is fully secured" to a level "satisfactory to the trustees." Well, "satisfactory" is not defined in the act. If that turns out to be an arbitrary designation by the trustees, that's a fairly responsible position for them to be in -- certainly not one the Alliance would feel comfortable with, on a point of principle. That should be defined. There's no point in leaving it to someone's own determination of what's satisfactory. Clearly, if loans are going to be made, there should be some security to an equal value or to the extent necessary, so that, in the event that the loans are defaulted on, it doesn't then impact on the public through the Municipal Finance Authority.

We see that through this bill we've moved from property elector to non-resident property elector in all the various statutes. I hope the minister is going to be defining the need for that and hopefully citing some precedents that led her and her ministry to rewrite all these statutes that way. Especially -- in my own opinion with regard to the School Act, anyway -- when we see all the various jurisdictions being redefined, that will have some serious ramifications locally if we don't understand why we should do that.

I notice that there's an amendment in this bill. I don't have it in front of me, but it appears that the bill is amending the voters list to allow people who do not have a home to vote -- at least the way I've read one section of the bill. On a point of principle, I think it's commendable if we're going to allow homeless people to have the right to vote or to register. I just don't know how one is going to determine who they are, because there's nothing else in the bill that talks about how we determine whether that person lives in that area. If I could find it -- this is a fairly substantial bill.... The way I remember it being referred to is that in the event of a residential address not being available, the location of the area in which that person resides is deemed satisfactory to provide the person a place on the voters list.

If that is indeed geared toward the homeless -- which it seems to be, unless I've misread this section -- could the minister tell us first of all how there's going to be some validation that those people actually exist? Although I'm sure it would never happen, you can see it would actually be possible to invent people, call them homeless people and pad the list with them. Could the minister tell us how we're going to be reassured on that point and how that will be implemented? And if there are people who actually can be determined to be voters but are homeless, to what extent will the other ministries be monitoring that, whether through Social Services or the Ministry of Health?

With that, I would like to end the debate on principle with a lot of concerns for committee stage. If this bill does indeed stand for expropriation without compensation, then of course we can't possibly support it in principle. Unfortunately, we don't know at this stage, because we haven't had a chance to adequately determine it.

And if it is going to allow people to appear on the voters list when there's no verification that they even exist, then we can't support that in principle. I will be very interested to cross-reference the bill in committee stage, to make sure we're not allowing such an open-ended construction of the voters list that there will be some room for manipulation. We

know that in Surrey, for example, there continues to be a large question as to whether that was a valid election. I wish that now, having the opportunity to bring it up, the minister would call for a review of that. When the mayor of a municipality and enough of the residents are calling for a review, saying that the vote is not valid because the voters lists were tampered with, then this bill leads me to believe that it opens the door to that even wider. Yet we haven't even had a review of what exists in Surrey.

With that, I end on a matter of principle on this bill. After committee stage, obviously there will be a determination about whether it can be supported.

Hon. D. Marzari: Bill 25 is the culmination of a year's worth of consultation with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and related agencies. It pulls together and rectifies a number of issues that were of concern to many of us during the elections at the civic level last year, most notably in the area of non-resident electors. It answers a lot of the questions that people ask. It validates a number of issues around contracts that have been signed but have not been recognized legally; communities have been waiting for validation for a number of years. It is a housekeeping bill that pulls together a number of issues that relate to municipalities and how they do business in this province. It is certainly the business of Municipal Affairs to ensure that municipalities can function efficiently and effectively in their day-to-day workings.

There is no clause in this bill which threatens to expropriate without compensation. There is no clause in this bill which threatens to reduce or remove voters' privileges and rights. There is no clause in this bill which threatens the integrity and stability of the Municipal Finance Authority or its ability to do business on a day-to-day basis with money that comes to it through its municipal members. There is no threat in this bill to any structures involving or revolving around local government.

I know it's always tempting at second reading of a bill to bring in issues that would be better canvassed during committee stage. It's regrettable that some questions have been asked today in a way that actually casts a charge at municipal councils and how they do business. I am looking forward to committee stage of this bill so that those questions can be answered in full and detailed form, so that security and stability will continue to reign around those aspects of modernization that this bill represents for municipal councils across this province. With that, I move second reading.

Bill 25, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

F. Gingell: Perhaps we could have a discussion about sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I'd like to ask the minister whether the purpose of the first four sections is to put in place a method by which you can bring in section 5. Did you get rid of the definition of "amount taxable" and "taxable paid up capital" in order to use only the term "adjusted paid up capital" for the purposes of calculating the amount of tax?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I just want to clarify, because the member has mentioned sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.... I do have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 5, so I don't want to allow us to move beyond section 4 without me making that introduction. If the member wants to discuss all five sections together -- and I agree that they are interrelated -- the answer to his question is yes, the changes made in sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are to make possible the new definitions contained in section 5.

I will then move the amendment right now, and we can discuss all five sections together. But I seek your clarification, hon. Chair, as to how you want to deal with these sections.

The Chair: I think I'm going to take guidance from the member for Delta South, as critic.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could quickly brief us on what the amendment means.

Hon. E. Cull: There are two amendments made to section 5. The first one is to 5(d), which modifies the definition of a cooperative corporation. Previously, 90 percent of a cooperative's shares had to be owned by individuals or other cooperatives in order for the cooperative to be exempt. With this amendment, 90 percent of a cooperative's shares must be owned by individuals, other cooperatives or a family farm corporation. So it adds family farm corporations.

The second amendment, to 5(g), clarifies the ownership test that a family farm corporation must pass if it's to be exempt. Eighty percent of the voting shares must be owned by a related group of individuals engaged in farming in order for the corporation to be exempt. This is being done simply to avoid the use of artificial share structures to get around the exemption.

F. Gingell: I'm glad the minister gave us this explanation, because I was wondering what "in the current or future fiscal year" meant -- which happens to be an amendment to section 5 of the Financial Administration Amendment Act. You might have them keep them separate next time.

F. Gingell: I was most intrigued by the explanatory note for subsection (a), which says: "...is consequential to the amendments affected by sections 1 to 4 of this Bill and defines the term 'adjusted paid up capital'." I'm surprised that you didn't put in there that the purpose of this is to deprive non- residents of the provisions for the notch provision and the investment allowances applicable to residents of British Columbia. If I'm wrong, and that's not what is being accomplished here, I'd like you to advise me.

Hon. E. Cull: The member is incorrect. These amendments do not change in any way the calculation of the current tax base. It deals with a matter of clarity, which has been brought to our attention by legal advisers, and makes it very clear that it is a direct tax, as has always been intended with this tax. That was not clear in the original wording of the legislation, so this change has been made to do that. It does reflect our current administrative practice and, as I said at the outset, does not expand the application of this tax. Indeed, as the member knows, the intent of this legislation overall is to exempt more businesses from the application of the corporation capital tax. It doesn't add any more through the changes and provisions.

I will confess at the outset -- because I have spent the last hour poring over this legislation again in preparation for this committee debate -- that there are quite a number of administrative, legal and wording changes which are complex and perhaps a little mystifying to those of us who are more laypeople as opposed to tax experts. You will see that there are a number of changes. I have assured myself that the only change to the application of the tax is the one that was set out in the intent of the legislation, with respect to exempting more corporations by raising the threshold and by adding family farms and cooperatives, and the change that was made to financial institutions.

F. Gingell: I must admit that I was looking at this in the last hour also. It is very difficult to do, because the statutes here do not reflect the 1993 amendments. There were quite a lot of amendments last year that aren't in there yet. What you're saying is that the notch provision and the investment allowance were not allowable deductions or reliefs for non-resident corporations before this date, and that has not been changed.

F. Gingell: You added in subsection (c).... Mr. Chairman, even though this goes on for many pages, I presume we will go through them in sequence. Section 5(c)(d) says: "...any arrangement or endeavour conducted with a view to earning revenue or profit from an activity or an investment." Clearly there must have been some reason for adding this description before the word "business." Can you tell us why that was added?

Hon. E. Cull: This is another one that is being done to clarify our current administrative practice. As an example, someone who has established a holding company could be doing business in British Columbia and trying to determine from our tax policy branch whether they are a permanent establishment under the definition of the act. This language is intended to clarify that situation.

L. Fox: Section 5(c) changes the definition of "business" from the previous legislation. Can the minister tell me if this change is to make the circle wider or to exempt some types of businesses?

Hon. E. Cull: It has no impact. It doesn't make it wider or narrower. It simply clarifies our existing administrative position with respect to what constitutes a permanent establishment under the act. This clarifies the legislative language, because we have had uncertainty and questions about it in the past. As I said a minute ago, it does not extend the application of the tax.

F. Gingell: Moving on to section 5(d), I appreciate that this isn't the place for debate, but it's sometimes difficult to deal with these amendment bills. What happens with these cooperative corporations is that you're taking one particular type of business and exempting it from tax. Their competitor is doing exactly the same kind of thing and providing exactly the same kinds of services, and will be subject to tax -- at least I presume they will be subject to tax. An example would be Dairyland, or whatever Dairyland is now called. I would presume that that milk and dairy products cooperative will be excluded by this description, but that a privately run dairy that purchases its milk from independent farmers and markets it under its own label will not be exempt from tax.

When you get to the business of "purchasing supplies, equipment or household necessities for, or to be sold to, its members or customers," the minute you put in "customers".... Just like the Surrey cooperative lumber yard that was in Ladner for many years before they got into financial problems, it would have been exempt. There are cooperatives within the province.... My son, who now operates a similar business in that same location, will not be exempt. It seems to me that if you are as intent upon being as fair as you say you want to be, you have to be awfully careful that you don't exclude some people who do business in a certain fashion and catch others who do the same business in a different fashion and who do compete. When you come to the issue of the family farm, you've exempted them all, whether they operate as cooperatives, as partnerships of corporations or in whatever manner. You've exempted the whole range of different organizations that do that business. It seems to me that in this section you are exempting one group and putting them at an advantage over another group in the same business.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I'm going to seek your guidance on this again. Section 5(d) deals with the definition of "cooperative corporation" and the matters that the member is referring to are, in fact, dealt with in section 9. I don't have any objection to getting into the debate about the exemption of cooperatives under the definition here, provided that we have some agreement from the House that we're not going to revisit it again in section 9. On that understanding -- I see members opposite agreeing -- I will just continue as if we were dealing with section 9, which does provide the exemption.

We made a policy decision as part of our overall commitment to reduce the impact of the corporation capital tax as the finances of the province improved. We have said that from the outset. The tax was introduced in 1992 to deal with the deficit and to ensure that we managed to bring the deficit down as quickly as possible. As the deficit has been reduced in each successive year, we have also reduced the impact of the corporation capital tax by raising the threshold.

