1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 10
[ Page 14581 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
K. Jones: Seated in the gallery this morning are a group of ladies whom I classify as family friends. One of my wife's best friends, Verena Blatter, is here from White Rock. She's with her friend Marlies Loukko from Delta, who is also a friend of my wife. They're accompanied by Karel McLean, who is the daughter of Verena, and Karel's mother-in-law, Mrs. Arlene McLean. Both of them are from Duncan. I'd like to state that I have a long memory of the great experience of touring Switzerland under the tutelage and leadership of Verena Blatter a few years back. I understand that she's going to take another tour with some friends from the lower mainland area later this summer. She is a native of Switzerland and very, very proud of that. I would like to ask the entire House to make them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: I have the honour, members, to present a report by the provincial ombudsman entitled Fair Schools. This is her first public report about the public school system in the province.
STANDING UP FOR ACCESS TO SKILLS TRAINING FOR BRITISH COLUMBIANS
D. Streifel: I wish I could spend my time this morning detailing the successes of this government's Skills Now program in my riding and the positive impact it has had on access to post-secondary education. I'd like to talk about the new technical university in Surrey to serve the residents of the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley. I'd like to speak on my personal involvement in bringing career technical-training high schools to Abbotsford. Unfortunately, this morning I must call this House's attention to a dark cloud looming on the horizon that is threatening to rain on the advances that this province has made to increased access to training and post-secondary education. I am talking, of course, about the drastic cutbacks to post-secondary education funding announced by the federal government in its most recent budget. These cuts threaten to dampen our future economic development and prosperity, and douse the hopes and dreams of working British Columbians.
What has happened is that the federal government has turned its back on a 50-year commitment to funding post-secondary education training and on its commitment to ensure that all Canadians have access to education and the economic prosperity that comes with it. I was shocked to hear the Prime Minister unilaterally redefine medicare. According to the Prime Minister, medicare is only intended for catastrophic illness. I can hardly wait for the Prime Minister to defend equity access to post-secondary education. I suspect the new definition will mean post-secondary education only for the privileged. Perhaps there may even be a few student grant dollars floating around for the particularly brilliant members of the so-called "deserving poor."
Fifty years ago, the federal government took the initiative to rectify an injustice -- prior to the Second World War, the post-secondary education system in Canada was a small elitist institution that served only the privileged. That initiative was to fund returning war veterans' post-secondary education. For the first time, ordinary working Canadians had access to an education.
In 1952 the federal government began funding the post-secondary education system directly. In 1967 the first federal-provincial partnership was struck. In 1977 this funding partnership was entrenched under the established programs financing act. Under the act, the federal government committed to a funding formula for colleges and universities. Unfortunately, the intended stability for post-secondary education funding, under established programs financing, was short-lived. The federal Liberals initiated a series of cutbacks in 1983 that the Tories subsequently took up with a vengeance. The Canadian Federation of Students has calculated that between 1984 and 1994, the cumulative impact of federal cuts was $9 billion -- that's $9 billion cut from funding for colleges and universities in Canada over a ten-year period.
Not surprisingly, these massive cutbacks in federal funding have jeopardized access to colleges and universities. Now the federal Liberals have decided to turn back the clock, to go back to the prewar era, when access to colleges and universities was based on wealth and privilege. Once the proposed cuts to post-secondary education have been fully implemented by the federal government, our Minister of Finance has estimated that tuition fees at B.C. colleges and universities will have to increase by at least 165 percent. That means that tuition fees at the University College of the Fraser Valley would be more than $3,000 per year, and more than $4,000 per year for upper-level university courses. Those tuition fee increases will place education out of reach for most of my constituents.
I regret to say that there is even more bad news for British Columbians seeking an education and job training. In its most recent budget, the federal government has also announced massive cutbacks to the unemployment insurance program. While details of the cuts have not been announced, the federal Secretary of State for Human Resources has stated that job training is an individual's responsibility. That is very bad news for the unemployed workers in my riding who are counting on federal training programs.
The question that needs to be answered here today is: who will stand up for access to post-secondary education and training? Who will stand up for the right of British Columbians of modest means to an education or job training? I can answer that question from my side of the House. Our government listened to British Columbians. We listened to industry and small business owners that needed a well-trained workforce to compete in the global economy. We listened to working people's concerns for their future and their children's future. We listened to unemployed workers who need new skills to re-enter the workforce. Most importantly, we came up with a plan to ensure continued growth and prosperity for all
[ Page 14582 ]
British Columbians. We decided to do things differently in British Columbia. We have rejected the slash-and-burn agenda of the federal Liberals, and we are making affordable investments in our people. But we cannot do it alone. Without continued federal funding for skills training and post-secondary education, the future is in jeopardy.
Today I am issuing a challenge to the members opposite: abandon that tired old refrain of cuts, more cuts and deeper cuts. I challenge the opposition members to listen to British Columbians, to listen to the hopes and dreams of our young people, to listen to industry when they say that training is the key to a successful economy, and to listen to unemployed workers when they say that with training and education they can share in the prosperity of the fastest-growing economy in North America. I challenge the members opposite to call on their federal cousins to abandon the program of massive cuts in a desperate race to the bottom and to call on their cousins to pay attention to an alternative of affordable investments in people -- an alternative that is working so well for British Columbians.
I will wait for the response from our opposition.
L. Reid: I can tell this House that the British Columbia Liberals will be there for post-secondary education, because we truly understand what it is to have a seamless post-secondary system that ensures that no matter when you come to the system, you will have the ability to bring your experiences and past training -- a course or two that you may have taken at a number of institutions -- together and have an opportunity to create some kind of credit in a credit-banking situation, so you can indeed propel yourself into a number of different college or university experiences and training opportunities. This is about creating opportunities for British Columbians to come together and have some ability to make choices about what they would like to do with their lives. The British Columbia Liberals stand up for that, and we will continue to stand up for that.
In response to the member, the same principles apply to the Canada Health Act and to where the British Columbia Liberals will be when it comes to ensuring that the system we have in Canada today remains in place. This government -- that member -- continues to believe that somehow, political parties own the Medical Services Plan or the Canada Health Act. I have made this point previously in this chamber, and I will continue to make it: medicare belongs to the people in this country; it belongs to British Columbians; it is not the property of any one political party. That is the essence of today's discussion in terms of who owns the education system and the health care system. It's not a political process; it's a people ownership situation, and that contention is abundantly clear.
I would like this member to respond about what British Columbia's commitment will be to health care and post-secondary opportunities in this land. This member continues to suggest that they have no plan and that they are simply at the whim of the federal government. I would like to hear what that member's plan is for this province. I think the fact that this province -- as well as every other province in this land -- has been given a huge heads-up in order to arrive at a reasonable resolution to this issue.... Rather than spending some time developing the plan, this member would sit back and not suggest what his commitment is to students in this province, and to British Columbians, for an education system.
[10:15]
Frankly, that troubles me. I think there has to be some commitment shown by this government as to what they will do for British Columbia students, rather than taking the petulant view that they have no choices because there is a federal government in place that is asking them to be more responsible and accountable. I can tell you that out of a $20 billion budget, this government has a choice of around $800 million; they absolutely have a choice. I trust that they will make a reasonable choice.
C. Serwa: We have a bit of time left -- approximately two minutes. I would also like to respond to the statement. Obviously the member for Mission-Kent didn't get a return phone call from Karl Struble to enlighten him on the subject he's talking about. There are a number of errors that the member has made in his private member's statement this morning. First of all, federal funding is designated for advanced education and health care, not skills training. And what did this current government do? The first thing they did was abandon Advanced Education as a ministry; they abandoned the future for British Columbians. That's what this government did.
The other element that the member doesn't understand, or doesn't seem to care to understand, is that we should be taking over our taxes, and not having an Ottawa-based tax system. British Columbia has been a significant and foremost contributor to the federal government for provincial equalization funds, and we only get a small percentage of those funds back. We should be in the driver's seat. This government should start that initiative, and if this one doesn't, I know that the next provincial government will take that initiative.
The final thing is the apprenticeship program that this government hasn't done anything about. They've left it in the hands of the union organizations. Our apprenticeship program in British Columbia should be built on the basis of the German program or the British program. We should start training our students in the apprenticeship field in the early grades, probably starting from grade 10 on, so that they can learn their life skills, their program, and become competent journeymen or craftsmen in that type of training period, when the cost and overhead isn't all that great. This current government has made it so prohibitively expensive for employers in the apprenticeship program that there is no opportunity for a successful program to be developed.
