[ Page 393 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

The Speaker: I would advise members that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, so would members please remain in their seats for just a moment.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Clerk of the House:

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

The Speaker: I call the House to order.

I. Waddell: I'd like to introduce two friends of mine who are from B.C., but they're visiting because they're working out of B.C.: first, Angus McAlister, who is working for the big, bad government there in Ontario; and also one of my former executive assistants in Ottawa, Alexander Norris, who has really gone the wrong way and is now a journalist with the Montreal Gazette. Alexander and Angus, welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, it's one of those rare occasions where somebody from my constituency comes all the way down here to visit the gallery. We have in the gallery today the Rev. Michael Hare of Knox United Church in Terrace, who, I understand, says he's here to offer me some spiritual assistance. I have absolutely no idea what he means by that, but would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery are Don and Beth Bennett. They are both teachers, and, I believe, excellent ones. They are from Surrey-Green Timbers. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I notice in the gallery today a gentleman who spent many years above you and behind you in this House, and now has left that place and has a real job. I notice Brian Kieran in the gallery and ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to join my colleague the member for Vancouver-Fraserview in welcoming Alex Norris to the chamber today. Alex is the principal reason, all of you Liberals across the way, that I'm here and elected today. Ten years ago, he worked for me.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: He doesn't live in B.C. anymore.

It's my privilege to introduce Kent Waters, who is a disc jockey at radio station CKXM, and his wife, Trish McLarty. About three months ago, I was privileged enough to be a guest disc jockey at that new country music station in Victoria. It's an excellent station, and I ask all members to make them both welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have a very good friend in the gallery today from Coquitlam. Louise Armstrong was a very important contact in the times of the Kasper report, when we were looking into manufactured homes. Because of her work, we were able to implement that report. Would the House please welcome Louise Armstrong of Coquitlam.

G. Janssen: There are a number of guests here today from Port Alberni: Christa Schiffelers, her daughter Patricia Schiffelers, Shelley Summers and Niki Reimer. Also, from Ucluelet, Mike Morton, chair of Share B.C., is with us today, along with Cara Andrews from Qualicum Beach and her friend, my son Réjean Janssen. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Speaker, visiting us from India today is Mr. Bahtt, who is here looking at some opportunities in British Columbia. Yesterday he was watching the parliamentary channel and commented to me today about how civil things were in our chamber. I told him that it was remarkably civil during question period, and I'm sure all members will prove me right. Would all members welcome Mr. Bahtt.

B. Penner: I'd like the House to please join me in extending a warm welcome to Rev. Arlee Johnson, formerly a professor at Oklahoma State University and a resident of Chilliwack for the past five years. For those past five years, Mr. Johnson has been the pastor of Sardis Community Church, of which I am a member. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I notice in the gallery my friend Barbara Barrett and another gentleman from Kaslo, Al Beix, a village councillor. I used to think he was the chairperson of Share B.C., but I'm sure that can't be true since he doesn't live on the coast or in the Alberni constituency.

[2:15]

Hon. A. Petter: I guess we start off today where we left off yesterday. I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition, who, along with his party, opposed Forest Renewal and voted against it in this House, would try to raise this kind of question at this time. This government introduced Forest Renewal to provide a long-term strategy for our forests. We remain committed to that strategy. At the same time we're undertaking a program review of all programs in government to ensure that they are meeting their objectives and meeting the expectations of taxpayers. It strikes me as a little contradictory for that party over there, which voted to a person against Forest Renewal, to now stand up and question this government's commitment.

[ Page 394 ]

G. Campbell: We opposed Forest Renewal for exactly that reason. We knew that this government and this minister could not be counted on to keep their word. When asked about the government dipping into Forest Renewal funds, during the debate the Deputy Premier said: "You wouldn't dare." There won't be a politician next week, next month, next year or 20 years from now who will dare to put their hands in the pockets of Forest Renewal for this money. It's time for someone on that side of the House to stand up for the commitments they have made.

Will the Deputy Premier stand up today and dare to tell the Minister of Finance that he will not, cannot and must not dip into Forest Renewal money to make up for this Finance minister's mismanagement of the budget?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'll repeat what my colleague the Minister of Finance had to say in response to the first question. We're dealing with an opposition that fundamentally opposed the concept of forest renewal -- a concept that for the first time in the history of our province saw some protection afforded to workers and communities in the forest industry and that provides the money to renew our forests. The Minister of Finance has provided the answer to the leader's question.

G. Campbell: This side of the House is fundamentally opposed to a government that says one thing before an election and does another thing after an election. We are fundamentally opposed to a government that holds out false hopes to forest workers and forest communities across this province. We are fundamentally opposed to a government that says, on the one hand, that they will not touch Forest Renewal funding for anything except its purposes and then says that they are going to review and put that into general revenues to make up for their mistakes.

The question, once again, to the Minister of Finance is -- yes or no -- are you going to dip into Forest Renewal funds or are you going to leave them alone and let them be put into the work of workers in resource communities across this province?

Hon. A. Petter: If a program review of government, including Forest Renewal, were conducted by the opposition, I would understand why the people of British Columbia would be concerned. This is the party that voted against Forest Renewal and favoured over a billion dollars in tax cuts to large corporations. I wouldn't want them in charge of a program review. But the people of British Columbia know that this government is committed in terms of renewing our forests. That's what we brought in: Forest Renewal. We remain committed; we will continue that commitment. But we're not afraid to review our programs from time to time to ensure that they're meeting those commitments.

T. Nebbeling: The Minister of Agriculture stood up in 1994 and spoke on forest renewal, and he made the following statement: "Half the wealth that comes from Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Nelson, Creston and Prince George will go back to these communities." This was a promise made by the minister at that time -- who was a member, of course -- and this was a commitment made by the NDP government.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he today reassure us of the promise made by the member in 1994 that the funding would go back to the communities -- and that this commitment will not be broken at the cost of the workers and the families living in these communities? Can I have the question answered? Will the minister today agree not to use the funding from B.C. Forest Renewal to hide his inability to deal with balances?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm delighted that at long last the members of the opposition have finally come to the realization of what a success the forest renewal program really is. Where were they when we announced that value-added centre at UBC to provide value-added production and training across the province? I can assure the member that Forest Renewal is doing a superb job delivering investments and programs around this province, and that it will continue to do so to live up to those commitments to invest back into those communities, to invest back into the resource. That's why Forest Renewal was created, in spite of the opposition protesting its creation, and that's why we continue to be committed to the continuation of forest renewal.

T. Nebbeling: There is a difference between what is and what should have been. I think the minister hasn't got the right interpretation.

My question is again to the Minister of Finance, who was quoted in the Abbotsford News in 1994, saying that there will be choices on how the funds are spent, but the funds will be dedicated to forest renewal and jobs by legislation. What I would like to know from the minister today is: will he reaffirm the commitment he made to the people of British Columbia, the people working in the forest industry, that forest renewal funds will be protected and will not be used to cover deficits by this government?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I've already said that this government, which pioneered Forest Renewal, certainly remains committed to the continuation of Forest Renewal -- the continuation of those investments -- notwithstanding the opposition's opposition to Forest Renewal. It's kind of sad to see the opposition putting up a new member, who wasn't here at the time to hear all those members speak against Forest Renewal and to watch them stand up and vote it down. . . . To put up a new member to try to do their work for them is a little sad. But I want to say to that member: Forest Renewal is here to stay. We will not let down those communities. We're determined to invest back into the resource. That's why Forest Renewal was created, and that's why Forest Renewal will continue as long as this government is in power and that opposition is not.

M. de Jong: It was April 26, 1994, when another former Forests minister, the member for Mission-Kent, had this to say when he was defending the Forest Renewal B.C. scheme: "This money will be dedicated, by law, to the forest workers and communities. That money can't go someplace else." I'd invite the member for Mission-Kent to comment, but he's already made clear that he doesn't intend to be accountable for statements he made earlier in the House. So I'll go to the Forests minister. My question to the Forests minister is: was the member for Mission-Kent telling the truth when he said that Forest Renewal dollars were for forest workers and communities and wouldn't go anyplace else? Or is this another case of saying one thing before the election and doing the opposite after?