This year -- besides the strict financial criteria that have eliminated another 1,000 businesses from the corporation capital tax and reduced the tax for another 1,000 on top of that -- we have added family farms and cooperatives. I agree that there are circumstances where similar businesses providing similar services will have a different tax treatment as a result of their method of organization. I don't think that's unusual, although it certainly is a new twist with respect to this particular act. But we have made a decision to support cooperative operations that support family farms through the amendments we're bringing in this year. As we move forward and review the tax in each successive year, we will look at other classes of business for which the tax will be reduced or eliminated.

F. Gingell: I was hoping that the reason you brought in the exemption for family farms was because of the recognition of particular circumstances of farmers. One doesn't like to pick out one particular trade or profession and its importance to the province -- and the difficulty, again, of the unfairness of incorporated farms, unincorporated farms, and farms that were bought in the fifties or in the 1980s, which have completely different inflated or deflated dollar values attached to their accounting records.

Are you saying that you have a series of business types that you will go through year by year and start knocking them off at the top? I appreciate that you're not going to discuss future policy, but I'd like to suggest that in this case, future policy would only be naming the particular businesses you were going to knock off rather than confirming that, yes, the intent is to think about the kinds of industries rather than do two things: first of all, just get rid of the damn tax -- it has caused you more trouble, more heartache and more bad media than you deserve, because it was his tax...

...or secondly, just keep pushing up the exemption levels until there is no more tax. I was under the impression that it was pressure from farmers and cooperative organizations, which your party is very close to, that may have encouraged you to make this kind of change.

Hon. E. Cull: If the member is asking me to present him with a list of planned future exemptions, I'm sure he'll understand when I say that he's going to have to wait for future budgets and budget legislation to see that list.

But he's quite right. The situation with family farms has been brought to the attention of the government not only directly by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and various other farming organizations but also by the Minister of Agriculture, who has lobbied very clearly on behalf of family farms and the farming industry in general, and has tried to ensure that their tax treatment is as equitable as possible. We will continue to review the impact of this legislation in each budget year and will, as we did this year, receive a number of proposals from different types of businesses and business organizations concerning why their tax treatment should be different from others. We will evaluate each of those in turn.

F. Gingell: If there's no further discussion on (d), I will move on to (e), if I may. As I said, it's difficult with these bills. Trade accounts payable were, of course, allowable before as long as they were trade accounts payable. Maybe we could just deal with that. I came to the conclusion that (e)(d) was something new.

Hon. E. Cull: No, (e)(d), which is "its trade accounts payable," is not new. What is new is that we've clarified the definition of "current accounts payable" and added the definition of "deferred credit," to remove the ambiguity in the calculation of a corporation's tax base. Again, these amendments confirm the original policy intent and strengthen the existing administrative position of the branch but don't expand the calculations of the current tax base.

F. Gingell: I'll move on to (e)(e). I'm quite impressed. I have to presume that members of the Reform caucus and the Social Credit caucus were successful in dealing with this item. It is new, I presume. It says that when you have a current account payable -- something that's clearly going to be paid -- at the moment the particular inventory item has been sold, even though it may happen to be secured by some form of chattel mortgage or lien or title, it is going to be treated as what it really is, which is an account payable that happens to be secured. I take it that (e)(e) is in fact where you've made changes to provide for this to be exempt, and I'd like that confirmed.

Hon. E. Cull: This is how we have administered the act and have always administered it. Now we're just codifying our administrative practice in the legislation.

J. Weisgerber: Am I to understand from this that the liabilities of an automobile or machinery dealership with respect to inventory -- that may or may not be registered in the name of the dealer -- are not considered as part of the capital owned by that corporation? That is not a taxable inventory or value for the corporation.

J. Weisgerber: I'm pleased with that interpretation, but I'm surprised by the response that that's the way it's always been treated. Certainly many of the representations made to me by corporations involved in that business suggested that they were in fact being taxed on an inventory they didn't necessarily own. They felt very much put upon by those early interpretations in the legislation.

Hon. E. Cull: I have with me staff who are involved in administering this tax on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, and they are not aware of any such circumstances. If the member can bring specific details to my attention, I'd be happy to look into them for him and satisfy whether in fact the act as we have administered it, and now will be amending it, has been properly applied.

J. Weisgerber: I expect that it will probably go one better than that. I don't think those people, having read these copies or read or listened to these debates, who believe they've paid taxes inappropriately will need me to come to your door. I'm sure in fact they will be there, indicating.... I've been under the very clear impression that dealer inventory has been one of the real sore points with automobile and machinery dealers, who believe they were being taxed on an inventory they didn't own and on something that didn't represent a real asset in their business. I'm quite surprised -- but quite pleasantly surprised -- to learn that if not in the past, at least in future, this will be dealt with in an appropriate way.

F. Gingell: Just to ensure that there are no misunder- standings and that I understand the circumstances here, the questions of the member for Peace River South have focused on inventory. I'd like to suggest that they should focus on the debt. It is the accounts payable. If the inventory is on the books, then obviously it's part of the accounting record. It is the disallowance of the secured debt against that inventory, which this will clarify as being allowed as a deduction. Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes. This treats it as an accounts payable, which is exempt from tax. I can see the interest not only of the people who will be reading this and may want to pursue it a bit further, but of the members. Again, I'd be happy to have my tax policy people clarify this and give you the opportunity to probe with examples or questions, if you wish to do so.

F. Gingell: I know I can't go back and refight the famous case of 1970 or whatever. But having dealt with the automobile dealers, has the ministry given any thought to deal with other types of retailers, people who merchandise things, whose saleable inventory is paid on a regular, periodic basis -- every 30 days, in the normal course of business -- and happen to be secured by some form of floating-charge debenture? The creditworthiness of the organization simply doesn't sustain those terms of credit.

Hon. E. Cull: We're not specifically looking at the suggestion the member has outlined, but as I said, we are constantly reviewing this tax and trying to ensure that it works as fairly and efficiently as possible. We'll continue to do that on an ongoing basis each year.

F. Gingell: If there is nothing more on paragraph (e), I'd like to move on to paragraph (f).

Deferred credit is not a particularly comfortable term in my lexicon, but I see that you have defined it here. The first form of deferred credits I think of, which are better termed deferred revenues, is revenues received in advance for services that will be performed in the future -- or more commonly in many industries these days, funds received for the delivery of products in the future, as in the oil and gas industry, a means by which financing of the construction of pipelines and connections has been carried out. To ensure that the amount is repaid, the lender has purchased, in effect, a volume of material to be delivered in future years, and it has loaned the funds for the purpose of getting those products to market.

Does this definition of deferred credit, or any other section of the act, not allow for the deduction of those unearned revenue styles of deferred credits?

Hon. E. Cull: Perhaps the member would clarify that question. We're a little mystified as to what exactly he is getting at.

F. Gingell: The term "deferred credit," which you have now defined for the purposes of the corporation capital tax, is defined herein as: "...government assistance, government grants, investment tax credits or tax incentives that are reported or accounted for in the financial statements of the corporation, partnership or joint venture." Accountants use the term "deferred credit" to cover a large number of items.

The other major one, besides these things you have defined here, are what your staff and I would call unearned revenues, or revenues received in advance. I wonder if you could advise me whether those types of liabilities are allowed as deductions, and whether this changes that.

Hon. E. Cull: I am advised that that type of unearned revenue has always been included in the tax base.

F. Gingell: Moving on to subsection (g), this is the section that defines the family farm corporation. I appreciate it also applies to section 9. But in sub-subsection (c), you include what we'll call British Columbia-controlled family farms and exclude farms located in British Columbia that are not owned by residents of British Columbia. In this list of things that you're gradually going to knock off the list to be taxed under this act, did you have British Columbia-owned farms first and non-resident-owned farms on a lower scale? It surprises me that this might be read as being against other Canadians, such as residents of Ontario and Alberta. Maybe you'd just like to cover that item for us.

Hon. E. Cull: The family farms, particularly those that are owned primarily by British Columbians, tend to be the smaller farms. The foreign-owned farms tend to be the larger operations. Part of what we're attempting to do here is to provide some relief to the small family farm. This is consistent with the treatment in other provinces.

F. Gingell: I'm sure that in the Peace River -- I am not sure, but at least I'm sure the member for up there can tell us -- the farms don't necessarily know any provincial boundaries, particularly since in that part of the world the provincial boundaries are a nice straight line. A British Columbia farmer who happens to reside on the 40 acres, say, that are on the Alberta side of the border would happily be exempt from provincial sales tax on many consumer goods, but your intention is to catch them in the corporate capital tax.

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere on this, and we have done so in favour of British Columbia and British Columbians.

J. Weisgerber: If I could, with the indulgence of the minister, under subsection (e), which deals with current accounts payable, sub-subsection (e)(ii) is getting back to this question of inventory or dealers' inventory. Since our discussions, I've been advised by someone who is reasonably knowledgeable in the area that the practice has been to accept as accounts payable notes on goods, vehicles and equipment that have been in inventory up to 90 days. But once an automobile or piece of farm machinery has been in inventory more than 90 days, it's then treated as an asset of the corporation. I'm assuming, then, since there is no indication of that restriction in this newly amended legislation, that that represents a change, or at least that that restriction with regard to the amount of time the goods have been in inventory wouldn't exist with this legislation.

Hon. E. Cull: My understanding is that it won't matter whether it's under or over 90 days; we won't be including it.

J. Weisgerber: I'm sure that will be welcome news. If there's a change to this legislation or to the interpretation of the rules, it must reflect a change from the policy that has

existed for the benefit of those people who are involved in this kind of business.

F. Gingell: Thank you. Could the minister please tell me what "raising or producing prescribed biological control agents" means?

Hon. E. Cull: This is one that I'm better informed on. It's things like raising ladybugs or other insects that would be used as biological pest control. I recommend it for your garden.

F. Gingell: I presume that would include bees, too, if they were there for the purpose of pollination.

You have the ability to add "other animals designated by regulation" to the definition of livestock, which seems to make sense. If someone invents a new animal or decides to farm it, you add it. But you didn't give yourself the same provision under (b), the growing of crops, cereals, fruits, vegetables, etc.

Hon. E. Cull: I think the member will appreciate with respect to these definitions that we have taken guidance from the Ministry of Agriculture, and I'm advised that the definition in (b) is broad enough to cover just about anything.

F. Gingell: If there's no more on (g), we'll go on to (h) and (i), which we can bracket. This is a section that was dealt with in Bill 40 last year, and you're making amendments to it now. In trying to go back, it looks as though the original sections dealt with funds, with savings institutions, and that doesn't make sense to me. Could you please advise us what your briefing notes say this does?