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Mission-Kent, because we have three other statements this morning, let me simply remind members that under standing order 25 it's perfectly all right to talk about important issues over which we might have differences. It is not appropriate, however, to make private members' statements and responses the basis for partisan debate in the chamber. It seems to me we're getting dreadfully close to that, and I would caution all members to avoid that.
D. Streifel: Thank you for the caution, hon. Speaker. It helps me focus my comments. Normally, I would respond to the member for Okanagan West, but seeing as how he has a limited life in politics, with one member left in that party and no future, and is not aware of the good news in post-secondary in this province, I'll limit my comments and response to the member from Richmond.
[ Page 14583 ]
Interjection.
D. Streifel: It seems to me I've been challenged to stand here and expose this government's commitment to post-secondary education. I would start very simply with the construction of two new universities in British Columbia under our jurisdiction -- one open and one in the planning stages; the only two in Canada that have been built in the last 25 years. That's a very solid commitment.
My concern is still the off-load from the federal Liberal government. I have not yet heard unanimous solidarity from this House to stand up for the students of British Columbia in the face of that devastating federal off-load that is going to impact on post-secondary access for our students. We have heard members in this House speak of gateway deterrents, of limiting health care and educational access. We have heard members in this House say that the privatization of an education system and of a medicare system is just fine for the future of British Columbians. I disagree with that.
I will continue in my day-to-day activities and efforts as a MLA to bring on advanced post-secondary education, skills and training; when the members from across the river in the Fraser Valley fail to do so, I will work on their behalf. In conjunction with my government, I will work on behalf of the constituency of Mission-Kent and of every other constituency in this province to get access to post-secondary education, skills training and apprenticeship programs. I'm proud or our record of 9,100 new post-secondary spaces in this province this past year -- no noise about the lineups for spaces last September. That is something to be very proud of. We are the only province in Canada that has been able to do that. We have done it within the means of British Columbians to pay; we have done it out of respect to students and their future and the economic well-being in this province; and we have done it because it is important to the future and the economy of this province. We stand on our record.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I wish to introduce to the chamber today two people: Maria Thiessen and Jessie Blondin. Both are volunteer workers in my constituency office who give yeoman's service, and I would ask that you make them welcome to the chamber today.
J. Beattie: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: Before I begin, I want to express just how surprised I was when I walked into the chamber this morning and found such a partisan debate taking place on private members' day. It certainly sets me back.
In the chamber today is the president of the Penticton campus of the Okanagan College, Allan Markin. He was just informing me that yesterday in Penticton at the chamber of commerce a motion was passed to congratulate this government on its excellent credit rating and also its environmental rating. So I'd like the House to make Allan Markin welcome today.
PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC
A. Warnke: I want to say at the outset -- and I really want to emphasize this -- that this certainly will not be partisan. As a matter of fact, it might.... This is a private member's statement, and it reflects only my views. I suspect that by the time I'm finished probably I'll be tarred and feathered, maybe even by my own colleagues. But then, nothing else is new. But some things do need to be said sometimes and somewhere. It's only in order to put things right, as I see it, so we correct the wrong path taken that everyone is afraid to talk about, and then secondly so we can proceed in a right direction so that mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Here goes.
Essentially, there are some people in our society who actually believe that all politicians -- and that includes us as members of the Legislature -- live pretty high on the hog, with all kinds of free dinners and lunches, and getting limo'd all the time -- we're getting all kinds of money, all kinds of salaries, allowances, perks and benefits. Indeed -- what kind of triggered this -- when I heard recently that I'm receiving my pension right now, that pretty well did it for me. And I'm not even getting a pension.
At any rate, on top of that we're getting these huge offices. I've just moved out of an office that.... If you stretched your arms, you might come close to touching the walls of my office. The other Speaker, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, can touch both walls just by stretching out his arms.
R. Neufeld: That's a big office.
A. Warnke: That's a big office.
Then when I visited some of the other capitals around the country, the MPs in Ottawa, MPPs in Queen's Park in Toronto, and what not, there I saw civilized office space for themselves, office staff for each member and office equipment that actually works. We have one xerox machine in our precinct that keeps on breaking down; it's no darned wonder we can't get our stuff out. "RIP" and "Dead" -- signs like that appear on our xerox machine. Overall, I noticed that in other precincts, people are pretty well looked after.
Then I take a look at ourselves when I come back to Victoria, and I really want to say this for the benefit of those who in their glamorous imaginations sometimes think this is a wonderful place. When I take a look around and compare ourselves to other public domains, I would say we've got to be about the cheapest gyppo outfit in the whole, entire country. The copiers are broken, and we've got only one fax machine for the entire precinct instead of one for each member, and so forth.
On top of that, we are our own worst enemy, of course. The government has frozen the salaries of MLAs, such as they are, and they will remain so for some time. To be fair -- to be non-partisan, hon. Speaker -- we on this side are committed to revamping benefits and pensions, as if they are something fantastic. Gold-plated they're certainly not. And the perks? I'd like to see a perk one of these days, but at any rate....
But it's all part of British Columbia, of course. British Columbia has this whole political history of being the politics of protest and being against patronage, and so it should be. I
[ Page 14584 ]
recall that a couple of years ago there was a reference to a rather elaborate package -- and I don't want to be partisan -- given to a public bureaucrat here. I remember being chastised in the hallway by someone from the opposite side: "What the heck are you complaining about? Look, you shouldn't complain about these people. Look at Mario Lemieux; look at all the millions he's making." As far as I'm concerned, what Mario Lemieux and all those other hockey, baseball and football players and what not sometimes make is unconscionable. They're the guys making the millions; they're the guys getting the perks. As a matter of fact, in terms of being overfed and oversexed, I think the entire sports industry is something worthy of being looked at, if you want to pursue that.
But there was one Premier in this province, Premier John Oliver, who attacked patronage, and he straightened out the whole business.
But I also want to talk a little bit -- just a touch -- about the so-called private ethic. The private ethic: "Oh, we know how to be austere. We know how to discipline ourselves. We know how to tell the public sector, and especially those politicians, how they should behave." You take a look at people in private industry, especially in the corporations -- and I know a little bit about the oil patch industry and I know a little bit about the aerospace industry and the corporations attached to that. You talk about perks! You talk about tax write-offs! You talk about having condominiums in Miami, Florida and Arizona! You talk about free gas! Of course, there's a lot of gas expressed by the corporate community. But you talk about perks and benefits and salaries! Oh, but the free market -- of course, the consumer pays for that. You bet the consumer pays for it! The consumer is getting ripped off, too. What kind of a model...?
Here, MLA salaries are frozen. You tell me where that's had an effect on the public bureaucracy. You tell me where that's had one iota of an effect on the private industry -- that you should tighten your belts. It hasn't had an effect at all. This doesn't mean to say.... One politician in Ottawa, unfortunately, said that we should have salaries in the public sector equivalent to those in the private sector. I would say: don't look at the private sector. The private sector doesn't provide a model, because it is aimed at ripping off the consumer. At the same time, don't assume that we're in the position, as politicians, that the only reason we are in there is somehow to suck the public taxpayer dry. We're not in this.... To be very honest with you, as I take a look around at the politicians, that's not the motivation.
[10:30]
Deputy Speaker: I suspect we might have had all-party consent to allow the member to continue, but I'll now recognize the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
D. Schreck: It was with some regret that I missed the annual press party last night, and if the member's statements this morning are a continuation of the good humour that was shown there, I know just what I missed.
But there is a serious side that has to be taken to what the member had to say. There are two elements to what's viewed as compensation for members in this assembly: one is what is provided by way of allowances to run our office, and the other is what's provided by way of compensation, in terms of either income or reimbursement for our expenses. The member made light of how criticism is directed at both forms of those compensations. But there is a serious side to it, to the extent that despite the fact that we are compensated at lower levels than most other provincial representatives in this country, we are compensated at levels that are considerably higher than the average worker in this province. And we always have to keep in mind what a privilege it is to be here. While we receive that privilege of being here, unlike those we represent, many of us will leave this office at some point in our fifties with an interrupted career to which we cannot return, essentially having to start over again. There's a difference, in terms of where you come from, as to whether that is a sacrifice or not.
When we look at former Premiers, in testimony during his trouble with the sale of stocks, I'm told that former Premier Bennett reported an income in excess of $20,000 a month, much of it coming from positions such as corporate directorships. If you turn to former Premier Barrett, he's not on a board or a director of any corporation.