The Speaker: I am not sure the question is in order. However, should the minister wish to respond, I'll give him that opportunity.

Back to the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I put a question about Forest Renewal dollars to the Forests minister, and it seemed to be out of order. I don't mind saying I'm a bit confused.

[ Page 395 ]

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I hear the member for Yale. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I must hear the question. I would ask the member to please pose a question to the minister responsible for a given area.

M. de Jong: Well, tell the Minister of Forests to get ready, because here it comes.

I heard the member for Yale-Lillooet. He has certainly done much to provide us with material on the art of the NDP flip-flop in this session, and today is no exception. Today's words from the member for Yale-Lillooet come from April 27, 1994, when he said: "The money will not go into general revenue, and no greedy ministers -- it doesn't matter what party or government they may represent -- will be able to dip their fingers into the pot."

Now this member's credibility is on the line, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Forests can salvage that credibility simply by committing today to standing with the member for Yale-Lillooet and saying that moneys from Forest Renewal B.C. will not be going to general revenue and will not be used to bail out this inept Finance minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me remind the opposition, who didn't support the forest renewal program, that this government remains committed to the communities that are based on the forest industry. Only yesterday I announced the community forest economic development program to give certainty to the future of those communities, and it's welcomed by those communities. The Leader of the Opposition was musing in Prince George about cancelling parts of the communities envelope of FRBC. I suggest that the people who are not committed to forest renewal are those people over there. Let me remind you that the objectives we have set for Forest Renewal will be met.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What a fascinating question period! First we have the opposition that spent month after month attacking Forest Renewal B.C. now leaping to its defence. The opposition that attacked this government's regulation on environment issues and urged us to mine parks is now standing up for water quality. It's just amazing.

Groundwater is a serious issue. People deserve clean air to breathe. They deserve clean water to drink, and we're going to bring in a clean water act for the people of this province. We had an election recently. The people of the province know which side of this House is standing up for environmental issues. That's why we're here and they're there.

C. Clark: Some people in this House do care about groundwater quality. The members for Matsqui and Langley have spoken about it and pushed the government on it for years. On the weekend, residents of the Fraser Valley were told not to go outside. Now they're being told that their water might be contaminated and that maybe they shouldn't drink water out of their taps, and the minister says: "Well, perhaps we'll do something about it; we care." I'd like to ask the minister: why, after four years of NDP dithering on this issue, after pressure from the opposition again and again in this House, should people in Cranbrook, Aldergrove or Langley believe him when he says he wants to do something about it some time in the future?

[2:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This government brought in the strongest AOX discharge requirements of any government in the world, and that opposition spoke against it. This government brought in a Forest Practices Code we can all be proud of, and that opposition would dismantle it.

I'm glad to hear this member has a concern about water. When we bring forth the clean water act that will protect the quality of water for all British Columbians, maybe we will see a change in the opposition. They might actually, for once, stand up in this House and support the environment.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

Hon. D. Streifel: Today I rise to present the 1996-97 budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. It's the first opportunity I've really had to rise in the House on an issue other than interim supply, and I'd like to compliment the opposition on their election victories and their rise to what we do in this House when we come forward to represent our constituents. We represent the constituents with all the best interests that we have. It's quite an occasion. I remember my first days in the House, and I know that sometimes this place seems to be a bit intimidating. I think that even today I find it a bit overwhelming and intimidating -- that an old can-stacker like me can stand here to introduce to this House the budgetary estimates of a ministry that is so important in the daily lives of the citizens in our community.

[ Page 396 ]

With that, I'd like to recognize those folks in the field -- the ones that work in the offices on a day-by-day basis to make lives easier and better for the clients they handle and service. I'd like to give them my personal thanks for the ongoing, daily trudge, the drudgery, the few compliments and the little adulation that happens. Without them, this ministry would not function. I'd like to introduce my deputy minister, Brenda Eaton. I have Lyn Tait, Chris Haynes and Les Foster with me to back me up. Being a new minister, I think it's going to be somewhat difficult to know all the answers, but I've always known that wherever I go in life there's someone with all the answers, so let's test this and see what happens.

As you know, my appointment to the ministry is relatively recent, and I'm expecting the opposition to take that into consideration when they throw the big bombs at me. It's just the latest in a long list of changes undertaken within Social Services during the past several years, and 1996-97 will continue to be primarily a time of implementing, managing and realizing the benefits of major changes. These changes include: the B.C. Benefits social safety net renewal strategy; our ongoing strategies to weed out fraud and abuse in the social safety net to make sure resources are available for those truly in need; the final phase of a 15-year process of moving people with mental handicaps out of institutions and into community living; increased audits of ministry programs and contracted agencies to further strengthen public accountability; and improvements to the child protection system under the guidance of the transition commissioner.

These changes strongly reflect the wishes and priorities of British Columbians. They rightly believe that government has a leadership role in supporting the most vulnerable members of our society: children at risk, people with disabilities and people suffering financial hardship.

Equally rightly, they believe the cost of government must come down without dismantling vital human services, and that's exactly what we're doing in the Ministry of Social Services. We're increasing spending in the key areas of child protection and support for people with disabilities, and we're offsetting those increases with major cost reductions in income assistance and administration. Institutional spending will also fall significantly as we complete the final phase of the move to community living. The bottom line is a cost saving to taxpayers. Overall, the ministry's budget for '96-97 is down by $37 million.

Perhaps the most notable item in this budget is an $87 million reduction in spending on income assistance. This is a direct result of proactive measures initiated in '95-96, in partnership with several other ministries, through the B.C. Benefits initiative.

B.C. Benefits is the most comprehensive, compassionate and cost-effective social safety net renewal strategy introduced anywhere in the country. It recognizes that people want to work, that they value the independence that a job brings. It also acknowledges the social and economic realities of British Columbia in the 1990s. For example, the federal government has slashed our welfare funding, first with the cap on CAP and now with major cuts to transfer payments. Since 1990 Ottawa has withheld $1.8 billion in welfare funding from B.C. taxpayers. During this year and next, we will lose an additional $1.2 billion in federal funds for health, social services and post-secondary education. Tighter rules for unemployment -- or employment insurance, as it is now called -- have also hit us hard. Fewer people who lose their jobs qualify for benefits now, and they qualify for shorter periods of time, increasing pressure on our income assistance systems.

At the same time, B.C., with its strong economy, continues to be a province of destination for job-seekers from across the country. In response to these pressures and as part of our commitment to strengthen public accountability, the ministry has implemented a wide range of measures to prevent and detect fraud and abuse and to generally tighten up the system to ensure resources are available for those most in need.

The list of our accomplishments in these areas is extremely long, so in the interests of time I'll offer just a few examples. Our new three-month residency requirement is on track to save taxpayers $25 million a year. We're saving $28 million a year as a result of tighter eligibility rules for hardship grants. We're saving $9 million a year with new rental security deposit procedures. And we're saving $21 million a year with our revitalized family maintenance program, which helps single parents get child support.

In addition to savings like these, we're seeing a real drop in income assistance caseloads: down 7.4 percent in June, compared to June 1995. That's a reduction of 16,000 cases. We will continue our policy of zero tolerance for fraud, waste and abuse through the current fiscal year as we implement the B.C. Benefits social safety net renewal strategy. Ultimately, B.C. Benefits will reduce income assistance costs and caseloads even further by helping and supporting people to move from welfare to the workforce. A key component of this is making work a better deal than welfare by broadening assistance with programs such as the family bonus and Healthy Kids -- to support all lower-income families with children.

These new programs will not require additional new resources within Social Services. New initiatives are being funded through rate reductions, which, I should add, do not affect families with children, seniors or people with disabilities. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, we will actually reduce spending on income assistance in '96-97. We expect to spend about $87 million less compared to '95-96 -- the single largest reduction in the ministry's budget. Savings will be reapplied to B.C. Benefits initiatives and to the expansion of financial supports for people with disabilities. They will also be applied to the child, family and community services division, which has as its primary mandate protecting and supporting the safety and well-being of children.