Hon. E. Cull: This, again, is another one of the changes that's being made to clarify the definitions that are in the act. This one clarifies the definitions of "loans and advances to other corporations." The revised wording now ensures that the qualifying loans and advances made between certain associated corporations may be included in the investment allowance deduction. That deduction is available to corporations, and it's provided to make sure that the same capital isn't taxed twice -- in other words, it's not taxed in the hands of both the lender and the borrower, since it forms part of the capital base of each company. This is just a way of ensuring and clarifying that definition again. We've been advised that the wording is ambiguous and confusing to both the regulators and those who are regulated by it.

F. Gingell: When I go back to Bill 40 of 1993, which dealt with the amendments to section 1 of the Corporation Capital Tax Act that went through last year -- I'm not in the consolidated statutes -- subsection 1(1)(e) dealt with:

Hon. E. Cull: If the member will assist us, we'll stand that definition down, and I'll just have one of my staff check on exactly what has happened there. It's not clear to us what the correct answer to your question is.

F. Gingell: I have a similar question with respect to section 6. I understand what subsection (4) is, but could you tell me what subsection (3) is?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the consolidated act with me, because the person who has gone to obtain the information on the last question has taken the copy with him. The amendment is only to subsection (4), so I'm not sure what the relevance of inquiring about subsection (3) is. You have the act open in front of you. It's confusing when you don't have a consolidated, up-to- date act. We only have a working copy, not an official version of it.

F. Gingell: I would like to have some words to that, then. When I go back to the original act, there was a subsection (1) and a subsection (2). I can't find the creation of a subsection (3) in last year's Bill 40, so I am mystified as to why we have a subsection (4).

Hon. E. Cull: I am certain that a subsection (3) was added in the amendments last year, and we can clarify that with the consolidated bill. The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the Income Tax Act concept of associated corporations is used, its current administrative practice, and how other provincial governments treat their corporation capital tax.

F. Gingell: The minister may wish to wait until the official returns, but I am interested to know why, under subsection (c), you're bringing in subsection (6.1): "Where a corporation is, under this section, required to pay a tax, this section imposes that tax on that corporation...." Is it true that some corporation found some way of not paying the tax?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not aware of any instances like that. Sometimes legislative drafting becomes a bit obscure in terms of its reason for having those section in there, but I assume that we have been advised that that clarifies the intent of the act, and it's one of the ambiguities we have been advised to clarify in our legislation this year. I am not aware of any particular circumstances arising that may have caused that.

F. Gingell: If something did happen that caused this change to be made -- i.e., some major flaw in the previous legislation -- would the minister give me an assurance that she will so advise me? Then we can carry on.

C. Serwa: With respect to section 9 -- amendments to exclude a family farm corporation and a cooperative corporation -- I have a little difficulty with the cooperative corporation, because many cooperatives engage in business ventures that are paralleled by private corporations. I can point to one example in the forest industry. The Saskatchewan co-op at Canoe by Salmon Arm is a large, well-capitalized industry working under cooperative title, with a substantial investment in plant and equipment. Is it going to be given some special incentive that other mills will not get simply because it is a cooperative? If so, what is the basis for that sort of judgment call?

Hon. E. Cull: We did get into this when we were going through the definition. Because these sections are related, I'll refer the member back to the definition. A large cooperative organization that was not based in the province would not be exempt from the corporation capital tax, because of the definition. The definition is fairly clear. If you go back to page 2 of the bill, you'll see that it is eliminating from the exemption the kind of cooperative you've just described.

C. Serwa: That's based on the assumption that the cooperative is owned by a cooperative in Saskatchewan. I don't know whether that is the actual name. My concern is that it is a cooperative. It's here in British Columbia, and perhaps the ownership is spread throughout residents in British Columbia. There are a number of co-ops in the distribution industry. For example, in our community there is the Growers co-op, which was originally set up by growers. They're competing in the same format with other commercial businesses and providing a wide array of materials for the horticultural and agricultural industries. Are they going to be given this special concession in opposition to the industries that they must compete with?

Hon. E. Cull: As I said when we were discussing the definition of cooperative corporation, the government has decided to provide an exemption to certain types of cooperatives. We appreciate that that means there may be some similar businesses that will not get this break because of their organizational structure. If they do meet the ownership, residency and share provisions of the definition, then those businesses will be exempt.

I know the member was in the House, but I saw him reading intently during that part of the debate, so he may have missed some of the discussion. The intent of our government is to continue to review the application of this tax each year and to listen to those businesses and categories of businesses that come forward asking for different treatment. Besides just dealing with the financial threshold limitation, this year we have dealt with farms and co-ops. That's not to say that in future years we might not deal with other types of businesses.

C. Serwa: I certainly understand the logic and the rationale for farming co-ops. Sun-Rype is an obvious example, and a variety of packing houses in the Okanagan are examples. But generally they are not competing with the private sector; they are grower- owned. My concern is with cooperatives not related to agriculture that are competing with other commercial industries in a similar field. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the basis for the government's choice of cooperatives carte blanche. I could understand the logic if it referred to agricultural cooperatives. But with cooperatives per se competing against other corporations that have to pay taxes, it makes me wonder whether this is a very narrow political philosophy or if there is something more substantial to the decision. Is it that they use their money for social engineering or something? I don't really know if this is true or not, but it doesn't seem to make any solid practical sense.

There is a reason, because the farming industry is certainly hard-pressed in British Columbia, and we went through the exercise of explaining their challenges this morning. But what we have here appears to be more of a moral judgment than a judgment based on anything substantial, eliminating all cooperatives as long as the ownership criteria are met. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.

Hon. E. Cull: The member should be aware that probably about 200 co-ops are affected by the change in this legislation, and that at least three-quarters of them are agricultural co-ops. The vast majority that will benefit from this will be tied to agriculture.

This is a policy decision of government. We support cooperative enterprise and have decided -- as we have decided to support family farms in this change -- to provide additional support for cooperative enterprise this year through the elimination of the tax. I want to repeat what I said earlier. We will continue to look at the application of this tax. I received a number of presentations from the business community this year about ways that we could change the tax, and I expect I'll receive a similar number over the next year. I will review those then and see what we can afford and what makes sense.

F. Gingell: Seeing that we were allowed to discuss the implications of section 9 when we discussed section 5, I'd now like to stretch it a little and discuss section 5 as we discuss section 9.

There were two things. The first thing was that I heard the minister say that there was some residential ownership requirement in section 5(d), and I couldn't find that.

Hon. E. Cull: I apologize. I was mixing in the farm definition, which, of course, goes with the cooperative corporation. The definition doesn't apply to residency.

F. Gingell: One second thought came to me during this discussion. Section 5(d)(a)(iii) says: "...performing services for its members or customers...." Would that service include the provision of a job -- i.e., will this cooperative exemption

exempt work cooperatives? For instance, I'm thinking of Richmond Plywood as an example of a business that is not intended to be exempt, and the cooperative exercise has to do with the ownership of the equipment and the employment therein.

F. Gingell: I was also interested in the matter that was brought up by the member for Okanagan West. The discussion evolved from the belief that this sawmill is owned in another province because it has another province's name on its title. But it's hard to imagine how a sawmill operation would fit within this category, unless it was a cooperative of individuals who are in the logging business or the retail lumber business. I would like to know whether it is intended that those might be caught in this, because the term "cooperative" has a lot of meanings.

Hon. E. Cull: No, I don't believe the definition would capture that type of business.

L. Fox: I was down getting ready to watch the hockey game, but this discussion actually got interesting. I want to get some clarification. The minister stated earlier....

L. Fox: Right on! I'm not ashamed to admit that I want to watch the hockey game this evening. I'm sure most British Columbians are in fact already glued to that channel rather than this one.

With respect to the definition of "cooperative," I heard the minister talk earlier about the cooperatives who service their members being legitimate in terms of having an exemption under this. I guess that begs the question: if you have a cooperative that serves members but is also in the retail business, for instance, and serves non-members in that retail business, and therefore competes with other retail outlets within that community, does that in fact make that cooperative subject to the capital tax?

Hon. E. Cull: The member should have turned the channel from the hockey game to the legislative channel sooner, because I have already answered that question twice in this debate. The definition of "cooperative corporation" says "performing services for its members or customers," so you don't have to be a member to qualify. You don't have to service only your members; you can be in a cooperative that is in a retail situation.

F. Gingell: I was going to make a suggestion. If the minister, in view of her earlier statements about dealing with this tax, wishes to make an amendment to increase these exemptions -- which at this moment would not be accepted; and if I were to make it, it would be ruled out of order -- I can assure her that we will cooperate in every way possible.

F. Gingell: The purpose is, I take it, to just take out subsection (4) and pop it up into subsection (1). It gets rid of subsection (4). Is that all this accomplishes?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure about removing subsection (4) and plopping it up and all the rest that was described over there. What this section does is ensure that the return on the final balance of the tax has to be submitted within 184 days of the taxpayer's year-end. It clarifies that and makes some changes to make that effective.

F. Gingell: Subsection (c) brings in this new section: "If a corporation fails or neglects to comply with subsection (1)(b), the corporation shall pay interest on the amount it failed...." Is this being put in there to ensure that payments are applied to interest first and principal second?

F. Gingell: Section 17 surprises me. This is a little exercise to increase the revenues of the province in one year only. And that's exactly what it does: it will increase revenues by one-twelfth of the annual amount of the tax -- roughly $30 million.

F. Gingell: Well, Alan says no. If it doesn't bring the payments forward by one month, perhaps the minister will advise me what it does do.

Hon. E. Cull: No, it doesn't get extra money by doing this. What this does is clarify the time in the month that the tax has to be paid. It deals with situations where the tax would be paid in the middle of a month, and it makes sure that we don't end up doing exactly what the member said: collecting an additional amount of revenue.

F. Gingell: As I understood this, the instalments were previously payable on the fifteenth day of the fourth, seventh, tenth and thirteenth month after the beginning of the current taxation year, and this makes it the fifteenth day of the third, sixth, ninth and twelfth month of the taxation year.

Hon. E. Cull: This is particularly obscure in terms of the effect of it. But if the corporation had its year-end on, say, January 15, what used to happen was that you would go back to the beginning of the month and count four months forward: your instalments would begin in April. If your corporation has a year- end of January 15, what this does is move you ahead a month and add three months, and you still start in April. I'm sure that this improves the understandability of the tax laws to those who have to collect taxes and pay them. Again, the impact on the taxpayer is absolutely neutral.

F. Gingell: Do I understand that if somebody files one day late and pays the tax with that one-day late filing, they are subject to a 20 percent penalty of the amount of the unpaid tax at the due date?