What's the message here? The message is that if you are well connected, the old boys will look after you. If you're on the wrong side of the tracks and you spend your life working for people, when you leave here you have nowhere to turn to. It is to the disadvantage of the British Columbian public if we create a Legislature where the only people who can afford to be here are those whose buddies will look after them the day after they leave. If that's the type of Legislature the people of British Columbia want, that's what we will get if we allow the right wing to continually drive down the standards.
While I respect the good humour of the member for Richmond-Steveston, I can say that other members of the opposition -- sitting on LAMC, where we make this decision -- are in a headlong race to cater to the British Columbia Taxpayers' Association to drive standards down so that only those who are well connected to the old boy network can afford to represent people in this chamber. I can tell you that when we reach the day when only those who are beholden to the rich can afford to represent constituents in this chamber, it is only the rich who will be represented -- and that is a shame.
A. Warnke: I guess that pretty well dampens any humour on that one. But the fact is that occasionally I hear a concern expressed by the public because of a certain impression, but I would say not by the public generally. My experience has been -- and I'm sure this has been the experience of other members as well -- that when you meet members of the public, who are darned decent people....
As a matter of fact, former baseball manager Whitey Herzog said that there are two kinds of people: 95 percent of the people are decent folk, and the other 5 percent.... Well, it's expletive deleted. But the fact is that there is a small core of people who say one thing, and a large number of people who have said: "You know, we really do appreciate what public service means, what you guys and gals are doing" -- what you folks are doing, to borrow a line from one of the members -- "and all the rest of it." But there is a small group, I would say, that says.... I heard one phrase especially: "The only political system that's going to work is if you have anarchy. Those politicians are no good. What we should have is an anarchy run by a benevolent dictator."
Doggone it, that is repugnant. As I see a sort of new ethos develop, I think what we have to be very careful about is
[ Page 14585 ]
making sure that that kind of sentiment is somehow not expressed in this chamber and in our democracy. In the last analysis, I want to warn members, as legislators, to always, always -- especially in this chamber -- be vigilant about the executive. Always be vigilant about that. The executive, if allowed, will try to undermine the rights and the role of legislators in our democracy. Don't take any guff from them.
CHOOSING THE BEST PATH TO ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
L. Krog: I am delighted to rise this morning in private members' statements and talk about what I call "Choosing the Best Path to Economic Prosperity." What is remarkable is that after decades of political development in this country, the issues, frankly, still resolve down to some fairly basic ones when you talk about the role of government in our economy.
In the 1930s when this country was struggling through the worst Depression it had ever seen, our friends to the south, who were going through an equally terrible Depression, started to climb out -- and climb out very quickly. They got out of their Depression fast not because of the onset of the Second World War, but because a farsighted president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, decided there was a role for government in the economy, in terms of getting the United States out of a recession. We in this country continued with Conservative economic policies under R.B. Bennett, and the Depression in this country was longer, harder, deeper and more devastating to our economy.
Government does have a role to play in economic prosperity. It is clear from history that if government spends itself into the ground, that's bad. That won't help the economy; it will destroy the creditworthiness of the nation as a whole, and there will be no investment, no confidence and no prosperity. We are not in that position in British Columbia. We are not some victim of the International Monetary Fund. We are not an economy with unskilled workers and no educational system or democratic processes in place; we are the most prosperous province in a prosperous and democratic country. What we have to do is ensure that the role of government remains one that allows for that continued economic growth and prosperity, and allows young people to continue to get a good education so that they can maintain the economic advantages that we enjoy in this country.
The government in this province is in the process of spending over $200 million on skills training and post-secondary education. I had the privilege and the honour to attend a gathering a couple of weeks ago in my riding. I listened to two young people from high school who were already out in the workforce and were getting some valuable experience. They were talking about planning their careers and the roles they would have in the future economy. They were positive; they were enthusiastic. Their teachers told me that the students who started in that program and the students who were coming out of it are far different people. They have gained a level of self-esteem and confidence that they didn't have before. That is occurring because the government is putting money into education and into a process that will ensure that our young people get experience in the workplace.
Earlier this morning, the member for Mission-Kent talked about a very important issue, and that's federal cutbacks in post-secondary training. What the Leader of the Opposition said earlier this year in response to the federal budget was that the cuts didn't go far enough. Those young people that I saw -- filled with confidence and getting the benefit of experience -- are the future of our province. The future of our province is dependent on government ensuring that our education system remains strong -- indeed, that we improve upon it. That means building new schools, as well. Building new schools requires capital expenditure.
But what have we heard from the opposition and other parties and the conservative element in our province?
F. Gingell: Tut-tut, partisan.
L. Krog: Partisan. I'll say the conservative elements in our province; I won't even use the term "liberal." The conservative elements in our province are saying that we've got to cut government spending; we're incurring too much debt. But the debt is being incurred in order to build schools, and those schools are crucial to our economic prosperity.
What advantages does Canada have as a nation? What advantages does British Columbia have? Our advantage is our highly skilled workforce. In a growing and competitive world, it's even more essential that we maintain that, and we cannot maintain that without investment. Jobs are created through investment; jobs are enhanced through investment.
If you cut, you inevitably impact on the economy. Just yesterday the Conference Board of Canada indicated that higher interest rates and government spending cuts are adding to slower growth nearly everywhere. That's offsetting strong exports, which are the mainstay of our economic recovery so far. What two provinces will enjoy the highest economic growth both this year and next, according to the Conference Board of Canada? Not surprisingly, they are first, the province of Ontario, which will see growth this year of 4.5 percent and 3.6 percent next year; and then British Columbia, with 3.8 percent this year and 3.6 percent next year.
In an entirely non-partisan comment, I'll make reference to the province of Alberta. After all, I think that's fairly non-partisan. The great province of Alberta, which is priding itself on cutting government spending, will see economic growth at 2.7 percent this year and 2.9 percent next -- well behind British Columbia and Ontario.
There are examples from the previous decade of the role of governments in economies. We have only to look to the United States and Great Britain. Both pursued vigorous tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. And what do the numbers tell us today? They tell us that the disparity between the poor and the rich in both of those nations is now at the highest level since the Great Depression. The trickle-down theory has more to do with bathrooms than it has to do with economic development.
An Hon. Member: Two-storey outhouses.
L. Krog: My friend suggested two-storey outhouses, reflecting the great wit that he is always known for.
The fact is that only if government plays its appropriate role in the economy will you maintain economic prosperity. This province has been creating the highest level of jobs in this country for the past five years, and government in this province has played its role. Some have suggested....
Hon. Speaker, I see my time is up. I'll take my seat.
[ Page 14586 ]
[10:45]
F. Gingell: There are two or three things I would like to say. First of all, do not treat economic projections as gospel; they are only projections. That's all they are.
I heard the member stating that because the Conference Board says we're going to have the second-highest growth in the country, that's going to happen. The Conference Board of Canada's recent projections were of great interest, because they were completely different from everybody else's -- even this government's projections that were used in the preparation of this budget. The famous old statement "figures can lie and liars can figure" is true. These are just tools for trying to work out what the future holds in store for us. One thing that one discovers as one gets older is that they're usually wrong. If we were able to see the future, we'd all have retired to warm and sunny climes many years ago.
What is the role of government in creating economic growth? On all sides of the House we know that the most important thing for the people of this province is to have good, well-paying jobs and that families have the incomes that allow them to buy the resources they need to live good lives. If governments think about that and recognize that government itself is not the creator of wealth -- it is only the spender of wealth -- they will recognize that they must create an environment that encourages good job creation. Have we been doing that? Has this government been doing that? The first thing I would do if I were government is get rid of the corporate capital tax.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: The member may well say that's just a gift to the rich, but it isn't. The corporate capital tax is an assessment that is made on investment. If you want to create a new business and create jobs, and you go to the bank to borrow some money, buy some machinery and set up a factory, the first thing that happens before you turn a wheel or make a nickel is that they tax you on it.
If you were an international corporation that wanted to create a business in a good location that had access to the North American market -- to the free trade areas that exist between Mexico, U.S. and Canada -- and you wanted to have access to the Pacific Rim, Vancouver or British Columbia, the Island is wonderful location. Compared to others, we have good health care and good education. Our streets are safer, and our environment is better. It's a beautiful place to live. But in the end you are going to make those decisions based on rates of return. If the first thing that happens when you come here is that you're going to get taxed on the amount of money that you invest and that doesn't happen to you in Washington or Oregon or Alberta, then draw your own conclusions.