In the last few years our progress in this area has been guided largely by two events, each with profound implications for the child welfare system: the appointment of the transition commissioner to recommend, design and implement a new child protection system; and the proclamation of two comprehensive pieces of child welfare legislation -- the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. We are strongly committed to continuing the implementation of the new acts in 1996-97.

We are also strongly committed to dealing with the issues raised in the Gove inquiry into child protection. I'd like to briefly recap our progress to date in this regard. Since Judge Gove released his report in November 1995, the ministry has, in direct response to recommendations, established a bachelor of social work degree as the minimum qualification for all new child protection social workers; required that all new child protection social workers undergo a comprehensive 20-week training course before assuming caseloads; eliminated arbitrary rules and policies which inhibited the sharing of important case information among child welfare providers; given district offices technological aids, such as word processors with document assembly software to help in preparing for court applications; and restored the mandate of and 

[ Page 397 ]

increased staffing in the audit and review division, which reviews serious incidents such as child deaths and which amended the regulations in the Guaranteed Available Income for Need, or GAIN, Act so that social workers can access information from the GAIN program when it's needed to ensure the safety and well-being of children.

We have also amended the Child, Family and Community Service Act to incorporate a number of improvements recommended by Judge Gove. As you know, the chief responsibility for designing, recommending and implementing a new child welfare system rests with the transition commissioner, Cynthia Morton. The Ministry of Social Services established a solid relationship with her office. I look forward to working with the commissioner, my colleagues and staff in other related ministries, and our many community partners to share a more effective, integrated child welfare system.

[2:45]

Our commitment to this key initiative is reflected in our budget. The single largest spending increase in the ministry this year, an increase of 9.5 percent, or $35 million, is allocated to the child, family and community services division. These funds will be applied directly to supporting the implementation of Gove report recommendations and our new legislation.

We're also targeting increased resources to the implementation of our new Adoption Act, scheduled for proclamation this November, and to the provision of additional and improved services to children in care. As our population increases and public processes such as the Gove inquiry make people more aware of their responsibility to report child protection concerns, the number of children coming into the ministry's care continues to rise. Compared to 1993-94, the number of child protection investigations conducted by the ministry in 1995-96 was up 16.5 percent. The number of children admitted to the ministry's care increased by more than 22 percent in the same period. These figures underscore the vital importance of strengthening and improving British Columbia's child welfare system.

As I said at the outset, change is underway in all parts of the ministry. That includes our community support services division, which supports adults with mental handicaps and children with special needs. This year we will complete the 15-year process of deinstitutionalization, moving people with mental handicaps out of institutions and into community living. At this time last year, British Columbia maintained two institutions for adults with mental handicaps: Glendale in Victoria and Woodlands in New Westminster. Glendale closed at the end of fiscal year '95-96; Woodlands is scheduled to close at the end of December 1996, making British Columbia the first province in the country to complete this historic process.

I look forward to joining people from the community and former ministers of Social Services this November in Richmond at a celebration for community living marking this achievement. I encourage members of this House to attend as well. Cost savings from closing institutions are being reinvested within the ministry. Two hundred FTEs available from the Glendale closure have been retained in the ministry's base and are being applied to implementation of our new child welfare legislation.

There is one final area on which I would like to comment: administration and support services. As you know, across government we are working towards a leaner, more efficient service delivery system. Social Services is no exception. In addition to major efficiencies in program areas such as income assistance, we're continuing to cut overhead cost, ensuring maximum resources available to serve people.

We're reducing spending, administration and support by 8.1 percent, or $6 million, in '96-97 due to staffing reductions and efficiency savings in travel, contracts, furniture and systems costs. We're also planning increased audits of ministry programs and contracted agencies to improve accountability and to ensure the most efficient use of our resources. We're encouraging greater efficiency in our contracted resources through a new financing transaction. It provides repayable funds to community agencies for efficiency-related infrastructure projects.

In closing, I'd like to say that the ministry will continue its focus on eliminating fraud, waste, abuse and duplication, and improving efficiency of service delivery to make sure resources go only to those who are truly in need. Through this fiscal year we will also continue to manage the income assistance caseload downward as we implement social safety net renewal, strengthen our position as a North American leader in community living for people with disabilities and support the redesign of British Columbia's child welfare system.

As I said earlier, we would not be able to do this within this ministry without the staff that support us and support the clients on a day-by-day basis. I would like to reiterate my thanks to those folks out there that work on behalf of British Columbians that find themselves in need. I'm proud to say we will accomplish all this while cutting costs to taxpayers.

M. Coell: I appreciate your words, and I welcome them. I would also like to say that I welcome your staff being with you today. They have a reputation for being professional and having a great deal of integrity. I'm pleased they're here.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned that this is a new portfolio for you and your first time in the House for these estimates. I can admit to you that this is a first time for me being a critic of Social Services. I look forward to the estimates and questions and answers.

I must admit, though, coming from municipal government, that I was rather surprised when I got the estimates and the budget that there are is a very small number of pages for such a large amount of money. In the municipality, our budget for a mere $50 million is usually ten to 12 inches thick, right down to lawnmowers and pavement. I find that it would be nice -- I realize it may not be possible -- to have an in-depth budget that goes out to individual offices to debate in this chamber. I asked your staff for a line-by-line breakdown, and I appreciate receiving that. I have shared it with members of the opposition caucus who will be assisting me in the estimates procedure. We would like to go through it with you, as your staff have presented it, line by line.

We realize that for any questions on the Gove inquiry you may wish to have further staff here, so we will not ask questions on the Gove inquiry until your staff are present, possibly at the next sitting of this House dealing with these estimates.

I would like to make a few comments on the ministry before we start with the questions on the estimates. I think over the last two decades there have been three trends that this ministry has seen. One is increased income assistance roles. That trend has been increasing not only in B.C. but all 

[ Page 398 ]

across Canada for the last 20 years. Another is de-institutionalization -- we've seen Tranquille, Woodlands and Glendale. The people who lived there are now in the community. There is also an increased interest in child protection, child welfare. Those three trends are very evident in your throne speech and, indeed, in the estimates that we have before us. You're spending time on those three areas.

I'd like to give you a little history of the institutions that have been abandoned: Woodlands, Tranquille and Glendale. I had the opportunity in the early seventies of working in two of those institutions. When I look back at Woodlands and the state of that facility in the seventies, it was an atrocious building. The people in it were living in conditions far worse than many of our prisons. I can remember working at Woodlands and looking across at the B.C. Penitentiary, knowing that those people in that particular penitentiary were living what I would consider a better quality life than some of the people in Woodlands. So I'm absolutely thrilled to see that this year marks the end of institutions for people with mental handicaps in British Columbia. I look forward to celebrating with the minister that particular event in the fall.

I think it's important for all of us to say a little something to the people who lived in those institutions and to their families. I know that many of the people who have moved out of those institutions are living much better lives now -- happier lives with a lot more influence from friends and family. That is, if anything, in the Ministry of Social Services a remarkable accomplishment over the last 20 years, not just for this government but for the previous government and the one before that which started the process. So I think you can take some pride in that, as I know the families and the people who lived in those institutions over the last almost 80 years can do.

We will want to look very closely at the increase in welfare rolls. We've seen almost a doubling of the people on income assistance in the past five years, and it's been consistent across the country. It's been consistent elsewhere in North America as well.

Child protection -- the Gove inquiry -- is another one that I think people around the province are asking about and demanding answers to their questions. I, as well as other members of the opposition, look forward to those answers.

I have a few general questions, Mr. Minister, to start off with, and then others in my caucus will have some questions as well. One thing that I would like you to comment on is the excluded managers in the ministry. In looking through the ministries, there seems to an average across ministries -- in Health, Finance -- of about 10 to 12 percent excluded managers. It appears, in looking through Social Services, that about 4 percent would be excluded, and those are people who generally look closely at the purse strings. I just wonder whether you can shed some light on why it's been designed to have a smaller percentage of excluded managers within the system.