Hon. E. Cull: There are various penalties under the act. This section clarifies that if you are late in paying a tax you are subject to both interest and penalty, which is consistent with other tax laws.

F. Gingell: Section 43(1) of the act provides for a 10 percent penalty if you file late. Section 43(2) provides for a penalty of 10 percent if you fail to pay the tax. If you forgot to fill in one of the squares or boxes in the return, under section 43(3) there is a further penalty of $50. Perhaps it's inappropriate for me to ask these questions, because I'm not really dealing so much with the amendment, but to more properly understand sections 43(1) and 43(2) as they presently stand, could the minister advise if it is administrative policy to ever charge two 10 percent penalties?

Hon. E. Cull: No, it isn't. We wouldn't stack the penalties on top of one another. Again, I do make the offer: if you would like a technical briefing on the whole act, not just the amendments that we're bringing in here, I'm quite willing to provide that to you.

C. Serwa: It is my understanding that in this section the government has actually been double-charging the penalty as well as interest for the last two years. Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, that is correct. What the member for Delta South was asking a minute ago was whether we would charge two penalties and have several penalties all stacked up on one another -- charge multiple penalties. The answer to that is no. This section does clarify that you would be liable if you were delinquent in paying your taxable interest and a penalty. I've just said that is consistent with other tax law; it's quite common.

C. Serwa: Can the minister confirm that they have been charging this double penalty for the last two years without any legislative authority to do so?

Hon. E. Cull: No, we have not been charging it without the authority to do so.

C. Serwa: This section is new and gives the government the authority to do so. Where did you get the authority to make this double charge -- penalty and interest -- for the previous two years, without legislative authority?

Hon. E. Cull: The member wasn't hearing me correctly. I've said that we have not charged penalty and interest in the past two years.

F. Gingell: I just cannot allow a section that gives retroactivity for such a long period of time to pass without comment. It really is important for people to have a sense of certainty -- to know what the rules are -- and not be in a position whereby the rules can be changed after the game has started. I appreciate that there were only dormant regulations, but when you have regulations as we do in this bill, they have a fairly substantial effect on the act. I'm wondering why the minister would put into these amendments an item that obviously would cause question.

Hon. E. Cull: I can understand why retroactivity might cause some concern. However, there is need occasionally to go back and -- as my staff person so delicately puts it -- clean things up. Essentially, there indeed is occasion to go back and review the application of taxes. By making these regulations retroactive, it will make it easier and simpler. It certainly will be an advantage to both the businesses and the tax collectors in this case. By harmonizing these changes, it will make it much simpler.

Hon. E. Cull: Just before I make the appropriate motion, with respect to the question that the member for Delta South asked around loans and advances, the sections he referred to were dealt with last year in the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993. Probably it's easier to tell you the page than the sections. They're at the bottom of page 12 at the bottom. They've been moved, and that's where they appear. So they haven't been deleted; they continue.

With that, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 15, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

V. Anderson: This morning we were discussing child-in-care services and had just begun a brief discussion on foster care. Would the minister indicate roughly how many children are in foster care in the province at present and how many homes are care facilities? Would she also indicate the kinds of facilities? A variety of facilities are used for foster care at this point.

Hon. J. MacPhail: As of February of this year, approxi- mately 6,100 children were in foster care. Of those 6,100, 2,472 were in foster homes. The remaining were in restricted

care, contracted group homes or other resources such as a hospital, correctional facility or at the home of a relative. There are four levels of foster care. The first is the restricted family care home, which is basically where a child is known and is part of a family. The second level of care is provided in regular family care homes, which provide basic care -- no special needs for the child other than care. Then there are the specialized family care homes, levels one through three. Level one is the minimum amount of specialized care needed, up to level three, which requires substantial specialized care.

V. Anderson: A reality that has come home in discussions about the economic conditions of people with children in care is that these children get more financial support to go to camp, get equipment and play sports when they're in foster care than they can get when they're in their own homes. Could the minister respond to concerns about the inequality of care in children's homes? Often parents who are on the fringes of poverty feel it would be better economically for their children to be in foster care than in their own home.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This point has also been expressed to me by those who have no relationship to transfer payments from the state -- the working poor. However, we must be careful to make sure that we compare apples with apples. I understand your point, but there is a different relationship in the foster care system. As the state, we have specific legal obligations to be the guardian of and provider for a child -- increasingly a child with special needs. Our government provides this service in meeting its obligations as the permanent or temporary guardian of the child.

On the other hand, income security rates are part of a program to provide financial support to assist parents in caring for their children while they gain independence. There are other ways of looking at the impact of child poverty than comparing these two issues. Nevertheless, it doesn't take away from the inequalities that children suffer throughout the course of their daily, weekly and monthly lives when they live in poverty.

V. Anderson: I wonder if the minister might respond to two different areas. When they go into foster care, what kind of considerations are given to children from specific cultural or religious backgrounds? Could you also respond to that question with respect to children who have aboriginal heritage?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our goal is to attempt to recruit a diverse representation of foster homes that reflects the multicultural needs of kids who are in care. We are increasingly successful in that area, although we are going to have to do greater outreach in both multicultural and aboriginal areas. We talked earlier about special outreach programs which will be expanded in the future. With the moratorium on aboriginal adoptions, it is interesting how the community has come to its own aid. Aboriginal families have been providing more homes for kids who are in foster care now, which is good news.

V. Anderson: On aboriginal persons providing more homes, is that partly due to the fact that there's a change in the attitude of the ministry and its workers? The minister mentioned earlier the new opportunities in Vancouver east side at Ray-Cam. These indicate a new awareness of different physical standards of homes and conditions that are now welcomed and recognized as being valid, but they wouldn't have been previously. Is the style of life of aboriginal people also being recognized for its own validity? Therefore more aboriginal homes would qualify now as open to children for foster care that wouldn't have been recognized before.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a historical gap in terms of recognizing what is a suitable home for foster parenting. There is no question about that. The standards of the earlier decades were pretty well white and middle class, and that's through no fault of the foster parents of that day. It was a problem of outreach. We received advice through our aboriginal panel on the issues of children in care, and we have also emphasized in our multicultural training the fact that we have to be much more inclusive in our outreach around foster parenting. We are on the road to recognizing that there are many different configurations and income levels of families who can provide a safe, loving and caring environment for children in care. I might just add -- although I'll rule myself out of order -- that the new legislation entrenches that thrust, which is good news.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I've been trying not to encroach on the legislation.

V. Anderson: I'm happy to go over the line and toss around the general principles per se rather than the legislation, because the principles are valid not only in that specific legislation but in other aspects of legislation which are not up for reconsideration at the present moment.

As we move into looking at services for children with special needs, the minister might say something to address the question of some of the new directions that are coming forth for them, no doubt responding to questions we have raised in previous times on new directions and opportunities.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our at-home program for children with special needs is proving to be a success -- where children who may in previous times have resided in a group home or even in an institution are now being supported by us within the family, with the child and the family in their own home. That's called the at- home respite program. Our budget has increased for that, and there are about 2,000 special needs children who are eligible for the at-home program.

We also have an at-home medical equipment and supply program for about 1,200 children with special needs. Again, this supports the family so that the child can reside in the home. There are other programs that affect children with special needs. We've discussed our infant development program, and I've gone over the residential services in family care in specialized residential resources, which is part of our group homes as well for children who reside in non-institutional or group home settings.

We also have behavioral support for children with autism. We fund services, such as child-specific training and behavioral management techniques, for the families and caregivers of children with autism. We provide additional family support with counselling, skills training and homemaker services. There is also the respite service, which gives a break to the parents of kids with special needs and benefits both the child and parent.

V. Anderson: We talked earlier about the Jericho School situation and the needs, both special and other, of those

children. It seems to me that one reality is that the needs of children with special needs are often dealt with more effectively than the needs of the parents who deal with those children. Much of the difficulty children have adapting to or coping or growing with their circumstances, living through them and coming out on top, is with the physical, emotional and financial capabilities of their parents to go through that. What special programs are underway to give parents the kind of backup and support that they need not only in respite services but in understanding and appreciating the problems and using them as an opportunity to grow?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Much of the support we give to families with special needs is directly for the parents. The big budget increases are in areas that give support to parents in direct dealings with their child and also for breaks, so that a relatively normal family life can continue. There is no question that this will be a continuing concern as our special needs population ages and lives longer at the same time as the parents are aging. We're noting increased demand on our adult services because the parents who have been looking after adult children with special needs are needing more and more support themselves as they grow older. So we are examining our services to keep pace with that, but it is going to require a substantial amount of budget commitment.

Wherever we possibly can, we treat the family as a whole, in that each person in the family needs extra support when there are special needs children.

V. Anderson: Talking about this transition into adulthood, the one case I am aware of was a person in their twenties who had a special need and found that the only group facility available to them was a seniors care home. They needed a wheelchair; when they applied for one, had they been in a Social Services home, the wheelchair would have been available to them, but since they were in a seniors' home, it was not. This was under a previous minister. When I inquired about this, the correspondence I received back said simply: appeal it, because as long as you're there, you're not going to get it; the only way you can get it is to appeal it. It seems to me that if the former ministry was saying that you'd get it through appeal, but you couldn't get it any other way, it recognized that something was wrong in the system and that people shouldn't have to go through that process. Has a change taken place in order that that kind of complication doesn't exist?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. It never ceases to amaze me how we can have wonderfully sensitive and intense programs, and yet there are still people with truly significant needs who cannot meet the requirements of any program.

The Minister of Health and I, through our staff, have been talking about examples such as the one you name, where there is no question that a person has special needs, and there is no question that meeting that person's special needs requirement would be cost-effective and take pressure off other parts of the system, and yet he or she doesn't fit nicely into one side of the health care delivery program or the other. We are, therefore, looking at pooling resources to ensure that we don't make people go through hoops and end up with us having to provide the resource anyway. We're looking at a way that we can make it much more meaningful and client-centred in order to fill those gaps. That's taking a bit of time, however, but we're on to it.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that you're on to it. In the process of developing this, or until we get there, is there a focal point where a person in that situation can be referred to an office or a contact person who could advocate and help those interrelationships take place? What can they do instead of writing everybody?. How can they avoid the response that it's somebody else's responsibility? Where would they start, and who would pick it up?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm hopeful that we'll get this pool, or fund, up at some point; when we do, we'll advertise through our bureaucracies so that it's well known. In the meantime, the kind of example you raise is a perfect case for our service quality advocate to pursue on behalf of a client, no matter if the client could be in receipt of some service through our ministry. We can get you the number for the service quality advocate.