It's all very well to talk about the issues of building infrastructure and building schools. This government seems to suggest that their role isn't to make choices or decisions about how the resources should be spent. You just add on and add on and add on, and you incur more and more debt. We all know that the futures of our children and our heirs and our grandchildren will be mortgaged if we continue to borrow at the same rate that we have been. The federal government, which has been far, far worse and have the country in a far worse situation, clearly has to make choices about the way it will restrict its spending and its borrowing. Clearly that has to be shared. We are all Canadian taxpayers, as well as British Columbian taxpayers, and we should think about these issues.
Deputy Speaker: I now call on the member for Parksville-Qualicum to conclude.
L. Krog: I'm thrilled to hear the member for Delta South talk about good, well-paying jobs. That is an entirely non-partisan statement, and I agree with him completely. Therefore I find it somewhat surprising that the leader of the Liberal Party is insisting on rolling back civil service wages, especially given that the Business Council report indicates that the growth in public employees' raises is now much smaller than that of the private sector.
Good-paying jobs are indeed the best social policy, but in order to create good-paying jobs you have to help the economy along. The average weekly earnings percentage change in the last 12 months indicates that for Canada it's a little below 2 percent; for British Columbia it is nearly 3.5 percent; and for the province of Alberta it is below 0.5 percent. British Columbia is leading the country in terms of increases in average weekly earnings. What that translates into is that the car dealers in my constituency, the grocers, the clothing sales people and all those people who sell goods and services to the public are now going to see their business improve, because people actually have some money to spend.
The member for Delta South talked about the corporate capital tax. He's quite right, it does attack capital. It attacks capital, though, subject to a fairly nice little loophole at the bottom for small businesses in this province, who are the real generators of economic growth. The suggestion from the Liberal Party is that in their first budget they would eliminate the corporate capital tax, which generated revenue of $347 million in 1994-95. They will take school taxes off property. The total that they would take out of taxation is $1.5 billion, based on last year's budget.
Now, that will have an impact. It will mean these kinds of reductions. You will not be able to finance Skills Now training. You will not be able to build roads into areas that need them. You will not be able to provide the basic infrastructure to maintain the economy. You will not be able to build new ferries to service a growing population. You will not be able to build new schools to service the incredible increase in population brought about because of our economic record. This province has consistently created more jobs than any other in the last year: 67,000 new jobs in British Columbia last year, the highest in Canada. That is the role of government in the economy. Through its economic policy in investing in infrastructure, this government has maintained consumer and investment confidence, and that is the role of government in the economy.
D. Jarvis: I'd like leave to introduce a guest.
Leave granted.
D. Jarvis: On behalf of my associate from Langley, I'd like to introduce 31 students and their teacher, Mr. Luongo, from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley, who are touring the precincts -- if they are around.
Deputy Speaker: For our last statement, I call upon the member for Richmond East.
[ Page 14587 ]
HEAD-INJURED YOUNG PEOPLE
L. Reid: I ask this morning that members in this chamber picture a 12-year-old boy on a bicycle, as 12-year-olds are wont to do. Picture this same 12-year-old being struck down by a hit-and-run driver, whose van came up on the sidewalk to run down this little guy -- an intelligent, caring, all-round neat 12-year-old. Feel the anguish of this family, who taught their son every appropriate safety measure and every possible precaution there was. Feel their anguish when they learned that their son had been mown down by a hit-and-run driver.
Elliot Murphy today is a 14-year-old boy who has been in a coma since this accident on August 20, 1993. This little guy has been in a coma for 21 months. The Murphys, like many other families in this province, are seeking appropriate care for their head-injured family member.
The message I need to convey today is that this is a family and that government structures have not always been supportive of families. As an example, this family for 18 months has had the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia quoting rules and regulations as to why they couldn't provide counselling services to the family but only to the victim -- why they couldn't be there for the family. That response lacks some humanity. When families have tragedies such as this, the humanity must be there for them. That is what we all believe we are doing in government: putting in place some reasonable structures that can support individuals.
What happens to families when a tragedy such as this strikes? They're devastated, amazed, frustrated, disappointed -- a whole range of emotions. They've become tremendous advocates for their head-injured family member.
But who looks out for the moms and dads? Who recognizes their commitment? Who offers them support? Certainly their families, community members and friends. But I will make the case today that the government needs to be there to support them in these times and not to simply frustrate them. This is a family issue. There must be a place which can meet the needs of severely neurologically impaired patients and their families.
Mr. and Mrs. Murphy are the parents of two sons, and as parents they need to be cherished. They have huge roles in the lives of both their sons. In Elliot's case, they trust that this government will put in place some appropriate choices and a care model that allows similarly aged peers to receive service in a homelike setting. There are head-injured young people in geriatric wards in this province. Picture your 12- or 15-year-old son or daughter in a room with 80- and 90-year-olds. Then visualize taking your children and spouse to a facility where your family member is with similarly aged peers. They're two very different scenarios. One, I submit today, looks out for the family, and one simply exposes them to a whole range of other activities that are not about their family and not about their son or daughter.
I will make the case that it has to be seen as a package. I welcome the minister's interest in a subacute facility for British Columbia. I believe it's time to provide a new approach to caring for individuals who have been injured. Today many, many young people in this province are looking for a place that would certainly provide them with care and security but also provide their families with the same comfort zone, if you will.
So again, what I'm looking for, and what I trust we can all pull together and find in this province, is some commitment to a setting where there is a place for patients, but there is also a place for families -- a demonstrated package.
Again, I mentioned the minister's interest in subacute care facilities. The definition of a subacute care facility is a place, a setting, that merges the aesthetics of a residential environment with the support of a comprehensive health care facility. Elliot has been treated both at Children's Hospital and at Sunny Hill Hospital for Children. The mandate of Sunny Hill Hospital for Children is changing from a residential facility to a transitional facility. This poses many challenges, but it poses many opportunities.
J. Beattie: It is of interest to me today to rise on this matter. I have been intimately involved with the head-injury group in the Okanagan Valley. In fact, just three weeks ago I attended a conference that was sponsored by the provincial government. They paid $15,000 to bring head-injured people from all over British Columbia to talk about how they can organize themselves to serve the families and the injured persons. They have experienced what is really, as the member says, a tragedy for a family -- an undeniable tragedy.
[11:00]
If we consider head-injured people and our relationship to them, and if we look deeply at our relationships and our friends, we'll find that we've all been impacted by people who have been head-injured. These are some of the most difficult injuries to deal with. Often you have an individual who is quite able to appear normal, but the damage is deep. It's something that is often very painful for a family to deal with.
As I mentioned, the province is very concerned about how we can serve the needs of the patients and of the families of head-injured individuals. The $15,000 that was given to organize this conference was a very significant starting place. Not only did we provide the funding for this organizational conference, but we also had ministry officials there to speak to them, to help them to know what services are available and to help them to identify, as the member thinks is important, the holes in the net where people fall through.
Just about four weeks ago, the province announced $2 million in funding for the purchase of a magnetic resonance imaging machine that will travel between Prince George, Kamloops and Kelowna. This is exactly the machine that head-injured people and their families need in order to receive quick diagnoses. In injuries like this, diagnosis is of the essence. With this new machine travelling throughout the province, there will be two machines, so citizens can receive this quick diagnosis. Not only is this mobile machine bringing this high technology closer to the people of British Columbia, but the whole process of regionalization is a benefit to those individuals in the interior of the province and in other areas -- indeed, in all communities. The families of head-injured people and head-injured people themselves have access to local politicians who will now control the purse strings. They can have better access to funds that are being diverted towards the needs that they have.
The province funds many private and non-profit societies for the provision of services to head-injured people. Of the facilities that I know in the Okanagan, most of them have residences for the families. I know that the non-profit societies and these private businesses are very attuned to the sen-
[ Page 14588 ]
sitivities and the needs of the families of head-injured people, and we continue to fund them in the provision of those services. But there is much more to be done. I certainly don't doubt that we can improve our situation greatly.
One thing that I think is very important and that I hope this government will move on -- and I know that many of the members opposite have concerns about this issue -- is the question of helmets for people who ride bicycles. This is an initiative whose time has come. I hope we'll see a groundswell of support for this type of initiative in the near future, because I know that we get pressured often to address this outstanding issue.
I have an incredible amount of sympathy for those people who have been inflicted with head injuries, and I have a great deal of empathy for the tragedy that the families of these people experience. I'm glad that the hon. member opposite, the critic for the Ministry of Health, is speaking for a holistic approach. I think she can rest assured that the Minister of Health -- and she has had discussions with him -- is extremely cognizant of and sensitive to the outstanding needs of these people in our communities.