Again, hon. Chair, we thank you for listening to our comments and questions.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is true that we have a smaller number of those excluded folks -- or managerial types. This ministry has made a conscious decision and made it a practice to focus the resources in the field on service delivery and not at that end of the management scale.

M. Coell: The financial assistance workers some time ago had changes in their job descriptions that I believe had created some problems for the union. I wonder if you could comment on that. This was in regard to the B.C. Benefits package and some changes in job descriptions.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding that the job description for FAWs wasn't changed. I would ask if the member is referring to the movement of some of the folks from Social Services to Skills, Training and Labour through that process.

M. Coell: That's correct. Could he comment on that?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding. . . . I thought I heard your question to say that there was a union difficulty here, and I'm not quite sure I'm picking up if that's an actuality. Folks did move. The job description for FAWs didn't change. In some areas folks moved from Social Services to Skills and Training to work on the program to move individuals from welfare to the workforce; that's what the program is about. There's a good cooperative working relationship. I understand there's even co-location -- offices and things that are shared and resources that are shared. I understand the process to be working quite well.

[3:00]

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. I had heard that there may have been some difficulties, but if you've assured us that there aren't, that's good enough for me.

A question that we've been talking about at some length in the House is the B.C. family bonus. The bill was passed and given royal assent today, so hopefully the cheques will be in the mail. We had commented about the potential loss of up to $4 a month per child that we felt was cash out of the individual's pocket. The minister, and a number of other ministers, commented that programs were being developed that would offset that. I would just like the minister to comment on those programs and how they see the offsetting of up to $250 a year for a single person with five dependent children. How is that going to relate to the cash out of pocket that we had mentioned?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would just offer a little caution, through the Chair, that this is part of the overall B.C. Benefits initiatives that we're under. The family bonus is a Finance bill, but I will endeavour to get into an explanation without belabouring what's already been gone over by the Finance minister -- if that's acceptable to the House. I guess within the rules of order it probably would have to be acceptable whether I wanted it to be or not. In fact, I have a bit of a disturbance when I continually see the characterization of the removal of $4 a month off these cheques. I would suggest that I would lend any member or any reporter or anybody a calculator at the end of the month to total up the two cheques and find that they are exactly the same. I would expect a number of individuals to come forward and say: "Hmmm, maybe we should have a fresh look at this. Our criticisms haven't been on point."

I think it's unfortunate that the opposition continues to characterize this program as a removal of up to $250 from these families. I think it's unfortunate, and I think it's irresponsible to continually portray this in this manner. Within this whole program there is going to be a redistribution of possibly $6 million of the child sales tax credit that comes back into the 

[ Page 399 ]

system and is applied in a program-based way all through the income-assistance and low-income families, both within and without the system. It regenerates itself in the form of about $15 million in expenditures on programs such as increased child subsidies and spaces. There's about $13.7 million involved in child care activity that's broader based than it ever was before. There's a transition-to-work allowance of up to $150 to help train and sustain and move individuals who are taking training within the system and move them out of the system. There's Healthy Kids dental and optical care. There are provisions for two-parent families to get coverage here where they never had before. Of course, there are the new job search and training programs.

This is all increased expenditures that come back into the system to support the working poor for the very first time in British Columbia -- and the very first time in Canada, as a matter of fact -- as well as to support families on income assistance, to help their lives, to help them in transition from welfare to the workforce. If we have to commit ourselves in this province and as a society once and for all to make work a better deal than welfare -- and that is what this program is about -- it's unfortunate that one aspect of a broadly based program is continually focused on in a negative manner, when it will not happen in the manner that has been portrayed by the opposition.

M. Coell: I appreciate those words. It's a shame that the minister didn't speak, rather than the Minister of Finance. The minister has outlined it much clearer than the Minister of Finance did. I appreciate that.

The minister mentioned in his opening remarks that the caseload is significantly down from last year. I wonder whether the minister could comment on that caseload. Have there been any shifts to other ministries of people who are still in care or requiring assistance? Do they have any projections for that caseload to go up or down during the year?

The Chair: The hon. minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Chair. I remember my days of sitting there. I hope that the examination of these estimates will not bore and distract you, because I honestly think it's a very important endeavour we're going about today, a very serious business.

To address the question from the member about the drop in cases, it has been dropping every month. The cases have been down; it's not just a one-month glitch in the system. In fact, the focus of our whole Social Services program has accomplished finally, once and for all in British Columbia, what we didn't think was accomplishable.

M. Coell: I guess the welfare scenario you've outlined is a probable conclusion. But what we're interested in is that income assistance or welfare is very much demand-driven. If we have a slowdown in the economy or changes in employment patterns during the year, those targets possibly won't be met. What contingency plans do you have in your ministry for a slowdown in the economy and, if that's the case, an increase in the caseload -- which isn't in the estimates? I wonder if you could comment on that, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: To back up to the first question by the member a few moments ago, I left out part of the answer. I apologize to the member. It's my intention to give as complete and accurate information as is possible through these estimates.

There is no shift, from this ministry to other ministries, to pick up those individuals. In fact, there's a legitimate drop. Maybe to supply some further numbers or figures. . . . I could do it here or supply the information to the member. A nod would say here. Okay.

Income assistance caseloads are expected to come down from an average of 218,000 per month in '95-96 to 191,000 in '96-97. Figures for June 1996 already show caseloads dropping to 205,800, and they are expected to continue declining. This is ahead of the projections.

Caseload and cost reductions will be achieved through continued savings from caseload management initiatives; continued and new savings from prevention, compliance and enforcement initiatives; development of job-training opportunities, particularly for young people; transfers of clients to student financial assistance; the impact of the family bonus and Healthy Kids programs; and generally providing a climate that makes work a better deal than welfare.

I hope that helps. Of course, we have anticipated employment growth in the forestry, environmental technologies and tourism industries, which are all expected to further reduce welfare caseloads -- as we do have increasing employment in forestry. I remember that, hon. Chair. Probably the ears of the hon. member for Matsqui would be interested in that one.

M. Coell: Thank you for your opening comments. I have completed the general questions that we had as a caucus. We now request a return to the document prepared by your staff, and other members of the opposition have questions for you.

V. Anderson: Following up, if I might, with the minister on the drop in caseloads, if I understand the figures that I heard correctly, there was a 13,000 drop, from 218,000 to 205,000. If I'm right in that arithmetic, I was wondering if the minister might say how many of the 13,000 were refugees who were not able to access the service, how many were single and had moved into the province, and how many were youth who were 19 to 25 and would not make it into the program. What I'm trying to understand is: of the 13,000, what were the categories of persons, and how was this 13,000 made up?

Hon. D. Streifel: Before I get into the answer for the hon. member, I'd like to introduce one more member of my staff. An individual that's responsible in a large way for the community living initiatives, Theresa Kerin, is here. I think I neglected to introduce her in my opening remarks, and I'd like that recognition for Theresa.

I have some figures and numbers here. I could endeavour to supply a list that would cover off the member's question: the numbers, the points, the people. Generally, refugees can access our system. The major drop in cases is in the single-men and single-women categories. There's quite a large drop there; I think it's minus 7.6 percent and minus 6.5 percent. There are other minor drops -- couples and others. If the member would like, I could supply that information too in a little more detailed fashion than is possible through an oral response.

I get an indication from the member that he's interested in harder details on paper.

V. Anderson: There was a period of time that refugees were not eligible, and I understand refugees are now eligible. What was the reason for the shift? Why on the one hand were they not eligible and, on the other hand, they are eligible? I commend the fact that they are now eligible, 

[ Page 400 ]

but there was a period, if I understand correctly, when that was not the case. I know we had many people in my own area very concerned about that.

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess, simply put, it was a reconsideration. In fact, the refugees have no other place to go, no other alternative, and that was the driving force behind changing the policy.

V. Anderson: It's always encouraging when people reconsider and change their minds. It sometimes makes it easier for the community to keep lobbying and to try to feed back to the ministry their concerns in any area.