V. Anderson: That might be a risk, but perhaps the information about the service quality advocate might go out to our constituency offices. It might be publicized in some other ways as well so that people are aware of it. I know there's an awful lot of phoning around trying to find out where you go with questions concerning services. It could be beneficial across the board for people to know, and it could provide information on the circumstances under which that person or that office would be contacted. This flow of communication is really important so that people who are trying to do a good job.... There is a turnover of people in the constituency office all the time. With new people coming in, some help in this regard would be most useful. I put forward that suggestion for you.

I notice there's an increase of over $3 million in the budget for particular services for children with special needs. Is this taken up mostly by the increase in staff and communication systems, as was the case above, or are there other new and significant costs in that area?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Most of these services are delivered by contracted community agencies. The budget is increased for a volume increase and perhaps to deal with the agencies' cost increases.

V. Anderson: We move on to community programs for mentally handicapped adults, which at $229 million is by far the largest figure. This increase of $21 million is the largest single line expenditure of anything within this ministry. I think most people would be very surprised to realize that is the case, because they would think of services to families and to children as major functions within this budget. They would be very surprised to discover that the line item of mentally handicapped adults is so large in comparison with other particular lines. One might indicate what significant changes have taken place, because I think there has been a feeling in the community that this segment of our population has been ignored and overlooked in the past. Perhaps one might indicate the size of this particular population in relation to the others.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is excellent news for our community of adults with mental handicaps. The big increase in the budget here is for the continuation, almost to the point of conclusion, of the closing of the Woodlands and Glendale institutions. You're quite right in saying there's a $21.67 million increase. Over half of that is specified for the continuation of the downsizing of institutions and the return of adults with mental handicaps to community living. Well

over half of that money goes toward residential care, the building and provision of group homes, and staff support for having adults with mental handicaps live in the community. There's also the training and the support of staff required to assist people with mental handicaps, as well as professional support services. Also, there's money for mental health services for people with mental handicaps and for dental health services as well. Regular health services for community living and nutritional services are also required, so that the person with the mental handicap living in the community is in receipt of the same services that he or she would be in the institution, but they'll now be getting those services in the community and we will be responsible for them.

I'll get you the information about the number of adults. Do you want to know specifically about the downsizing of the institutions, or just generally the number of people? This excludes downsizing, so the institutional downsizing is over and above this. In residential care, there were 3,850 adults served; that's where we are actually the caregivers for the adults. There are training and support services for adults with mental handicaps, where we assist the person with training and getting into the workforce. It's wonderful, with supported work placements and achievement centres. This year 5,800 adults will be served in that area. In addition to this, there are 141 residents in Woodlands who will be affected by the downsizing. They and 96 residents currently in Glendale will be placed in community living.

V. Anderson: One of the realities that perhaps relates here concerns adults with mental handicaps who are in day training programs. Those programs, which have handicap workshops and that kind of thing, go until 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The people then go back into the care of their parents, when they're living at home, although they are adults. I've had some of them come to me with major concerns about the period between 4 o'clock and the evening, when the adults return home, as well as about respite care for those at home so that the parents can get out periodically. These people are telling me that there seems to be a gap between the opportunity ending at 4 o'clock and the time the parents get home. There's a gap in there with a lack of care for those persons who were in the workshop. Parents who are themselves having to work to sustain the household aren't able to find a way of continuing that care program until they get home in the evening. It's kind of an after-school care program for people who have been in workshops. Is there some movement in that regard?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is an issue. It's a decreasing issue but nevertheless a significant one, because many of the achievement centres and the support of work placements include a period of support for what we term "self-help skills," which is one-on-one training to deal with exactly the issues of support you raise: support for the time when the adult with the mental handicap is on his or her own. There is one-on-one training in that area that eventually leads to independence, in that after the training is successful, the adult manages her own time during that period. I know it's a worrisome time for parents until independence is achieved by the adult with the mental handicap.

V. Anderson: I was in touch with one group representing probably 40 or 50 people in this particular area, and I had to say to them that they really needed to form their own association and pull it together to get help as a group. Doing it individually, just realistically, meant it wasn't going to happen in any near future. I know they went away to think about that, so we may be hearing back from them in that regard.

One talks about the mental, dental and nutritional services that are available to these folks. What is available to them in the area of occupational and educational upgrading and skills training? Many of these persons, particularly with computers nowadays, would be able to have an entirely different life skills opportunity if this kind of promotion was available to them. I can think of one young fellow in a seniors nursing home who was not able to communicate because of lack of ability to communicate by voice but who could use the telephone and the other services in his home. If he'd had an opportunity for computer training, I'm sure he would have been able to communicate both within the home and outside it. There are possibilities of part-time occupations for these persons if they have opportunities to move ahead in this way.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are assisting directly and through agencies in the community, such as those belonging to the B.C. Association for Community Living, to achieve what you outline on behalf of the person with mental handicaps. In our services to adults with mental handicaps, our training and support programs include providing employment-readiness and on-the-job training. I know we worried in the 1970s and 1980s that achievement centres were from the Dark Ages, but they're not anymore. There's lots of on-the-job training; many deal with computer skills and life skills relating to the workforce.

We also fund agencies to find employment opportunities for people with mental handicaps. Some agencies are particularly successful in this area. We also work with the agencies to monitor success rates and to evaluate the programs and services related to community living. There is also an opportunity for us to assist people with mental handicaps in the area of community volunteer programming. That can be a transition into the workforce as well.

V. Anderson: I'm aware of the community volunteering program; in working with those persons over the years it has been a very effective and helpful program. There were concerns when support of those programs was cut back and limited for a period of time. I understand from our previous discussion that that's no longer the case and that support is now ongoing. I was glad to hear that.

Regarding the life cycles of persons with mental handicaps, what is being done in the area of education? Regarding the future of these children who will become adults, what is being done to give them the opportunity for developing home skills? I'm thinking particularly of including computers as part of the equipment provided for young people with handicaps. They can take these skills into their adult years. I wonder whether we can think of that as one of the pieces of equipment they can grow with. If they can begin to use a computer at home in their childhood, it opens a world of recreation that they do not have from sources that other people might have.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We prepare individual plans for children with special needs from the time they're infants. I would hazard a guess that at this stage individual planning does not include computers at an early age, although it's a laudable goal. However, rather than treating everybody the same and perhaps warehousing them according to a life

V. Anderson: I recommend that you begin to think about this, because it's past the time when we should be aware of the opportunity that computers provide for people who have difficulties. When I watch my four-year-old granddaughter using the computer and I see young adults and children of many ages who have difficulty operating a computer with a headstick and see the joy and enthusiasm in their ability to do that, it seems to me that that's as important today as a wheelchair for their future. It's as important as almost anything else we can do for them, because it opens a door and puts them in contact with the world in a way that nothing else can. It stimulates their capacities and is able to adapt to their capacities in a way that probably nothing else can. It also costs less, at this stage, than almost anything else we can do for them. I recommend that your research and planning teams look at what would be involved in exploring this possibility and that they do some experimental and forward- looking projects, at least in that area.

If one has any interest in that, Frank Ogden -- Mr. Future -- is being sponsored by the library here in June as part of their anniversary project. I'd recommend that your staff hear Mr. Ogden, because the world he talks about, which is his world of today, is one that most of us are not aware of. He goes into mind-imaging and all kinds of things with computers that stagger our imagination. But he's able to demonstrate that that's not a world of the future; it's a world that's happening right now. It's just that most of us are not aware of it or of our opportunities to help our children. We should look at some of the opportunities that he's suggesting and open our eyes to see what we could do for them. If it helps even some of them in a significant way, I'm sure it will quickly....

I could see that if persons with physical or mental handicaps were given this kind of opportunity through the ministry, then doors would open for all other kids, as well. They would be helping others, instead of the reverse. I think this would open the door to challenge. I've met with some of people from Pearson Hospital, where they have these kinds of computer- generating opportunities. It's amazing; I think the possibilities of what can be done stagger our imagination.

I would like to look at community projects and again ask the minister to explain what new things are happening in that area. I keep asking if, in the context of these changes, there are any things being dropped or whether we keep adding without retracting or replacing. What is the focus of community projects and of that particular section of the budget, which is about $9 million?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's with a bit of regret that I say there will be cuts in this area, although I hope we've done it in a way that will result in a seamless delivery to the agencies affected. There were about 240 projects funded in 1993-94. This budget has decreased from $9.4 million to $8.82 million -- a decrease of a half million dollars, or 6.1 percent. But the way we've managed this is to cut only the uncommitted funds -- i.e., funds that were unable to be used by community groups or that didn't get out the door last year. In the other area, we've sustained major funding to various groups except for those one-time only projects we funded last year. In those cases, when we could assure ourselves that it was only a one-time-only project and that the organization clearly wasn't relying on it for continuous funding, etc., we didn't renew it. In other words, we didn't allow them to start up another one-time-only project. This is being discussed at the local level with lots of community input, and the adjustment is going fairly smoothly.

V. Anderson: I noticed that the senior citizen counsellors program is one of the areas within this. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on the direction that is going at this particular point.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The senior citizen counsellors program has remained untouched. We continued funding it at the same level as last year. Our experience from last year was that those funds were more than adequate to provide for the demands on the program.

V. Anderson: We talked earlier on advocacy, but I noticed a couple of advocacy projects under the community grants. Perhaps the minister wouldn't mind commenting on the nature of those advocacy grants and on whether they have continued or have changed in focus and meaning.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have tried to commit the advocacy funds evenly throughout the province. In highly urban areas of the province, though, there are greater advocacy services beyond the funding that our ministry provides. We have maintained the same kind of low-income advocacy projects that were in existence before. Some groups may have been affected by using up their one- time-only funding, but the advocacy funding continues.

V. Anderson: I have indicated before that the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups and others have appreciated the opportunities to come together in provincewide conferences and study activities where they can hear from the ministry, speak to each other and do some planning for the province as a whole. I want to commend the minister for the support and interest you've given in that regard. I encourage you to continue, because I think it will pay dividends in recognizing the self-help undertakings that people do. With such limited support, they are able to accomplish a great deal not only for the people who come but also for the vast number of people whom they serve. We need to realize that the advocacy groups are not just serving themselves but a vast number of people within the community at large who are not members of their group. They have no hesitation about reaching out and serving. Because they speak out of personal experience, they are able to do things that the professionals would never accomplish, so it's important to give them that kind of support.

For the record, the minister might comment briefly about the institutions which are listed and indicate where people are moving into the community when the institutions are downsizing. There is a concern that people get lost in the community after institutional downsizing, and in the past the planning for them was done after the fact rather than before.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Planning for the community living of residents leaving Glendale and Woodlands occurs on several levels. The first level is the Provincial Advisory Committee on Services to Adults with Mental Handicaps; that's what we refer to as the PAC. It was created to address the concerns of families and advocates regarding the planning process, and to make sure that families participate and that there was proper access to health care services and service providers for people when they return to the community.