L. Reid: I thank most sincerely the member opposite for his comments. As he has stated, this is a very complex issue, and it does require a holistic approach. We are looking at individuals, given that medical science has progressed to the extent that it has, who will live for many, many years. I think the goal for all of us is seeing them receive care in a stimulating environment within a comprehensive program. The ministry is in receipt of a proposal by the Meridian Neurocare Centre to develop a proprietary post-acute rehabilitation and residential resource in British Columbia.
On the member opposite's comments about the minister and I having had these discussions, yes, we certainly have, and we will continue to advance this issue. I might note for the record the minister's response, because I too believe that he is tremendously supportive. The letter is addressed to myself:
"I appreciate your note of support to ensure that our response to the post-acute requirements of individuals such as Elliot be compassionate, cost-effective and appropriate to the age of that population. I have directed Ministry of Health staff to be in contact with those individuals who have brought forward a proposal for the development of a resource by a proprietary organization so that we can better understand the implications from both a cost aspect as well as consistency with British Columbia's programming objectives for individuals with significant rehabilitation and support requirements."
I welcome the minister's comments, and I applaud the minister's interest. To have a concerted team effort will allow us to make some very, very fine choices for British Columbians. As stated, I will continue to advance this issue. In closing, I will simply say that I have been absolutely privileged to meet the Murphy family, and I trust that this government will respond favourably to their needs.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. That concludes private members' statements.
L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Reid: Today in the precincts we have a group of students from Garden City Elementary School accompanied by Mr. R. Avery. Certainly Garden City is a very, very fine school in the riding of Richmond East, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section B for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; N. Lortie in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165 (continued).
M. de Jong: One of the areas that I explored with the Minister of Health several days ago related to the home-care issue. The minister is likely aware of the significant amendments and changes that have taken place insofar as the categorization and assessment of aged, disabled individuals who qualify for home care. The long and the short of it is that insofar as a homemaker service is concerned -- and the Minister of Health defines that as anything that doesn't involve personalized hygienic care or personal medical care -- his ministry is getting out of that business.
I won't have to tell the minister that that can have very catastrophic effects for the individuals affected, and they tend to be people that are very ill-equipped insofar as seeking attention and making their feelings known to government. If the Ministry of Health is getting out of that service, the indication was that perhaps the responsibilities for some of these services would be transferred to the Ministry of Social Services. I wonder if the minister has information in that regard that she can offer to me and to the people whose services and lifestyles have been affected.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me provide the response in terms of what our ministry does provide. We provide time-limited homemaker care only on an income-tested basis. It's for services related to child protection and family support and, in some cases, through the income assistance system. But they are really different services provided.
Sorry, hon. Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity to introduce staff that weren't here last time. Lyn Tait, behind me, is the assistant deputy minister of income support programs; and John Pickering, on this side, is the director of financial planning. Of course, my deputy minister and ADM of field operations were with us last time.
M. de Jong: Many of the people who have been affected by the Ministry of Health decisions insofar as the reassessments and the withdrawal of service are concerned are on fixed incomes and are recipients of social assistance. The question that they have is: will there be a reassessment that will allow them to fall within the family support service that this ministry offers, or are they being left totally to their own devices? To put it bluntly, they probably don't care which ministry is responsible; what they know is that they were
[ Page 14589 ]
provided with a service last week, and they're not being provided with that service now. Has there been any work between the ministries with a view to bridging their situations?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are ongoing discussions between my ministry and the Ministry of Health about the potential impact on people on social assistance, but I can reassure the member opposite that there are no cuts in the budget in my ministry.
M. de Jong: I appreciate what the minister has said. Probably implicit in my question is a suggestion that this ministry would necessarily be looking at some manner of expanded role. I'm not naive enough to think that if one ministry is passing responsibility on to another ministry that that won't have implications for the Ministry of Social Services' budget. I'm just wondering.... People need some assurance that they're not going to be left twisting in the wind, and that is what they are being told right now. I can alert the minister, and I think that's part of the function of these debates in estimates. I come for information, but hopefully I can provide some to her as well. Many of these individuals are on fixed incomes and in receipt of social assistance, and they are being told that the Ministry of Health is getting out of the home-care business insofar as it relates to cleaning and that sort of thing.
When they ask what options are available to them, they're really being told that they're going to be left to their own devices. If there are programs within the Ministry of Social Services that they might qualify for, then it behooves the Ministry of Health officials to make them aware of those, and they are not doing that at the moment. The people are not being made aware that they may qualify for attention or assistance within the parameters of a different ministry. It might be obvious to the minister and to me, but these are people for whom travelling through the quagmire of government bureaucracy is not particularly easy. I wonder if the minister can point out whether she sees an expanded role within some of the existing programs in her ministry.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Our budget remains constant and is not being expanded in any way because of effects of other ministries' activities. The amount of $4.3 million was allocated for family and child services support and homemaker support, $2.4 million for special needs -- basically, family members with mental handicaps -- and $2.5 million for income assistance, with an increase in this year's budget of $900,000 to those allocations, for a total of $10.1 million for this year. However, the allocations remain for the same services to the same clientele.
[11:15]
M. de Jong: If I can ask the minister to confirm this, the message then is that these people who are being told by the Ministry of Health that they no longer qualify for support can't look to the Social Services minister. That's what the message would appear to be. If there are other options, they had best find them, but they don't lie within the Ministry of Social Services.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We have criteria for eligibility, and the criteria are constant. We'll explain that to anyone who comes to us. According to our criteria, if people are eligible, they're eligible, and they will receive the services available.
M. de Jong: The minister has already indicated that part of the eligibility relates to financial means. I wonder if she can briefly indicate, within the services that her ministry offers insofar as family or homemaker support is concerned, what the criteria would be for an individual.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In the area of family and child services, it's for family support within the home, based on a family where the child needs extra support to avoid being removed from the home, and family support services such as in-home parenting or homemaker's skills being taught, etc. There is an income test as well, which is based on GAIN rates -- welfare rates -- plus a specific add-on amount that's minimal.
In the area of special needs, it's for families with children or adult children with severe disabilities. It's for the cost of respite services, mainly for the caregiver, and in the area of income assistance, it's usually provision.... Again, people are already on welfare, where there are special added needs after some sort of health care crisis -- coming out of hospital or whatever -- where there's care needed in the home.
M. de Jong: Leaving aside the budgetary constraints that the minister has to contend with every day, not to mention the challenges she faces from the opposition benches on a daily basis, is this an area -- when we speak of offering home support such as cleaning and that homemaker service -- in which she believes the ministry has a role to play? And again I've attached the caveat that I realize there may be budgetary constraints that prevent her from taking action she would otherwise wish to take. But is that an area in which she believes the ministry does have a role to play?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me repeat that the services that we provide are either practical day help in times of special need or educational training in the area of home services.
M. de Jong: I am aware of several programs the ministry offers, or did offer, within that broader umbrella of family support. One of the programs that I was aware of locally is the Nobody's Perfect program. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether that program continues, and provide some details regarding budgetary allocations and personnel allocations applicable to that program.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I agree that this is one of our excellent.... We have a range of excellent programs, but this is very well received. I use the term "popular" in its broadest sense. It's popular with the community and with the parents who receive it. The program continues. It has a provincewide advisory committee, and indeed the allocation of funds continues. Last year we spent $266,275, and that -- at least, at that level -- will continue.
M. de Jong: As I understand it, that is a program offered in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. I believe there is also some federal involvement. Can the minister provide further details regarding the contributions from those two other sources?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The federal government is not involved in this, but the Ministry of Health is involved with
[ Page 14590 ]
us. And then the community, of course, is actively involved in designing and delivering the program as well. But it's a shared responsibility.
M. de Jong: My comments are based on my recollection of documents from the ministry that I read, when I suggested that the federal government might be involved. That may have changed, and maybe the minister could clarify whether that is something that was formerly the case and has now changed.
But I wonder if the minister can put on the record.... As I understand it, the program is designed to provide a parenting support mechanism, I think most particularly for younger parents, although I'm not absolutely certain about that. If she can indicate what, in her mind, the objective of this program is....
One of the things that I have tried to do through some of the estimates debates that I have participated in is ask the various ministries, when we talk about these programs, to provide an indication of how they are measuring the success of the programs that are in place. I suppose it is trite to say that if a young couple or a young parent has been offered support, that in and of itself is success. But the program obviously arose because of a perceived need; because it was thought to be a good idea. I wonder if the minister can also indicate whether she thinks the objectives are being met and how she comes to that conclusion -- how she can conclude that the Nobody's Perfect program is actually deriving a benefit for someone or meeting the objectives that she has set for it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Nobody's Perfect is a parent-training program that provides a range of support, depending on the community in which the program is developed. There are parent skills and techniques in child management, how you communicate in your family and household management, so that young parents, new parents or parents with limited resources can develop a well-functioning family that meets the needs of their children.