Could the minister tell us the situation with regard to the three months' residency and the discussion with the federal government, and their withholding of $45 million a month, I think it was, and where that stands at this point? How much have we lost in the process, and what is being done to rectify that?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm pleased the member would raise this. In fact, I'm going to have to be a little cautious in some of my responses, being new at this. I don't want to get too deep into an alligator pit, as the situation is still before the courts. I'm sure the member would agree, and I would hope that the whole Liberal opposition would agree, that this is a very serious national issue.

Now, we have differences across the country in levels of support and how we support. We should be striving for the re-establishment of the lost national standard. With continual cuts and offloads to the provincial government and to the taxpayers in British Columbia. . . . That's what this issue is about: levelling the playing field, having a national standard -- not a British Columbia standard, and everyone else can come behind. I think that's not fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia and to those of us who support the system. We will continue to do our work with the federal government and the other provinces to re-establish a properly level national standard.

[3:15]

V. Anderson: I agree with the minister -- it's a serious issue. I think it's a serious issue when we make an agreement and then unilaterally try to break that agreement and disobey the law when we're trying to convince our communities and our young people that the law should be obeyed until such time as we can change it. Discussing getting national standards is one thing, but disobeying the law and setting that kind of pattern is another.

Also, the minister has not indicated -- and perhaps he could -- how much money in total to date has been withheld by the federal government from the provincial government and how much would we project per month as this continues.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think the amount that's been withheld to date is $47 million.

I would like to ask the hon. member which laws have been broken. Has the hon. member predetermined the outcome of a court case? I think that's a little bit irresponsible at this time. On behalf of British Columbia and the taxpayers, I wouldn't expect that that's how the opposition would characterize a representation of the community. I would ask which deal the hon. member is referring to and which deal was broken when we agreed to something. Is this the Canada Assistance Plan deal with the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia, which was broken, and the destruction of that Canada Assistance Plan by the current federal Liberal government? I would like some clarification on that, please.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, if the minister was to explain under what plan they have taken the government to court, then perhaps he would answer his own question. He could explain to us why they have taken the government to court, under what plan and for what reason.

Hon. D. Streifel: The $47 million owed to British Columbians is for social assistance costs for the month of November 1995. The province was in full compliance with the Canada Assistance Plan during that month, and Ottawa is not entitled to withhold that payment. B.C. has launched a court challenge to have the $47 million reinstated. We are confident that our case is strong.

While the issue of the $47 million is of course important, the real issue here is the $508 million the federal government withheld from British Columbia in 1995-96 because of the cap on CAP. Ergo my reference: "Which deal with the citizens of British Columbia was broken?" I think the federal government has abandoned their responsibility and abandoned the idea of fair play to this province. They have withheld $1.8 billion from B.C. taxpayers since 1990 for welfare funding. I would ask the hon. member to comment on the unfair treatment that British Columbia receives at the hand of Ottawa when it comes to supporting those in need in British Columbia.

V. Anderson: I don't have the figures here, but it's my understanding that in actual fact the transfers and the tax credits -- putting together the actual money that came from the federal government to the provincial government in the last year -- were, in total, more than they received in the previous year. I don't have the figures here, I can't quote them, but that's my understanding.

If we move on to the report from the ministry, it talks about income support to youth under the age of 19 living independently in the child's home or the home of a relative. Approximately how many young people are covered by that category at the present time? And when we are talking about youth under 19, what is the lower age that you are using for that category?

Hon. D. Streifel: Independent living, youth under the age of 19 -- there are 2,215 across the province.

V. Anderson: Has that been increasing or decreasing? What's the scope? What's the projection, because of the history that's underway at the moment?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's been steadily decreasing. It's down 26.6 percent year over year.

V. Anderson: That's a significant decrease. Is there a shift from independent living to more young people living in homes of relatives? What I'm referring to here is that the Child, Family and Community Service Act has brought in a different philosophy to try and encourage young people to live in their family and to get support in families rather than living independently. What is the focus of the ministry in working with these young people, in trying to establish them in relationships with relatives if their own family has broken down?

[ Page 401 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: I am wondering if the member is referring to the child-in-the-home-of-a-relative category. We have 4,191 across the province. That's an increase of 2.9 percent year over year. Does that help the hon. member?

The Chair: I recognize now the hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I'll just try to ask some of these questions. Butt in as they come up, so we're not retracing. With respect to the case pertaining to the $47 million from November 1995 -- and I do understand that it is before the courts -- what is the status of the case? Perhaps the minister could summarize for the House what the province's arguments were with respect to claiming the payment of those moneys. What were the province's submissions to the court in support of its position?

The Chair: Hon. minister -- recognizing that this is indeed before the courts.

Hon. D. Streifel: Absolutely, hon. Chair. Thank you for the caution. I wouldn't expect that the hon. member for Matsqui would require that caution, given what his chosen vocation is.

The status of the action is that it is before the courts. In simple terms, our presentation is that we're right and they're wrong. They owe it to us. Otherwise, the documents are exchanged, and I will not and indeed cannot supply details.

M. de Jong: I appreciate what the minister has said. There have certainly been extensive comments made as to what the province's position is in argument. I was in no way asking the minister to anticipate what the outcome might be. There is obviously a position that the province has that extends beyond "we're right and they're wrong." I think it relates to an interpretation of the governing statute that we've heard from other members of the government. I think he should be prepared -- I'm asking him, through you, hon. Chair -- to summarize what that position is.

The Chair: I think we all -- and particularly the hon. members on their feet -- know the issues and that we are there in the courts. But I think the arguments just provoke other arguments, and I think it's not appropriate, then, that that argument actually be defined here. I think the issue is clear and the facts of the matter are clear.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would deliver to the hon. member for Matsqui an answer to the same question as earlier, which I think is within the information realm that I can safely deliver without getting into the argument in the court case itself and the full presentation. It would be that the $47 million owed to British Columbians is for social assistance costs for the month of November 1995. British Columbia was in full compliance with CAP during that month.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate when argument will be heard or whether he's aware of when a decision is pending on the case?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, I can't. I won't; I'll resist. I don't know. The date hasn't been set yet.

M. de Jong: I take it, then, that argument hasn't been heard to this point. The minister can confirm that.

If we can move on, the other philosophical issue that I think arose during the course of that whole debate -- that whole issue -- was the notion of imposing a residency requirement on individuals who seek to collect social assistance from any province. The provincial government made a decision. . . . I guess that when you try to square that with the notion of universality that we have tended to have in this country, you have some difficulty. I would appreciate hearing from the minister his thoughts on where that road may lead if other jurisdictions purport to adopt a similar approach. I understand that in British Columbia we are confronted by the reality that we have an influx of people, many of whom -- or some of whom -- avail themselves of our social safety net, which is financed by the taxpayers of this province. Nonetheless, when we begin to differentiate in the way that we seem to be doing now with respect to a residency requirement -- in our case, it's three months; I suppose another province might say it should be six months or a year -- we can all see the potential difficulties for a breakdown in what we thought was a universal network or a universal social safety net in the country. I would like to hear what the minister's thoughts on that are.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it's very important that we discuss, explore and accept the position, the premise, the focus, of a national standard for Canada for social programs, for health care -- universality. I wouldn't describe universality in Canada, particularly the way it stands today, where we get funded for 33-cent dollars to support our income assistance individuals and our programs, and other provinces get 50-cent dollars. . . . I think that's where the breakdown has come, where the federal government has abandoned the premise of universality in the base treatment of province over province over province.

We have met with other provinces -- with the ministers from other provinces -- to discuss the application of a national standard as opposed to a federally imposed standard. Those discussions will continue in September of this year when the Minister of Social Services of British Columbia hosts a meeting with the other ministers of social services from across Canada, or the departments -- however they're umbrellaed. We will be discussing further the application of a national standard for the social safety net in this country.

I think it's vitally important that as our economies across the country change and as British Columbia, with its very hot provincial economy. . . . As destination of choice for in-migration, we have to be cautious that we don't pick up the destruction from other provinces in this manner. We have to provide base coverage for those individuals that choose to spend their permanent lives here and support the taxpayers of British Columbia, as we continually focus on the establishment of a national standard for our social safety net, not an imposed, federal, Ottawa standard that discriminates against British Columbia taxpayers.