In many cases there are decisions to be made about where the person should live. Sometimes it is decided that the person should live in the community where his or her family resides, but then there may be extenuating factors, such as residents who have grown up in an institution and have literally developed their family in that institution. In some cases two residents will be returned to the community, and they will become a family unit. It's very interesting.

We have a transition team that works with the families of the provincial advisory committee to continue revising the implementation plan as more and more residents return to the community. They make recommendations and give feedback, and we revise. We're down to 141 residents in Woodlands and 96 in Glendale who can expect to return to the community in the next couple of years. By the end of this year there will be only 127 residents left in the institutions.

V. Anderson: Over the last number of years, one reality in the public's point of view is that many people with mental handicaps and illnesses congregate in the urban areas and downtown cores of Vancouver and Victoria. What programs are underway for persons now coming into those communities? When they go out from their homes, they're going to end up down there part of the time. And what particular programs are being undertaken in Vancouver, Victoria and other urban communities throughout the province to deal with people who are already in the community but for whom there were no proper services and programs when they moved in? In large part, they are still not connecting with those.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand your point about people who require mental health services being on the street. But the kind of resident we're talking about, a person with a mental handicap, really cannot exist on the street without both health and service support. The residents of our institutions are not the kind who end up in the downtown inner core. It would just be physically impossible. They have no way of getting around on their own. All are now being provided with living accommodation that is wonderfully supportive, but is also very intensely supportive. I would say most of it is 24-hour staffed care.

Actually, I will be joining you in the Ministry of Health estimates to explore the other issue. I will be asking questions of the Minister of Health around the mentally ill.

V. Anderson: Perhaps this is the place to ask about an item that is not directly but is somewhat related to this. Persons who don't have mental health problems or mental handicaps but who, because of the stress of trying to survive in the circumstances.... I have in mind a particular case, someone who visited me today in my office. This person has gone through the abuse syndrome and is not able to cope at this point because of the stress all this has caused. They are on the borderline of having a mental breakdown or mental health problem which, if not resolved or dealt with.... Because of the stress, this person isn't in a mental state at this point to go into a social service office, so they sleep on the street.

Where does this kind of person go to get the initial interview and supportive circumstances that just going into an office does not give them? Unless they can get started on the right track, the situation will compound itself until something drastic happens, and it becomes a headline. That's unfortunate, if there's a way for this person and others like this person to get into the system.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can certainly speak on behalf of the people who are part of the services of our ministry, on either the GAIN or the F and CS side. If people come into one of our income assistance offices, a financial assistance worker would, as part of her duty, assess the needs of the client in the area of mental health support but not institutional support. She would probably refer the client to the Ministry of Health clinics or directly to available mental health services in the community. In lots of cases we find that alcohol and drug counselling support is needed.

However, I must tell you that if the support is for a person who is not part of our ministry's system -- for instance, you or me -- then it would be part of the regular health care delivery service. We are investing a heck of a lot more money into mental health services that don't require institutionalization. I know it's difficult getting the community up and running and delivering those professional health care services short of hospitalization, which is not appropriate in many circumstances.

V. Anderson: I'd now like to move on to the minor program of income support and maintenance; we're gradually working our way down through this. I say "minor" in one sense -- the number of people in the services provided by the ministry -- but for many people it's the major or only program they really know about. It's important that we look at it, because it stresses not only people's financial viability but also their social viability and other aspects that come with that.

There's a fairly large increase of almost $40 million in this current year's budget, in spite of the increases that took place over previous years. Can the minister indicate how much that budget increased in 1993-94 compared to the increase for 1994-95? We have both those figures. In the current budget there is a $40 million increase, which is fairly sizable -- almost 20 percent. To begin with, I wonder if the minister might comment on that particular increase.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me give you as much information as I can right now on a range of issues around this. There is a forecasted increase of about $40 million in the IA budget. Let me tell you how we did our caseload forecast for calculating how much more money we will need. It's a 2.3 percent increase in the dollar value, but the caseload is forecast to increase by about 5 percent from the '93-94 level. Let me give you some information to help with that inconsistency. The estimates increase includes an increase in recoveries of $20 million in welfare fraud savings that we announced in January. I suspect that we are well on target with meeting that, so the gross expenditure increase will be $59.5 million, which is about a 3.4 percent increase if you compare '93-94 to '94-95.

However, as the hon. member for Peace River South.... North? I'm going to finish the session getting this right, I'll tell you; it has only been three years.

From what was budgeted in '93-94, we underexpended by $70 million on what was actually utilized. That amounts to about $129.5 million more, over and above the actual expenditures from '93-94. That actually represents a 5 percent increase in caseload, which is about a 7.5 percent expenditure increase, and that is less than half of previous increases.

V. Anderson: One of the things I want to refer to is an executive summary done for the Richmond City Council on the extent of poverty in Richmond, which generally is not thought by the population at large to have a lot of poverty. Of 16,000 families, 2,310, or 14 percent, are below the poverty line; 4,000, or 26 percent, are single persons; 26 percent are lone parents; and 16 percent are childless couples. Those below the poverty line in Richmond varied anywhere between 14 and 26 percent in an area where it's not thought we have a lot of people below that line. One of these groups was at risk, and they indicated that there were groups at risk beyond that.

The major finding and recommendation that came out of the summary was simply this:

"Preliminary data indicates the aggregate numbers of people who are poor, relative to population growth, is rising. The disparity between the poor and non-poor is substantial. Because of the high cost of obtaining affordable housing, many families and individuals have been forced to move out of Richmond."

It said that to deal with the situation, they would have to deal with affordable housing, transportation, ability to work, service accessibility, municipal programs and services, minority groups and establishing an advisory committee on poverty.

I'm wondering if the minister, in dealing with GAIN for handicapped persons, is finding a recognition that other municipal areas throughout the province are looking at their own situations and beginning to do some planning, as the Richmond council has done.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Not enough, I would say. I applaud Richmond for doing this. I will answer quickly. I notice in some jurisdictions that the policies of city councils actually work against assisting people with low incomes and people on social assistance.

For instance, I'm quite dismayed at the social housing policy changes taking place in Vancouver where, except for seniors, they are no longer going to be providing social housing. That affects our clients directly, because we know the biggest single issue for people on income assistance is housing. The city is quite right in saying that they've been inexorably affected by the federal off-loading in this area. There aren't enough city councils taking into account the effect that poverty has on their individual communities, but a growing number are taking into account that kind of information. As MLAs, I think we can take the lead on that. I know my colleague, in whose jurisdiction Quesnel falls, is discussing those kinds of issues in his community as well.

The Chair: Hon. members, that was indeed a division bell, and we are required in the other House. We will recess for the required length of time and be back here shortly.

R. Neufeld: I want to touch briefly on the adoption part of your ministry, Madam Minister. I know it takes a long time to adopt a child. Could the minister go through the adoption procedure briefly? What happens within her ministry and what are her responsibilities? Do we have a long waiting list because of procedures that families have to go through to become adoptive parents, or is the problem due to the lack of children to adopt? Where do most of the problems lie? I know some people who tried to adopt over a five-to-eight-year period and went out of the country to do so. Maybe the minister could enlarge on that for me, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know the hon. members share with me the sensitivity around this topic, and that we can't assign motives or responsibility for the situations that occur. The truth of the matter is that there are children available to adopt, but almost all of those who would not involve a waiting list are special needs children. Parents who are interested in a non-special needs baby -- and again I assign no blame and make no judgment on this -- do have a waiting list. That's because of societal trends: the growing number of parents who are infertile, for whatever reasons, and society's acceptance of non-married parents who keep their children, including teenagers. That leads to a waiting list for parents who wish to adopt healthy babies.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister give me some idea of how many of the children who are in care and could be adopted are special needs children? Is there a number available that you could give me at this time?

R. Neufeld: I have a second question on that. You might not have information on the average waiting time for healthy children, but I could wait for that, as well.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's an average wait of about six years for the adoption of non-special needs children through our ministry.

R. Neufeld: I know the ministry has been involved in ongoing hearings around the province over the active adoption registry. Can the minister give me any idea about whether there will be legislation introduced this session in regard to the active adoption registry and the opening up of adoption generally? What form will such legislation take?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As you're aware, we have a review going on right now. The review team won't report to me until the end of June, so it's a safe bet to anticipate that there won't be legislation this session. However, part of the mandate of the review team is to make recommendations for policy and legislative change, and I would certainly make a commitment to discuss with all opposition members their recommendations on how to proceed in forthcoming sessions.

V. Anderson: We did discuss adoption some time ago, and I'm tempted to get back into it, but I won't at this point. I may later.

Let's look at the income assistance program. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses did a report on minimum wage and made some comments about Social Services in the process. Their particular comment and perspective, of course, was that minimum wage leads to loss of jobs. The quote I want to bring to the minister's attention for her comment is: "The government should look at welfare reform or tax credits to target help to those truly in need.... All credible research says that minimum wage policies have little effect in reducing poverty or raising family incomes." They acknowledge the need for family incomes to be raised, but they suggest that the minimum wage itself isn't the way to solve the problem; other processes need to be in play. They suggest that this needs to be taken into account by the

government. This issue needs the cooperation of all of us. I find it interesting that businesses are saying that the current welfare system is not meeting the needs of people in poverty, and neither is the minimum wage.

On the other hand, the minister is well aware of the SPARC report on "Maintaining the Gap." It begins by saying: "Current income assistance rates in B.C. are too low to sustain the well- being of the men, women and children who are recipients." From whatever angle -- business or the SPARC report -- we come to the conclusion that the situation is not improving.

A December article in the Globe and Mail comments that: "We're in a different era now. And the poverty statistics are as grim as ever.... These numbers are sending a clear message -- poverty is not simply a reality in Canada, it's becoming more deeply rooted."

In the discussion of GAIN payments as dealing with the poverty needs of children and adults -- whatever the condition of these persons may be -- it's not really possible to say that the situation is improving under any government at the moment. The most we can say is that the situation may not be as bad in this province as it is some place else in Canada. We often say that we're better off than other people around the world, and therefore B.C. is a better place to be. An analogy is that a bunch of people get dumped into the ocean. Some happen to get dumped in 100 yards from shore, some get dumped 200 yards from shore and some get dumped 300 yards from shore, but nobody can swim. So the ones closer to the shore are no better off than the ones further out. They're all in the same situation.