In my community, for instance, the Nobody's Perfect program is delivered on a multicultural basis. Many new Canadians, or immigrants who are not yet Canadian -- refugees -- arrive and not only are they having trouble adjusting in their daily lives, but there are whole new issues facing them as parents as well. The program is extremely effective on that basis. There are younger parents, true. But even older parents, if they are poor, need support in coping and training mechanisms as well.
The evaluation is done on an individual basis of the person participating in the program. Did the person get what he or she needs out of the program? Can the person now better function in his or her own family? Are the children well served by it? So the individual evaluation occurs, and either there is an assessment to continue or the family has successfully completed the program. M. de Jong: A similar program that I was recently made aware of is the support for young parents. I think it is a specific program earmarked for young parents. So that the minister knows where I'm going, I have a question about the financial resources and personnel resources that have been allocated to that program, and then I'll ask a similar question. How has she determined whether or not that program has been successful? I am aware of young parents who have benefited by their involvement with the program, but on a overall basis -- on a more macro basis -- there are probably some indicators in any community, such as the incidence of child abuse or the incidence of criminal charges being laid within the family setting.... These are indicators and measurements that the minister could perhaps point to, to tell British Columbians that we are spending this money, this is our objective, this is how we think we are meeting our objective, and these are the indicators that support us in drawing that conclusion.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can give a range of information to you, and we can explore issues further based on that information. In our family support services, we spend about $58 million in supporting families. Of that amount of money, about $4.69 million -- in last year's budget anyway, and that will continue at least this year -- went to support for young parents. So that's the amount of money allocated.
In terms of the general evaluation of the success of investment of tax dollars into these programs, there's evaluation on several fronts. I have in front of me a book that we call the program inventory and evaluation framework, and that's an ongoing program of our ministry with specific staff functions to evaluate the success or failure of the investment, to make recommendations on change: what should continue or not continue, what should be enhanced, or what should be changed. So that is a function. There is a specific function within the ministry to do that kind of evaluation.
But more recently as well, our government, through broad agreement across the social policy ministries, including Health, Women's Equality, the Attorney General and my own ministry, has issued Treasury Board guidelines that talk about how to tender contracts, how to put forward contracts and how to standardize contracts for services, and also a retendering process and evaluation process.
[11:30]
M. de Jong: With respect to the support program available to young parents, I wonder if the minister can provide me with some information regarding the manner in which referrals are made. I should tell her that my interest lies in whether or not adequate liaison is taking place between, for example, the Ministry of Attorney General, which would be involved in the family court setting, where we tend to see the tragic side of young families gone awry.... Just how are these people finding their way into the program? My suspicion is that we can probably be doing more to channel people from that extreme end, where they are in difficulty, into these programs when they need them, and given that these programs are available.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the point is well taken that the responsibility for our children, and particularly our young adults, is spread throughout several institutions; there's no question about that. We have taken it very seriously to try to coordinate those services we have in place. The child and youth secretariat -- which is a cross-government secretariat of deputy ministers responsible specifically for services to children and youth -- meets regularly.
But more importantly, at the local level there are child and youth committees -- CYCs they're called -- where all of the
[ Page 14591 ]
caregivers, the children and the youth themselves come together. Not necessarily just provincial government representatives, but civic and community and federal as well, come together to discuss the issues within their own community. In many communities they actually talk about particular cases and handling of individual situations as well. But more importantly, what it does is put everybody in touch with the services available outside of their own office and their own group home or their own school. So there is a very strong network developing at the local level. I think we have something like 130-odd child and youth committees operating throughout the province now, to do exactly what you suggest should be done, and I agree with you.
M. de Jong: I appreciate the comments the minister has made. I guess I will submit to her that the system isn't working quite as well as perhaps we both hope it would. I say that on the basis of when I was practising in the family law field a year ago. Invariably, a situation would develop where a young couple would appear in court, with all the acrimony and difficulties for the child that that entails, and up to that point there had been no intervention or involvement by the very personnel that would presumably be involved in some of these programs like the one we are discussing now. Even at that point, there would be no direct referral to this type of counselling; the referral would be to a probation office. I always found it quite disturbing that young families that had run into difficulty would be referred to a probation officer.
So I don't think the link is quite as direct or working quite as well as I'm sure the minister and I would like to think it is.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It certainly is an evolving process, there's no question. Successes continue to grow, but there is a lot more to be done. Basically, what the member opposite is talking about is integrating services so that they are most meaningful, cost-effective and efficient, and so that at the end of the day, they assist families, children and youth.
Let me talk to you about a couple of programs that have evolved over the course of the last couple of years to achieve what the member says needs to be achieved. First of all, we have the family justice centre pilot projects in four communities throughout the province to deal with exactly the kinds of situations that you talk about: matters arising out of custody and access for children, and family law matters. But at the same time, my ministry has issues of maintenance payments, poverty and child protection. No, sorry. Child protection issues aren't included yet. We have co-located in some offices already; they're called family justice centres. In some cases the services are actually integrated. They're working; certainly much more needs to be done.
There is sometimes a conflict between Family Relations Act matters -- as I'm sure the member opposite is well aware, from his previous life -- and issues around maintenance. In many circumstances it's important to mediate the custody and access issues, but at the end of the day, maintenance payments have to be ordered and advocated on behalf of the children. We have some other projects, too. Going ahead to integrated projects, the Kids At Risk initiative, announced last year, is an initiative put forward by the Ministry of Attorney General, my ministry and the Ministry of Education that deals with the school as a centre of services for children.
You're right: many issues around law enforcement affect our children. Probation officers need access to the children quickly, at the school site. Social workers need access to the children in order to maintain protection for the children, and of course there is no better place to do that than in the school, where children feel safe. The schools in pilot project areas are opening up their doors, to have those services delivered to children right on site. There are 12 pilot projects underway in British Columbia right now, and they are proving to be very effective.
Just at the bureaucratic level, the provincial public service level, we're moving to integrate our services even further. Last year I was at a Westbank integrated services office. Since last year, there has been a development of a downtown Kelowna integrated services office, and a Rutland integrated services office. This is where my ministry social workers work out of the same office, literally. Mental health services, alcohol and drug programs, and school district representatives are on site as well. Probation works very closely with the office, as well. It's surprising how, when the service deliverers all have to work out of the same office, they quickly come to understand that their clients are often the same, across their responsibilities. We also have a Powell River integrated services. There's downtown outreach services in Victoria; that's a joint initiative between the mental health division of the Ministry of Health and my ministry. There's a very successful initiative that's been established for a long time; in fact, my assistant deputy minister of field operations worked in this integrated service -- it's called Car 86 and Car 87 -- in Vancouver. It actually provides after-hours, coordinated services between my ministry and the Vancouver police when children are at risk.
M. de Jong: The minister has indicated her belief in the importance of pursuing this concept of integrated service. It won't surprise her to know that, in the public's view at least, there is a perception that some of that integration could be pursued with more vigour within the ministry as well. When we have programs like the homebuilders' program, for example, and some of the parent training courses.... If you ask people who have dealings with the ministry on a day-to-day basis, they will say: "While I'm told that I could qualify for this program, there's a separate application process for homebuilders' versus parent training."
That gives rise to a couple of concerns. It's fairly obvious. One is that there is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden placed on the applicant and on the individual. But it also suggests that there is a bureaucratic overlap within the ministry that ultimately ends up costing money that it shouldn't cost. Can the minister, even with reference to those particular programs, indicate what steps she is considering to eliminate that which -- in my view, at least -- presents a fairly compelling case for unnecessary bureaucratic overlap?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are certainly examples of unnecessary bureaucratic overlap, often where there is extra cost to the taxpayer in terms of duplication of administration costs, etc. Our government absolutely agrees that this needs to be ended and that programs that have been in place for years -- sometimes decades -- need to be re-evaluated. Therefore we've established a deputy ministers committee on children, youth and families, in which the integration of services to prevent waste and duplication but also to be most cost-effective in reaching the families and children who need the services has been established. I'll just list the eight ministries that are represented on that integration committee: my minis-
[ Page 14592 ]
try, which chairs; Health; Aboriginal Affairs; Women's Equality; Employment and Investment; Skills, Training and Labour; Education; and Attorney General.