M. de Jong: I wonder: is that the justification for what was done here? Is it purely a function of the fact that we are a destination, that we are attracting more people than other provinces? Does the minister agree that the three-month residency requirement -- which was unilaterally decided upon and imposed -- represents a fundamental departure from the notion of universality? There may be reasons for that, and it may be possible to justify it, but is that the justification? Is it purely a function of the fact that we can't afford people coming to the province and immediately availing themselves of our welfare rolls, or is there a broader issue at play here? 

[ Page 402 ]

I don't think that question has ever been properly answered. Is it just finances, or is the government trying to send another message to, for example, the federal government?

[3:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: What we're dealing with is the destruction and the loss of a national standard of funding for the social safety net -- for health, social services and post-secondary education -- in Canada. That's the real issue. If the hon. member for Matsqui would stand up and say with us, "Ottawa, restore our funding," I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

The Chair: Hon. members, I should let you know that I am monitoring this conversation very closely. I am worried it's getting close to course and policy and getting away from estimates. Be alert that we're paying attention.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I must confess I thought this was precisely the forum for this sort of discussion, so if I'm treading. . . . I'm sure you'll let me know.

I guess I have to say to the minister. . . . I recognize the tension that exists between the province and the federal government, and the desire of the provincial government to redress what is seen to be a fundamental imbalance. Yet I have to emphasize that my question comes to him from the perspective of the individual who would formerly have been in a position to relocate to the province of British Columbia and have a social safety net immediately available to him or her, and that no longer exists. If the minister, the government and the governments across the country are unsuccessful -- and to this point there is no guarantee that they will be successful in achieving the national standard the minister speaks of -- the possibility of a fundamental breakdown exists, and there will then be impediments to the movement of people across this country. In some cases that may be legitimate, but I think the minister is approaching this purely from the basis of: what can we do to drive home the point to Ottawa?

There's another perspective here, which is that of the individual that is being caught in the shuffle. I'm wondering what the minister would say to that individual who says to the government: "Six months ago I would have qualified. I would have been covered by a social safety net here in British Columbia, and because you're embroiled in a dispute, that principle of universality has been sacrificed."

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, with your caution of a few moments ago in mind, I would suggest to the hon. member that there is nothing stopping anybody, from any part of the country, from moving to British Columbia. We're asking that some individuals keep a little planning exercise in mind when they come here. I will also ask the hon. member for a suggestion: what would he do?

I look forward to support from the Liberal opposition on a number of these issues that are very, very serious and very important to British Columbians. I would ask the hon. member for Matsqui to put the Liberal caucus on record on this issue.

M. de Jong: As the minister knows, we're all on record in this House. What I would ask of the minister is a realization that this policy, this dispute, affects people in very real ways.

Now, the minister makes a very accurate point when he says that people can still come to British Columbia. I have to tell him quite candidly that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who may have been on social assistance in another province and just as a result of the fact that the weather might be a bit better in British Columbia decide to move out here and make a switch. But there are some times when it is legitimately done -- a relocation takes place because of improved job prospects, when there is a real desire to better oneself in another part of this country. I have to say to the minister that I still like to think of Canada as one country, and when I see impediments to the movement of individuals, albeit low-income people, I get concerned.

The minister asked for suggestions. Well, we've made a suggestion. I haven't heard a response from the government. We've suggested that when people come to this province and they find themselves in financial difficulty, for a period of time the social assistance that they would qualify for would be at the rate of their host province or the province of British Columbia, whichever is less. These are some of the things we can do to eliminate what the minister might describe as an incentive to come to British Columbia and acquire higher welfare payments. There's a suggestion. I don't know if that's an issue that the minister is taking up with his colleagues across the provinces, if that's within the realm of the national standard that he contemplates. I'd be interested to know.

Hon. D. Streifel: The member keeps treading closer to the question that was asked earlier about positioning, within and outside of the challenge on the residency. The hon. member did offer a solution and a suggestion -- actually, what they brought forward in the election campaign. They were going to -- it's true -- restrict income assistance for welfare individuals to the level of support of their home province. But they had a caveat. Whether it was the B.C. rate or from any other province, it was time-limited to one year. I thought that was a bit mean-spirited, and I said so at the time.

M. de Jong: But the minister hasn't addressed the point. In terms of establishing a national standard, will there continue to be differences from province to province, and how does he intend to account for those differences? He hasn't addressed those points.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Interjection.

The Chair: So it would seem.

The hon. member continues -- another line of questioning perhaps.

M. de Jong: Yes, hon. Chair.

Part and parcel of the program that was introduced by the government -- and I have to say to the minister's predecessor, who is in the House, and the staff. . . . We were all granted -- at least I was in my riding -- a very good, fairly detailed briefing by the regional staff on how they saw that program being implemented. One of the questions that arose in October-November, when those briefings were announced. . . . The point was made quite categorically that if people arrived in this province -- particularly single individuals, but it wasn't restricted to them; even families -- and found themselves in a position where they were applying for social assistance within the three-month window, they would be told that wasn't available. Some effort would be made to find alternatives, but in fairly short order they would be escorted out of the province.

[ Page 403 ]

My reaction at that point was: "I understand that policy; that's very simple. We're coming up to Christmas and I wonder to what extent this will be followed through on." At the time I was assured by the regional staff that statistics would be available shortly thereafter to track just how often that took place: how many times bus tickets were provided to people to return them from whence they came, to their home province. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate now to what extent that took place. What statistics are available?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't have an exact number for the member, on bus tickets. We can get that for him. Bus tickets were offered; they weren't mandatory. In fact, I think the member was a bit off the mark when he spoke of families with children. We do accept families with children in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: If I wasn't clear, I apologize. The briefing I received indicated that the requirement to leave the province within the three-month period was not restricted simply to single people. If I'm mistaken, maybe the minister could point that out. I guess the specific question, then, is: if you arrived with a family and you qualified for social assistance within the three months. . . . But I think the minister gets my question.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes. Families with children are accepted, and as a matter of fact there is no requirement to leave the province within that three months. It's an option.

V. Anderson: I'd like to get some clarification in regard to a couple of things the minister has said about national standards. Initially, I thought he was talking about national standards of service that would be provided equally in each province so that no matter where a person lived they would get the same kind of service. That's what I initially thought he meant by a national standard. But when he made his comment about the 50-cent and the 33-cent dollars, it seemed to me that he wasn't talking about the service, he was really talking about the cost of the service. He made a further comment that if we continued to receive the same amount of money, then all would be well. So it seemed to me that the minister was talking about a national standard of the amount of money we received from Ottawa rather than a national standard of the service that was being provided. Could he tell me what kind of standard he was talking about, because I'm confused at this point?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would suggest to the hon. member that he goes back to an answer that we came up with a little earlier. I am meeting with other ministers from across the country in the fall to discuss this very issue. It gets toward future policy as we're trying to envision in this House, through the examination of these estimates, what a national standard is and a definition of it. That's what we'll be doing in the future with the other ministers and with the federal government involved. I would hope that we would respect the rules of the House and stay away from future policy in the examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister, for that advice to all of us.

V. Anderson: In all humility, I think the citizens of the province are quite concerned about the standards or the philosophy upon which this set of estimates is based. So it's not future policy; it's policy about what we're doing right at the present moment and policy that affected the income they've received over the last number of months since December 1. We're not talking about future policy; we're talking about present actions.