It seems that it's not fair or proper for us to say that we're managing this situation well. We're perhaps managing it better than other people not necessarily because of anything we have done but because we happen to be in a province that has prosperity and better opportunities. The system has been able to survive better than somebody else's at this time for reasons other than what we are doing. We know full well that our turn will come; that downward cycle is going to hit us as well as someone else.

When we come to the question of GAIN payments, I don't think there is any way that we can say we're doing well. That isn't levelling criticism against this particular government; it's against us all collectively. The demand is what this government or we, under their leadership, are collectively going to do about it. We cannot put icing on top and say it's okay. We cannot say we're doing better than other people, and that's good enough. We need to ask how we are going to reform this system and make basic changes in our attitudes and actions. So when we look at the question of income assistance, we have to re-examine what we're really looking at. I'm asking the minister for some indication of new directions, not in legislation, but the principles and policies which the community at large might begin to work together on accomplishing and bringing forth so that we're no longer just stopgapping, which is all we've been doing. The situation, in reality, has gotten continually worse. It's quite clear that we're worse off now if we're on income assistance than we were in 1972 or in 1982. In 1993 we're worse off than we were in 1992. We seem to be decreasing each time. We need to look at some of the basic, underlying new directions that the budget is bringing forth for us, if we could look at that area for a few moments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually laud the hon. member for giving me guidance on seeking common ground with the business community. I appreciate your calm approach to that, because I was quite annoyed when I first read their comments on what is a guaranteed minimum income for people to survive on. I will emulate your calm approach, because you're right. We have to find common ground in order to get solutions. It does not do any good to war around these issues -- and it is a war around poverty.

I would suggest, though, that governments can have an influence on the number of people who live in poverty, and they can influence those who leave poverty forever and don't just recycle through again generationally or even as a family. I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about not taking a piecemeal approach. In the forties the provinces and the federal government took that wonderfully broad social democratic view about what we needed to do to sustain our postwar standard of living. Since then we haven't taken the broad view. We've done piecemeal changes to it depending on the government of the day, on who was the biggest lobbyist and on whom we needed to pay attention to in order to get re-elected. It hasn't worked. We now have a system that has weak patches and too strong patches in other areas.

I believe that we cannot address the issues of poverty if we look solely at those who rely on transfer payments from government. We also have to look at the working poor and the taxpayer beyond that, too. At various stages of our lives, we could fit into every single one of those categories. I can hardly wait for the Premier's forum to get off the ground, because that's exactly the kind of issue we will explore. In some way, a government takes responsibility through the income security net so that the economic cycles do not adversely affect an even greater number of people. Our approach should be able to smooth out the effect of the economic cycles, particularly on children.

We are going to examine the minimum wage and benefits attached to families or to income earners in terms of supporting their families. One of those benefits has to be child care. Another we have to look at is ensuring that our medical services system delivers not only to the working poor but also to those on income assistance. The biggest indicator of health is your income level. We know that; we've talked about that before.

I don't shirk the responsibility of having an effect on diminishing the cycle of poverty, but it is bigger than me. That's why the Premier's forum will be a start, and then we have to bring in the other jurisdictions of government in Canada. It will do us no good to take a balkanized approach to this -- each province deciding on its own how they should deal with income assistance. That would just mean that no longer will we have mobility among Canadians, because the income security net will be much weaker in certain areas. When one thinks about it, it is a formidable task, that has to be tackled immediately.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I agree with her that we need to take the broad and comprehensive view in order to look at that. We are very much aware that the small businesses reported on that particular survey will create most of the jobs. You cannot tax them and then ask them to pay minimum wage. There has to be some support system for small independent business people so that they can pay the wages they would like to if they were not being taxed. It's being taken away from them in every direction. We have to have a comprehensive view to deal with this.

I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that it's a Canadian as well as a provincial problem. We have to deal with trade barriers between provinces so that we can interact. We have to deal with educational and health systems that give the same opportunities to people no matter

where they may live in Canada. We have to get away from the suggestion that Canada is going to break up, or we're not going to deal with any of these issues. We need to look at the broad perspective.

I agree with the minister that child care, in the home and out of the home, is part of the same picture that needs to be looked at. In looking at the pie graph on the Ministry of Social Services fact sheet, which is very useful, I think most people would be surprised that single parents in need represent only 17 percent of the total. I say only 17 percent, because that's a very significant number. The one-parent family is 17 percent, the two-parent family is 5 percent and couples are 2 percent. Single women are 12 percent and single men are 26 percent.

Looking at it laid out this way, when the children are 38 percent, you get a different image from the one we normally think and hear of. It's this kind of image we need to find a way of expressing and of dealing with, because it's a totally different picture than normal. Instead of dealing with people all in one category, as seems to be the case at the moment, we should deal with people according to their individual needs, more so than we have in the past. It raises the question that the 38 percent who are children of the one-parent and two-parent families are divided up among 19 percent of the population, if I put the figures right. So that 57 percent of the population is actually the family-children and parents-population.

V. Anderson: Yes, on income assistance. We have different categories here. If we can deal with these people in a different way according to their life circumstances, which are quite significant and different.... When we do that, till the present system changes, 57 percent who have children are hampered if they have more than two children. If they earn money outside the system in order to improve themselves, they're not able to benefit from the extra earnings, except for the $200, plus the 25 percent. Realistically that isn't enough to move them out of the system.

Along with the federal government, the minister has been looking at salaries of $35,000 or more a year in order that people might learn to sustain themselves. If people are going to move into an era of building themselves up, the present system -- a family with a couple of children might get roughly $12,000 a year -- doesn't allow them to do that. So I'm wondering if the minister would comment on some of these concerns and how, until there's a change in the present system, there might a different way of approaching the system. Some changes might be made to recognize family size on the one hand and, on the other hand, the individual needs of singles and couples, particularly single men and women.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm glad the hon. member has recognized that almost 27 percent of our clients are single men. Many would portray them as lazy bums, and it's simply not the case. These are often young people who are the last hired and, in an economic downturn, the first fired. You've used them as an example to highlight that families on income assistance have many different needs, and we truly do try to address individual needs based on family requirements. Our whole system is based on that. But I think you're probably asking me what we are doing to address individual needs to get them off the system, and that's an absolutely fair question.

In the area of single employables, we are working very hard with the Ministry of Education, because so many of these people don't have the basic skills and haven't even completed their high school education. So we're working with the Ministry of Education and with the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour to give our young people the necessary skills. Then, after individual recipients are given skills, we work with the business community on permanent job placement.

There's a great deal of interest from many in the business community in this kind of skills training. Some industries have a shortage of skilled labour because different emerging requirements for skills. One that comes to mind is the horticulture industry, where they have a skill shortage. That's because it is a burgeoning industry, and it requires a set of skills that many of our educational institutions don't supply. I started off the day by describing to you that program of skills training at the New Westminster Secondary School. That's exactly the kind of client we're addressing: young men and women who are single and employable.

Dealing with families, there are a couple of approaches that we need to take, and we are making moves on some fronts. One family issue is housing. We must ensure that parents with kids are literally within reach of jobs with public transit and affordable housing. We are moving on various fronts there.

The other area is child care. There is no sense in saying to a single parent, or even two parents, to get a job if they can't take a job because there's no child care available. And there have been circumstances like that.

The last issue I would just touch on is health. Many times, when we talk about going into the workforce to clients who require income assistance, we find that the clients have severe emotional and physical health deficits that have never been addressed. They have literally been cast aside since they entered society. Sometimes our financial assistance worker will be the first person to sit down and give this recognition, perhaps to a young man who has grade 1 reading -- no one else in the system had ever dealt with that before -- or another client who may have a mental illness that has gone untreated.

So we take an individual approach to it, but there are some common solutions. I, too, regret the fact that the whole population of welfare recipients is targeted and painted with the same brush. It doesn't help at all in regard to resolving the issues that face us.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister, for those responses. I would agree because I think we need to portray things clearly. For instance, to talk about single men as a category is unfortunate. As you've indicated, some of them are young people who don't have skills, opportunities or experience; therefore jobs are not available to them. Some of them are single persons with handicaps. Some are in their fifties or sixties and have been working, but the kinds of jobs they were doing are no longer available. Those who are 60 to 65 are also in a category with no opportunities. There is a spread in the image when we talk about single, employable people. A single, employable person who is 58 years old, doesn't have a grade 12 education, has worked in the bush or has done labour all of his or her life and has no strength to do the work even if the work were available is quite different from a single, employable person who is 19 years old, very strong and able but has no education or skills. They're quite different.

For the public's benefit we need to draw a different profile of the kind of real people who are there. We need to

do this in a more personal sense; we need to deinstitutionalize, if you like, our profiles of people. That's one of the difficulties with pie charts: they don't make these kinds of distinctions.

I raised this because the minister says that the ministry is attempting -- and I believe it's true -- to have the FAWs provide an individual approach to people. But, by and large, the recipients have the point of view that they are being treated as a number or a thing rather than as an individual. There's a gap between what we think we're doing on behalf of these people and what we are seen to be doing on behalf of these people. I know from my own speaking engagements as a preacher that what I say is not as relevant as what people have heard. What I need to deal with is not what I said but what people heard me say. That's what they deal with, and therefore that is what I have to respond to. Communication is always that important.

I come back to the reality that by and large the clientele within the community do not feel they're being dealt with as individuals. We have to find a way to live with this reality. Any business which had that kind of a relationship with the public would be out of business. They would not exist because people would have gone to another business. But since we have a monopoly here and there is no place else to go, there isn't pressure on us to change our image. I would say that's fundamental. It's almost more important than the actual money we dispense to people.

As I mentioned earlier, people have made both complimentary and not-so-complimentary remarks about the ministry. We know this from reports we receive and from what people have told us, time and time again. Their primary concern is that they want to be treated with dignity and as individuals in their own rights. At the moment that image is not being seen by clients or the community at large. Many in the community believe we need to support those people who have needs. But when the fraud question hits the headlines, hat's the welfare community, not the reality of the other 98 or 99 percent. So somehow our public relations is failing. Maybe we need to look at a new public relations image -- not to be dishonest but to put across the validity of people who have needs. Only 5 percent of the person has a need; the remaining 95 percent is very valid. We're not getting that reality across to either the people themselves or the community at large.

As we wind this down, it seems to me we need to back up to where we started, with a philosophical approach. As well as being very specific in the financial and other support we give to people, we need to ask what our message is. The message is that when people want to work beyond $200 and 25 percent, it's not worth it. They shouldn't try, because the system doesn't recognize whether they try anymore. This puts a limit on how far they can go. There is this image that once you're in the welfare net, you're trapped in it. When we talk about a welfare net, that's really what we're talking about. It's not a net that saves you when you jump out of the boat, but a net that has come down and trapped you in a situation you can't get out of. All the people in that net are "the poor people" -- not the people in poverty -- of our community.