M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister has at her disposal a breakdown of the cost between the homebuilders' and parent training programs within that division of her ministry, and if she might also give some indication of the FTEs that are dedicated to those respective programs.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The entire parent training budget is $5.93 million, and that includes the homebuilders' program as well. There's day care support for teen parents programs -- that's $930,000; residential living arrangements for pregnant teens and young mothers is $940,000; and family advancement workers is $5.94 million.
M. de Jong: I wonder if I can shift gears for a moment and refer the minister to some of the income support programs that the ministry is involved in. I should tell her that the document that I'm looking at is the strategic plan for '95-96, so that she knows what I'm referring to. In part 2 of that document, the ministry refers to the establishment of its new prevention and enforcement division. I would like the minister to expand upon the very brief description that appears there and, in particular, provide some detail about the budgetary allocation that has gone to the new prevention unit and about the personnel that have been assigned: whether they are new personnel to the ministry or have been transferred from other ministries or other parts of her own ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll start with the allocation -- no, let me start with giving you a description of what the new program called prevention, compliance and enforcement is. It has a goal of ensuring that there is a reduction of the incidence of fraud, error and abuse in the ministry income support program. In 1994 it had 13,224 referrals made to it. There are 95 full-time-equivalent staff who are part of the program, and I'll just outline for you the breakdown on that. All of these are.... Some of them are actually new allocations as of last year -- in this budget I can break out the new allocation from this year -- but not from other ministries. This is all being funded and allocated from within my own ministry.
There's one director and one program manager of enforcement, and there are five special investigators with two clerical support. That's the HQ operation. Then there are regional resources as well in this division. There are nine regional supervisors, nine eligibility officers, 18 assistant ministry investigators, 34 ministry investigators -- we commonly refer to them as fraud investigators -- and 16 clerical support throughout the province to the regions. It works out to about 1.8 clerical support per region.
Now the functions of this program are: the ministry investigators concentrate on criminal offenders; the assistant ministry investigators investigate referrals that will not result in criminal prosecution because of it not being cost-effective or efficient, but they pursue them to settlement and repayment; and the eligibility officers conduct enhanced eligibility reviews via projects aimed at specific aspects of the income assistance program that are susceptible to fraud or error. For instance, with eligibility for the shelter allowance portion, the eligibility officers would ensure that the system is tight and not being abused at the front of the eligibility process. Then there is the special investigation unit, which investigates complex multijurisdictional criminal offences and gathers and distributes criminal intelligence.
The cost for the program in 1993-94 was $4.2 million, and that particular program recovered $21.5 million as a result of investigations closed, payments stopped, repayment agreements taken and court-ordered restitution. The new positions that have been allocated to this from my ministry are: the director, the nine regional supervisors, the nine eligibility officers and the 18 assistant ministry investigators. Those have been added since the 1993-94 budget.
[11:45]
M. de Jong: During the course of the minister's comments, I thought I heard her refer to what I interpreted as some manner of threshold for determining when a criminal prosecution would proceed, which she related to the potential cost-effectiveness. I wonder if she can provide further information to us regarding the nature of that threshold. What criteria is applied in determining whether or not a prosecution will proceed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, working closely with us is a prosecutor, working out of Crown counsel, who deals specifically with income assistance fraud. There are two, actually. It is not we who decide how to proceed and when to proceed to court; it's the prosecutor who tells us what to proceed on.
When we find instances of fraud, it is often an amount that either the person admits to and a repayment agreement is undertaken immediately, or there are more cost-effective ways than actually proceeding to court and getting a conviction. The amount is far less than the actual criminal proceedings would recover on behalf of the taxpayer. A repayment agreement makes more sense from a cost-effective point of view. But at the end of the day, it is not we who decide how to proceed on these criminal matters; it's the Crown prosecutor.
M. de Jong: The minister and I will, I think, discuss momentarily the question of whether or not a prosecution should proceed and whether or not this should be determined completely on the basis of prospects for recovery.
I'm interested in what the minister had to say. I would have thought that the two prosecutors charged with the responsibility for proceeding on these matters would be taking instructions from a minister, to some extent -- if not the Minister of Social Services, then the Attorney General. Insofar as setting prosecutorial guidelines, that is something that the executive branch has done in the past. I would have thought that there would be a policy in place that the minister could refer us to regarding when the executive branch determines that these prosecutions should go forward. It's no different, quite frankly, than the case of spousal assaults. The Attorney General has presented a policy of zero tolerance that everyone is aware of now. If there's not a zero-tolerance policy, I presume there is some policy.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not the Attorney General. Questions around executive branch policy guidelines for prosecution are appropriate to ask of the Attorney General. I'm also not a lawyer, and I've never been to court.
Let me reassure the member opposite that a very good working relationship exists between the Crown prosecutors
[ Page 14593 ]
responsible for this area of criminal activity, and our prevention, compliance and enforcement branch. We proceed in the most cost-effective way, not only from the point of view of prosecution but also of continued prevention of any repetition of the activity. When you have 13,000 referrals, it makes a lot of sense to seek solutions that actually recover the money and prevent it from happening again.
There certainly are guidelines in place, and those guidelines are adhered to. The guidelines make sense from the point of view of taxpayer savings.
I'll just give you statistics showing how there has been an improvement in enforcement in that area. In 1994-95 there was a 48 percent increase in the convictions in this area, there was a 130 percent increase in the number of investigations completed, and there was a 25 percent increase in cases going to court.
M. de Jong: I won't quarrel at this point with the statistics, but I would submit to the hon. minister that the other aspect of this, which perhaps she is overlooking, is the question of deterrence. Yes, cost-effectiveness is significant, but one of the statistics she hasn't provided us with, of course, is the question of recovery on judgments. We've heard that there have been restitution orders made. What does the minister have to offer in terms of the incidence of recovery on those restitution orders? You could make an argument -- and I suspect -- that the recovery rate on the restitution orders is quite low. If that is going to be the measurement of when prosecution should proceed, you would never proceed. You just wouldn't, because the ultimate rate of recovery and execution on the restitution orders is so very low. Perhaps I should await the minister's response on what that rate of recovery is on restitution orders.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Deterrence is clearly a factor that we're very cognizant of. We're making great headway in having a deterring effect on people even entering our system for criminal purposes.
However, at the end of the day, one must be practical in terms of the use of the courts. That is the balance we're trying to achieve. Let me reassure the member opposite that there was a 58 percent increase in repayment agreements taken. There was an 84 percent increase in benefits actually being stopped completely.
We are putting in place a system right now and have changed the regulations to allow for continuing to have repayment agreements made when people re-enter the workforce. Also, we continue to modernize our computer systems to ensure that there is continuous tracking and continuous enforcement of repayment agreements. The figures.... I think we'll have to wait for the '96-97 estimates to get a full year's success on those increased recoupings of repayment agreements.
M. de Jong: I probably didn't phrase my question very clearly, but I'm really not talking about repayment agreements or restitution orders that might follow a criminal conviction. I'm enquiring about actual recovery. The minister knows there are a lot of maintenance orders out there that don't result in dollars flowing to the spouse who needs the money. But the minister has said that the criterion determining whether a prosecution will go forward relates to the question of recovery and financial likelihood of recovery. What I've asked is: what is the actual recovery of dollars from prosecutions? I've centred on prosecutions. We may have millions of dollars in repayment orders floating around, but what are we actually recovering?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly the member opposite is mistaken if he thought I said the criterion was recovery. It is certainly one factor in determining how to proceed on prosecution.
Let me just talk to you a bit about how we track the actual dollars recovered. We currently have a project that consists of the following: that will manage and control the accounts receivable to.... As I said earlier, in next year's estimates we will be able to give you an exact accounting. The project in place right now, an accounts receivable project, was approved in the fall of last year. In the history of the ministry, there had never been.... This is groundbreaking for this ministry, I should say. The project will provide an integrated systems approach to the management of all GAIN accounts receivable and will exactly track and have an annual figure for the actual recoveries taken.
In the meantime, though, we keep track of the debt, so to speak -- of the recovery or repayment agreements. And we pursue them.
M. de Jong: There is a factor here that we haven't addressed, and I think it's important when we deal with this manner of fraud. We have other crimes in our society that are prosecuted on a discretionary basis. But if we took the minister's argument, there would be no prosecutions, for example, for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Clearly it doesn't pay, yet it is the law, and prosecutors are obligated to proceed with those prosecutions, notwithstanding the fact that they invariably result in discharges and suspended sentences. I'm sure the minister is aware of this.