I'm surprised also that the government here, which presently maintains that it's quite appropriate to take more money from the rich in order to give needed money to the poor, is suggesting that the wealthiest province in Canada, according to all of their statements and estimates, should not be sharing any of that wealth with others. That's why I'm trying to get at the national standard. Is the minister saying that we're expecting that each province will always pay the same? Or are we changing the rules from what they have been in our negotiations -- which are present negotiations; they're not future -- on how we share in the Canadian federation? That's basic to the families and the people who come and move across the province and will need to know the policy upon which our government is welcoming or not welcoming them.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try something and not step out of my own caution, because I realize that I'm up here as a minister. In fact, I will caution the hon. member and suggest to him that I cannot -- will not even attempt to -- speak about what is in the thoughts and minds of other provinces and other ministers. In order to get into a debate on that line of questioning, I think I'd have to do that. I can't predetermine what we're going to talk about in September when they're out here. There will be an agenda published for the meeting amongst the ministers, but I have no idea what their conclusions and their thoughts and presentations are. I don't have a crystal ball in front of me to determine this.

But, in fact, to emphasize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara some of the difficulties faced by British Columbians and British Columbia taxpayers and all of us within this House who are charged with the responsibility of stewarding our financial resources -- situations where the federal cutbacks since 1990 to what has now been renamed the employment insurance program have increased B.C.'s income assistance expenditures by a cumulative total of $123 million. . . . The additional employment insurance -- it used to be called unemployment insurance, because when you're not working you're not working -- announced in December 1995 will further increase our income assistance caseloads and expenditures. I would like some help from the Liberal opposition in this House to fight those kinds of off-loads, cutbacks and degradation to those in this country that need help most and are being abandoned systematically by Ottawa. Our British Columbia taxpayers are being asked to pick up an unfair burden.

[3:45]

M. de Jong: Does the province presently have a position on what it sees as an appropriate national standard within the context to which the minister has been referring?

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

M. de Jong: Do portions of the estimates we are debating today relate to resources that will be devoted to developing that position?

Hon. D. Streifel: Not to be flippant, hon. member -- through the Chair -- but I would suppose so, as staff from the ministry will be working in conjunction with me to explore some avenues to prepare for this meeting. So I suppose the answer is certainly. I don't know if I could find a budget line 

[ Page 404 ]

other than that the folks right here will be participating in that formulation and that discussion, because I think we all understand how these things happen. You sit around; you talk a little; you formulate some stuff and maybe identify some goals and some visions. That process will be underway prior to the meeting, and if folks here are going to participate in that, then some of the ministry money is spent on it.

M. de Jong: Has a committee been struck within the ministry to develop the position which the minister has been referring to during these debates?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is no.

M. de Jong: Does the minister contemplate the striking of such a committee?

The Chair: the member for Matsqui continues.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I purposely asked the minister whether resources from his budget would be devoted to this process. He has answered that they would be. I'm asking now about the manner in which that is going to take place, and I seek a ruling from you as to whether that's an appropriate question or not. The minister may not want to answer it, but is it an appropriate question?

The Chair: It's up to the minister to respond. I don't think it's an inappropriate question. If the minister chooses not to respond, then that's up to the minister. Do you wish to continue?

M. de Jong: Yes I do, hon. Chair.

If the minister is unprepared to disclose the process by which this all-important position and policy is to be developed and reached, will he provide some indication to this committee as to when during the course of this fiscal year we can expect that position to have been reached and that policy to have been established?

Hon. D. Streifel: In an attempt to respond to the member's question without trying to predetermine the outcome of some meeting that hasn't exactly happened yet, I would say that B.C.'s first responsibility is to provide assistance to British Columbians in need. The preservation of our social safety net is a major priority for the British Columbia government. It reflects our commitment to see adequate support provided to those in genuine need, but the lack of federal support and our commitment to protect essential services for British Columbians left us with no other option but to introduce a residence requirement for welfare applicants. The situation is made even worse in light of the fact that British Columbia is a province of destination for Canadians, averaging over 2,200 new welfare starts per month from other provinces last year.

To preserve the province's safety net, the British Columbia government had no choice but to introduce some of the requirements. In fact, what we're doing now as a government -- if you've noticed over the past few days and since last November -- is outline the B.C. Benefits program. We are leading the way in Canada. We will deliver the B.C. Benefits program that will once and for all change the social safety net structure in British Columbia. I think that would be an admirable beginning to the establishment of a national standard. That's just about as close as I can go to try to determine where we're at and what we've done. All that work on B.C. Benefits has already been done, in formulation.

M. de Jong: I have been careful not to ask the minister to presume to speak on behalf of other provinces, because he's not in a position to do that, as he correctly points out. He has told this House, this committee, that he will be engaging in meetings and putting forth a position for the province of British Columbia. He has said that resources from within his ministry will be devoted to establishing that position. He has not been able to state the procedure that will be followed during the next fiscal year. I've asked him when he will have that position. He has indicated that he is going to meetings and that he intends to take the position with him, presumably. When will we know what that position is? When will we know what the province of British Columbia intends by a national standard?

Hon. D. Streifel: With all respect to the hon. member for Matsqui, I have outlined already some of what we will be bringing to the table for discussion. I cannot outline in any way, shape or form a conclusion to those discussions. But let it be very, very clear: British Columbia is leading the way in Canada with the B.C. Benefits program that we exposed last November. We will be exposing that for the rest of the country to consider. I think it is important that we do that on behalf of British Columbians. It's been in front of us since last November in the exposed form, and in fact we have pieces of that before the House in the form of legislation.

We will be presenting, in other terms, our position to the other provinces, or our concern, I suppose -- I am not sure if it would be a position, because there is some court case going on -- that in fact British Columbia is funded differently than the rest of the country and we don't believe it's fair. We will be bringing that forward, and there again, I cannot determine the outcome or the conclusion or the acceptance of this by the other ministers or by Canada as a whole. We will be discussing with them that we think it was punitive to British Columbia to lose that $47 million. Those are the issues. We have discussed this here close to an hour already. We've gone over and over and over the same ground, and I think we've covered all we can on this issue.

M. de Jong: I have to say, with the greatest respect, that when a minister of the Crown says that he intends to take a British Columbia position to a meeting that is imminent, that his staff and his ministry will be working on developing that position, it's not unreasonable for members of the opposition and the public at large to ask what that position is. Now, the minister can say: "We don't have it yet. We're working on it." That's fine. I've asked him when he thinks it will be available.

I will put these questions in rapid succession so perhaps we can draw this to a close. When does the minister believe the British Columbia position on a national standard for social assistance will be available, will have been determined by his ministry? That's the first question. Will he be prepared to share that policy and that position with members of the House as soon as it has been determined? That's the second question. Thirdly, does he believe that there is a role for the all-party standing committee that we have in this House to participate in that process of establishing British Columbia's position with respect to that national standard?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, I do welcome the input from the opposition about their views on what we are trying to accomplish here. Much of this has been in the public domain; much of this has been addressed already by the Premier and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. This is how some of these positions and things are developed, and I can't say at 

[ Page 405 ]

this time what my exact words are going to be in that meeting. We're approaching that. I would suggest to the hon. member and to the Liberal opposition that I am open to their suggestions and consideration in preparation for that meeting.

M. de Jong: I didn't hear an answer to any one of those three questions. I'll concentrate on the third one. The minister points to the clock and laments the hour we've spent on this topic. In each and every one of his responses, very nearly, we have heard an invitation from him to participate in this process. I have suggested an avenue by which that could occur -- through the standing committee system we have. Is the minister saying that that is an inappropriate forum to involve all members of this House and that he has no intention of availing himself of that forum?

Hon. D. Streifel: Examination of the minister's estimates. . . . I'm not sure I know there is a line in the examination of the estimates for my budget that says "all-party committees." I don't think it's under my jurisdiction.

M. de Jong: The minister has confirmed that resources within his ministry will be devoted to dealing with this question. Those are his words, not mine. Each and every time he stands up, he is critical of the opposition for not providing, as he puts it, appropriate input. He raises those issues, not I. I have offered a mechanism by which this could take place, by which resources, mental and otherwise, in this House could be made available to the ministry who, as we know from the minister, are going to be working on this in any event. I'm asking him whether, as part of this process that money from these estimates will be devoted toward, he's prepared to refer a matter of this sort to the standing committee. It's a yes-or-no answer. If he doesn't want to do it, maybe he can say so.

Hon. D. Streifel: The hon. member for Matsqui is not an apprentice in this House any longer. The hon. member is a journeyman. He should pick up the ticket and learn the job.