I think we have to get around that image. I hope that we can begin to change that and get away from the terms "welfare net" or "safety net." That's not adequate anymore; we cannot use that. We've got to come up with some new, honest images that say we respect these people not only in theory but also in practice; we respect them in the images we portray of them in the community. In order to do that, we have to change the image and reality of who we are as a system, so we can work with the people not work for them. There's a great distinction between working with and working for people. The only way we can work for people is when they're the boss and we're the servants, and we're not seen that way at the moment. I'd be interested to get some response from the minister in this regard.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The analogy of the monopoly is a point well taken. But I would suggest we consider it from this point of view: very often it is the fact of a monopoly being assigned to the Ministry of Social Services that creates the problem. No one else in society wishes to deal with the issue of poverty. Or -- I shouldn't be so ungenerous -- there are many who would assign the issue of dealing with poverty to the Ministry of Social Services or, even more broadly, to the government of the day, and therefore the monopoly perpetuates. The monopoly is an assigned monopoly, not an assumed monopoly, and that creates a problem with making sure that we have collective solutions available.

I concur with you 100 percent that the stigma attached to people who are living in poverty and relying on income assistance is, in the vast number of cases, undeserved and has a debilitating effect beyond what we can imagine. I know that children who live in my riding and are on welfare feel the sting of media coverage for days afterwards. We all have to look to ourselves to understand how we perpetuate that stigma.

I agree wholeheartedly that our ministry should be doing more outreach around our image. I appreciated a comment you made in passing that income assistance is the minor part of our ministry, because the ministry carries out so many other very important, relevant activities and programs. Indeed, that's how we feel, too. However, it is our responsibility to ensure that the support side of our ministry, beyond income assistance, is known out in the community. We have talked as a group about how we do that outreach, not in a big public way -- because one shouldn't rely on the media to get the message across -- but in a small grass-roots way. That of course requires our ministry to be at the grass-roots level, and we are working very hard at that.

I think we have made strides in our relationship with our clients. There is still a way to go, but we work on the principles of mutual dignity and respect. We understand that this is an issue of human service delivery, but it's also an issue of making sure that people are treated comfortably and feel physically safe when they come in contact with us. We have made substantial physical changes to our offices to accommodate clients and their families in a respectful way.

After only eight months on the job, I feel very strongly that it has to be a partnership. There is no way we will be able to grapple with poverty, let alone make inroads into eradicating it, unless there is a partnership among all those who have the ability to influence that goal. That means we cannot turn a blind eye. The business community and various community organizations, including our religious organizations and governments and hon. members, can't turn a blind eye to it. It's a task that could keep one forever awake, if one assumes it can be done overnight. We have to make sure we deal with the real issues of poverty as they arise not only in terms of the cyclical nature of the economy but also of the institutional and systemic discrimination toward certain groups in our society, which roots people in poverty.

Having said that, I also think we will not be any further toward that goal unless the public is assured that the monopoly is honest and is based on integrity. If the public doesn't believe that, they will just take potshots at the

monopoly and won't even begin to address the real issues of poverty, because they will have a reason for avoiding those issues. It's my job to ensure the integrity of the system and to allow all of us to have clear heads as we focus on the eradication of poverty.

V. Anderson: I raised the question of a monopoly, and as the minister reflects on that, one of the realities to be faced is that there are thousands of people in thousands of community organizations who are working with one another to deal with the needs of people within their own communities. They are happily doing it and are anxious lest that opportunity is going to be taken away from them at this point.

It's a grave concern that we have moved into the era of professionalizing the services we give to people, and in professionalizing, as many people have indicated, we deprofessionalize or disqualify the non-professionals and the volunteers. One of the realities I see in my feedback is that the Public Sector Employers' Council is set up for one purpose: to help the government deal with employer groups in the province. The reality of the extension of that into the health services council and the social services council is that the volunteer agencies are in the process of being destroyed. I think it's a basic concern, because I'm hearing back from many of these agencies that the effect of that is, on one hand, to unionize but, on the other hand, to take control and policy planning away from the volunteer boards and members. It is a major concern in all the agencies, particularly in health, education and social services, that this trend of the Public Sector Employers' Council is threatening the volunteer nature of the community in which we live. I hear a number of these people saying that they're just not going to put up with it. They're going to quit, because they no longer have control over the organizations that they've built up. The 1,000 volunteers who work with their organization are not being recognized and are going to be controlled by a few employee members. The board is being controlled by the council, and the practice is beyond their control.

I would ask the minister to address this, because the volunteer community agencies we're talking about really sustain a great deal of our social services and homes. The greatest threat to them at the moment is the Community Social Services Employers' Association, the Health Employers' Association -- both of them related to the Public Sector Employers' Council.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will certainly take that under advisement and ensure that we get our message across to alleviate the concerns of some of these agencies. There is no way that we want to exacerbate fears. In fact, our intent is exactly the opposite. You bring to mind a previous experience I had in the union movement where there were similar fears. Whenever there is organizational change and collective replaces individual action, there is fear in that process.

There is no intent on our part to replace the volunteer aspect of agencies, which is their strength. What we want to do is assist those agencies so that volunteers can actually do their voluntary work and aren't forced to do budget drafting or to negotiate contracts with big, bad unions where there's an unequal force at play. Certainly the agencies spend a great deal of their time trying to negotiate just for service delivery contract increases.

We have had feedback from a multitude of agencies saying: "Your bureaucracy is killing us. If our workers take collective action, that's placing too much of a burden on our resources in terms of labour lawyers." This is not a back door to unionization. There are better front doors, if that's what we wanted in this case.

What we are trying to achieve is a collective assurance for agencies that they're not going to be left behind in terms of public funding. They shouldn't have to fight among themselves for public funding. Issues exist across agencies that can be dealt with in a common way and therefore be cost saving and time saving for the individual agencies.

I recognize that you are articulating some fears out there. We will proceed slowly with a great deal of assistance to the agencies that are concerned. In no way do we want to change the shape of the agencies. We want to have public funding directed toward these agencies in a way that is cost-efficient, effective and fair for both the employer and the employees.

V. Anderson: Let me use two illustrations. We want to organize the aboriginal community with a non-aboriginal style, which is not appropriate. Formal organization is not appropriate for the informal reality of everyday community life. If you force the formal on the informal reality, it will kill the communities that it's intending to help; that's part of the struggle the aboriginal community has. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it's not the intent. However, I'm afraid that, whether it's the intent or not, it's the reality. People are looking at it from an organizational rather than an interactive point of view; those are two different things. An organization where people work in a factory is quite different from an organization where people live in a community.

In my own experience within the church, we had fall suppers and community events where everybody came together. They complained about the work, the cost and these kinds of things. They reorganized it so we could do it differently. Then we didn't have the fall suppers or the work bees. We had no more community life, because people didn't get together and meet each other. They didn't get together and cuss with each other about what was going on or blame it on somebody else. However, that was part of the reality of coming together. When we took that out, we lost community life, so people moved out. When we trained our Sunday school Christian education workers instead of volunteer teachers, we lost our Sunday schools. We lost our youth groups, because they didn't want the kind of organized approach they could get at school. They wanted an informal program, not school on the weekend. They wanted to have fun but learn in the process, a whole different kind of process. When we try to organize the community, we lose the community we're trying to organize.

I mentioned before that we tried to organize a group of people. As soon as we took out the disorganization, we lost the reality of everybody feeling that their input was wanted, because we only enabled "the proper person" or "the qualified person" to provide input. It's like the volunteer choir where somebody like me could sing even if they couldn't carry a tune, unlike the organized choir where only people who can carry the tune can be a part of it, or the sports group where only the kid who can play first base and run without being tagged out is allowed to play on the team and the other kids have to sit around the side because "they don't qualify."

Every time we organize an activity and make the organized presentation more important than the informal, we destroy the community and the people we're trying to work with, because the validity of the informal is the validity of community life. And that's part of the struggle in dealing with people of low income and those who suffer economic

poverty. We tend to deal with people organizationally rather than allowing them to be part of the system as individuals.

I'm trying to say that to the nth degree we carry organization even into the social services employers' council, and we're destroying to the nth degree the very informality which will enable the community to work. People will become frustrated, and the thing will blow up in our faces, not that the community health councils are doing that at the moment. We're putting a formal structure onto an informal community network, and it cannot be done. At the very least it's got to work the other way.

The whole process of the public sector network, which affects health care, education, social services and all the things where people in the community are intimately involved, is destroying the informal validity of community interaction. I raise this as a major concern, because I think in the final analysis nothing will destroy our communities or our programs more than that particular organization program, no matter how well intentioned it is. The better the intentions I had for my three daughters, the more they rebelled and the more I was proved to be wrong. You cannot organize somebody else's life. They have to do it in their own stupid, enacted, informal way because that's the nature of how we live with each other.

My final comment is to warn us that we cannot organize people from the top down. As I said at the very beginning, we have to respond to them from the community out, and we have to learn to work with an unstructured, informal network and to be versatile enough to make do with that. In the long run, that's the only way we can work with individuals so that the system responds to the individual and the individual does not have to fit the system. At the moment, the individual has to, in social services, fit the system. That was the easy way to do it, but it will never work; we have to go the other way around. I rest my case, unless the minister has a final response.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I must say about all of my colleagues that I have appreciated the advice and the debate we have engaged in over the last week. It has been truly of assistance to me as a new minister to receive the advice that's been offered to ensure that we're doing our job properly.

Let me try to give reassurance on that last point. In no way do we want to destroy community involvement at the volunteer level. I hope that the Community Social Services Employers' Association will not do that. In fact, I feel comfortable that they won't. The point is that there is now a formal connection between tax dollars -- $800 million -- flowing to these community agencies. We want to ensure that the community agencies are getting as many dollars as they should get for the wonderful services they do and leave themselves free for that essential, grass-roots community contact. I absolutely agree that it's essential to the social fabric of our communities. But you have given me reason to monitor and to pay close attention to the agency as it achieves what it is meant to achieve.

In closing, so that we finish all of our discussions and requests for information, I want to give the hon. member for Peace River North that information about adoption. As of January of this year, 106 children were awaiting adoption in the Ministry of Social Services, 81 of whom were children with special needs -- that's 80 percent. Those are children with such things as fetal alcohol syndrome, learning disabilities, mental or physical handicaps.

In closing, I thank everyone for their participation. Earlier I gave an offer that was off the record, but let me put it on the record because it was sincere. As the fiscal year plays itself out, let's make sure that we do our business in the House, but if I can give additional and new information to any member, I would be more than pleased to do so.

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