But when we deal with fraud in the area of Social Services, we are dealing with fraud of public moneys. If the state, charged with the task of overseeing the expenditures of those public moneys, has a policy or some criteria by which it is not pursuing those whom it believes have engaged in fraudulent activities, the public wants to know that. They want to know what that criteria is, because it becomes a very emotional issue for members of the public who -- and the minister has said this before -- tend to inflate the incidence of fraud. Many recipients of social assistance tend to equate, unfairly, with being fraudulent or disreputable characters. The minister has correctly pointed out in the past that is not the case. But the public's confidence in those sorts of pronouncements is going to erode very quickly if they learn that there is some standard by which people, if they are engaging in only a little bit of fraud, are getting away with it. I think the minister will find that there will be a tremendous argument that in all but very minimal cases, the defrauding of public dollars -- Social Services dollars -- should be met with some sort of criminal sanction. If that's not the policy, the people have the right to know that.
[12:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be interested to know the point of view of the member opposite's party around this matter, if he's suggesting that the court should be clogged with all
[ Page 14594 ]
manner of inconsistencies that come forward to us in the area of income assistance. It's an interesting concept. Let me try and distinguish for him the difference between criminal fraud and benefits paid out because the client gave misleading information in the first place. If, at the end of the day, he is suggesting that all of those people should be taken to court and receive a criminal record, then I guess he has established his party's policy in this area.
We are working very closely with the police in the area of criminal fraud. We are working very closely with the municipal police forces and the RCMP to deter criminal fraud, false identification and broad scams, etc. We also have another deterring effect lately that I'm sure he has noted in that illustrious Vancouver Province, where we publicly profile judicial decisions with stiff penalties for welfare fraud. The judiciary is very clear that there is a betrayal of public trust in criminal fraud. However, in areas where the clients have applied for welfare without giving all of the details, I'm not sure it makes sense from a cost-effective or deterring point of view to say -- after the person has corrected that and we have taken a repayment agreement or deducted from the income assistance cheque -- that it needs to be pursued more vigorously than that. The misleading error has been corrected and the money is being recovered.
M. de Jong: Look, all I'm asking for is what the policy is. I don't think that is an unfair question when you're dealing with public dollars. The minister's policy might make eminent sense, but before I can make that determination, I had best know what the policy is. We began the debate with that question, and the minister's response was: "It's left to the prosecutors." It is apparently not left completely to the prosecutors. There is apparently some manner of policy that she has now defined as referring to whether it was incorrect information given. She has now distinguished between fraud that relates to the original application for benefits and fraud that occurs later. That might make eminent sense, but it represents some manner of determination.
In fact, I will take exception to one thing the minister said. She distinguished it on the basis of only one of those actions being criminal fraud. When you give misleading information on an application for public dollars, that is criminal fraud too. She is saying that the ministry doesn't wish to pursue those types of criminally fraudulent activities through the courts. All right, we're getting a sense now of what the policy is, but I do take exception to the minister trying to politicize the debate, in that sense at least, when all I'm trying to do is ascertain from her what the ministry's policy on these matters is.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Point taken; I accept that. Let me give you some more information, then. I repeat again that at the end of the process, it is up to the prosecutors and the Ministry of Attorney General to decide. They make the decision on how we proceed to court. There is a Criminal Code definition of fraud that has to met, and I'm sure the member opposite, with his background, is well aware of that definition. Individual cases are assessed individually as to how to proceed, including the individual circumstances, the amount of dollars involved and the seriousness of the offence. I suspect that those criteria are widely accepted in all matters of criminal prosecution.
Let me also try to give the member opposite a sense of the kind of circumstances under which many people apply for income assistance. In many circumstances, I'm sure there's never any intent -- not a criminal intent, but certainly not even any concept of committing fraud -- when through language barriers or through being in confused and often disoriented circumstances because of changed economic circumstances, they fail to report accurately all the rather complex information that is needed in determining whether one is eligible for income assistance.
M. de Jong: I agree with the minister to this extent: the circumstance that she has just described would not be subject to prosecution, because there is no crime. There is just no intent there to defraud. The minister is right; that happens. There are language difficulties. People are often in an extremely agitated state, and they may inadvertently neglect to disclose certain information, so there's no crime and naturally there would be no prosecution. If there was a mistake made, the minister has indicated some of the ways that her ministry deals with that.
The other circumstance that we touched on that I think people will be interested to know about is what the threshold is -- and surely there are statistics that deal with this -- at which, monetarily, the prosecutors are telling her ministry that they don't intend to pursue a prosecution. All the elements of the offence are there, and it's clear that we would obtain a conviction. The intent, the act and the evidence are all there, but for purely financial reasons, we don't think it makes sense to proceed. Surely there is data available, and the ministry can alert us as to what that threshold is.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The threshold on pursuing prosecution is the definition within the Criminal Code of Canada. If this definition is met, the matter proceeds. The definition is: "Everyone who by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent needs, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security." That is the threshold. But let me just tell you that I say with a great deal of pride and accomplishment that as our government has committed more resources to actually enforcing that definition, we have met with success. I did indicate earlier that the number of cases proceeding to court is up by 25 percent, and that the number of convictions is up by 48 percent.
M. de Jong: I'm at a bit of a loss now, because we began this segment of the debate with the minister saying that not all prosecutions would proceed, on the basis that it just didn't make economic sense to do so. I agree with that; I agree that there will be circumstances where it just doesn't make economic sense, and there are other remedies available. What she has just said, in referring to the Criminal Code, is that when the elements of an offence exist, all prosecutions proceed. I can't reconcile those two positions.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just clarify, and I apologize if I'm making it confusing for you -- and that is possible. We have to distinguish between criminal fraud -- and I was referring to criminal fraud in my previous comments -- and benefits paid out just because someone was giving misleading information. All of that is encompassed in what the public perceives as fraud, which we also deal with in a very serious manner under our prevention, compliance and enforcement division. But in proceeding to court and seeking a criminal conviction, the threshold is the definition incorporated in the
[ Page 14595 ]
Criminal Code, and the test by which one meets that definition is determined by the Crown prosecutors assigned to work with us. We have already had a discussion on how we proceed to end abuse in other areas, which we talked about earlier -- abuse that may be just unintentional in terms of applying for eligibility for benefits; or where there is failure in each month to declare earnings, etc., those earnings are discovered and repayments need to be made.
M. de Jong: I fear that if I continue to pursue this line of questioning, I will be mistaken for the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, and that is not my intention.
If I present a scenario to the minister, it may be easier to distinguish the line of questioning I'm trying to present. If the ministry is confronted with an individual who, it is clear in the report from the prosecutor -- in the report to Crown counsel -- has at some point following the receipt of benefits engaged in fraudulent activity which has resulted in that person receiving benefits totalling $250 more than they were entitled to, but it's clear that all the prerequisites to the offence existed, a conviction would result -- and result in a criminal record and a restitution order for $250. My question to the minister is: is it her understanding that the prosecution would proceed, or would it be abandoned on the basis that it doesn't make economic sense to pursue it? Surely that information is available.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I take the member opposite's concern in this area, but it isn't appropriate to deal in hypothetical situations, and I won't engage in that. But I will reassure him that if the Crown prosecutor, who is experienced and able in this area, recommends proceeding, we proceed -- no question.
M. de Jong: Surely the minister has guidelines within the ministry to determine when these matters proceed, when a repayment order is sufficient, or when the ministry would prefer that there be an ultimate conviction and lodging of a criminal record. Surely those decisions don't rest with the counsel who have been seconded to her ministry, and I presume that they would look to her and her ministry for directions on these matters.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, the member is mistaken, they're not seconded to my ministry. They work out of the Crown prosecutor's office; they're Attorney General.... I don't know -- are you lawyers ever called employees? They work for the Attorney General -- free enterprise employees, I guess. Actually, no -- these are highly skilled, dedicated people. Cases are discussed and assessed with the Crown prosecutors working with us. Perhaps it's the nature of the day-after syndrome, but I'll repeat it one more time: they're assessed on particular circumstances, including individual circumstances, the amount of dollars involved and the seriousness of the offences. I'll leave it at that.
M. de Jong: I think I have probably belaboured the point as far as I wish to. I would only say to the minister that my earlier comments that in the public's mind, at least, they will want to know when people whom they believe have defrauded the public purse will be sanctioned, not just with repayment orders but by that most serious sanction of all -- that is, the lodging of a criminal record....
[12:15]
I note that there is a prior agreement, so with the minister's consent, I'll make the traditional motion that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the conclusion of a short but productive week, and some may say a fun week as well, looking at my colleagues opposite. I hope that everybody has a safe, productive weekend, and on that basis I move that the House adjourn.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:16 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]