It is beyond my jurisdiction to refer this, but what I will do for the hon. member is bring it forward to my cabinet colleagues for discussion and decision. As you know, we have included the very valuable input from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on these issues of intergovernmental and national affairs as we relate to other provinces under the federal government, and I welcome input from all hon. members.

[4:00]

V. Anderson: The minister indicated that there were 2,200 people a month, people who came into the province, being added to our welfare rolls. How many are going off our welfare rolls by going out of the province? Could he give me the opposite figure to that, please?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't think we know. I don't think we have an exit count -- leaving the province. I'll caution the hon. member that if the information is available, I'll have it supplied, but we don't currently have an exit count. If that helps, then. . . .

V. Anderson: I think it's important, if we're negotiating or trying to understand. . . . I've always known that there are two sides to a balance sheet. There's the plus and the minus. Unless we have some indication of the minus side, I don't think that we can say. . . . It may well be that there's a net increase of only 500 a month coming onto our. . . . There may even be a decrease. Unless we have that figure. . . . Giving a gross input without the other is not a fair presentation, and so I would ask the minister and the ministry to look into this and would appreciate hearing from them as a result.

A concern was raised as I listened to you, and that was a scenario about the family bonus plan that I hadn't thought of, I must admit, until this discussion. The minister was concerned that single persons from outside the province were coming onto our welfare rolls before they had lived here three months. Is this a principle that might apply to the family bonus if, because of this new family bonus, we get an influx of people coming to work in British Columbia because they will have more security with their work? Has the minister indicated the principle that if there is an influx of people to work here because it's beneficial with the security of the family bonus, a three-month residency will also be required for them?

Hon. D. Streifel: If the question refers to the application of the B.C. family bonus as was introduced by the Finance minister, I would ask the member to put questions that come under the jurisdiction of the Finance minister to the Finance minister during examination of those estimates. It's not within the realm and the structure of my estimates.

L. Stephens: I'd like to talk about services to youth, a little different topic, and specifically about page 2 of the document that the ministry very kindly sent over to us, the one that talks about income support for youth under age 19 living independently. I would like to ask the minister if there is an age limit on the youth who would receive assistance. I would also like to ask: under what conditions is this income support granted? Perhaps I'll settle for those two at the moment.

Hon. D. Streifel: Sorry, hon. member for Langley. I probably missed most of the question, in an endeavour to get the answer early so I could have the correct answer and correct information for the hon. member. As a matter of fact, as I understood it, the first part of the question was: is there an age limit? Of course, by description, youth in this program are under 19. Does that answer the question for the hon. member?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Then, with all due respect, I will sit very attentively if the hon. member for Langley would restate the question.

L. Stephens: I would be pleased to restate the question and perhaps give a bit of background as well. From time to time -- and I'm sure this happens in other MLAs' offices around the province -- parents come to our office because their child has gone to Social Services and received income support to live independently. They give various reasons for wanting this income support. The parents have virtually no power to bring the children home. They don't even have the ability to go to the police to do that. I know of a couple of instances where the children were 14, and I consider those 14-year-olds to be not capable of living independently. So I ask the minister the age, if there is a floor, for children whom the ministry would support to live independently.

The second question was: with a child coming to the ministry for income support to live independently, what are the conditions that would be granted?

[ Page 406 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: The process for 17-to-19-year-olds is that normally under these circumstances we would check with the parents. If there's a good home -- a good home environment -- we would try reconciliation. But if a child is at risk, funds are issued to the 17-to-19-year-old, maybe for an independent-living circumstance.

I'm told that for children under 17, like 14-year-olds, it just wouldn't happen. If the member has the evidence or the cases, perhaps we -- the staff or the process in the ministries -- should examine that to determine what the situation is. I think it's a very serious issue that the member brings forward. We should endeavour to find a solution to that.

L. Stephens: Hon. minister, this happens quite regularly, I'm told. One of the reasons is that all the high school students in school know what they can and cannot get from Social Services, and they know the reasons that they can put forward in order to get independent living. In many areas of the province it's quite common that if they can't get along with their parents or they don't like the rules at home, they can simply go to Social Services and say anything in order to receive this independent living allowance. If the minister isn't aware of what is happening, I will endeavour to get some of the information to him that I have in my office so that he can pursue this a little more thoroughly.

I'd like to ask a second question about the goals and objectives of this income support for youth under age 19 and what the ministry does to try to get these individuals off income support: whether there is counselling available; whether there is some kind of intervention program; whether there is some kind of family support program that would help these youths either return to their families, if indeed that's appropriate, or find an alternative solution, so they can be living in a safe and secure environment.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, the question from the member was around what services are in place for youth under the system. I think that I'm missing part of the presentation here, and I don't know if I'm confused -- which is not unlikely -- but if we're talking about independent living or someone approaching an income assistance office and acquiring some funds, if in fact there are some services available, income support for youth under age 19 living independently, and the child in a home of a relative. . . . We have Reconnect programs, mediation services, services to young people who are in continuing care, youth-in-care organizations and support groups, consultation with youth, and the Vancouver action plan, a shared program with the Ministry of Social Services. If that's the reference the member is looking for, these programs and initiatives are in place for youth.

Could I get clarification on the focus of the question around kids in school that go down to the income assistance office and get something? I'm not quite sure what that's referring to.

If the member would bear with me, I've just received a broader response. We'll see if this helps. The new Child, Family and Community Service Act, which this government brought into effect in January '96, authorizes many programs for children and youth which support youth in becoming independent, and encourages participation of youth in making decisions that affect them. Many communities have developed plans to address issues such as drug abuse, violence, family breakdown and youth prostitution in their communities. The Ministry of Social Services is involved in the planning and provision of services.

In addition, the Ministry of Social Services funds 33 Reconnect programs to reach out to street youth across the province. The ministry also provides a range of residential and support services for youth -- including safe-house accommodation -- and is working with parents, families and communities to ensure the safety of youth at risk. The B.C. Benefits initiative Youth Works will provide opportunities for youth to move into the workforce through an entitlement to job search and work preparation. B.C. Benefits also involves improved services for older children, specifically minors who have left home and cannot be reconciled with their families. These children will no longer be eligible for welfare; instead they will be able to enter into agreements with the director under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Does that help? If not, we'll try to expand further. If need be, I can arrange for some presentation by my staff for the member to get fuller answers, recognizing that I'm pretty new at this and most of my information comes from an outside source. It may come directly to the member, if the member chooses.

L. Stephens: It does help, Mr. Minister -- the information that you've provided.

My initial question is really focused around children under the age of 17 who have consistently received income support from the Ministry of Social Services for a variety of reasons. I would suggest to you that the checking and the phone calls to parents and so on, that the minister has referred to, don't happen on all occasions. I know that there are many children around the province under the age of 17 that are living independently with the support of the Social Services ministry.

[4:15]

There is a variety of services available to youth in general, as the minister has just noted. I'd like to know if the ministry has a program evaluation process to evaluate these programs for youth to determine whether or not they are in fact effective and if the intended outcomes of these programs are in fact being met.

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is yes; there is an evaluation process. In fact, upon request we can supply some of that information to the member. We don't have line-by-line dots and dashes. That information can come forward to the member.

I'm particularly concerned with the presentation that the member has brought on youth under 17. I would say again that if there are some specifics that the staff or the ministry can help with, I would encourage the member to bring those forward so we can address this very, very serious issue. We have staff within the region, within your home community. Or if my staff here in Victoria could be of assistance to the member, on behalf of those young folk I would offer that and encourage it.

L. Stephens: In one of my earlier responses I did commit to the minister that I would in fact make that information available to him -- the instances that I'm aware of in my constituency.

[ Page 407 ]

I would like to ask a couple of questions about teen moms. Do you have the percentage of teen moms who are receiving income support who are under the age of 19 and living independently?

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't have the percentage number here that has been requested, but certainly we can make that available and we will.

L. Stephens: I notice in the preventive and support services for families that there are three initiatives here around teen moms. One is day care support, one is support to young parents and pregnant women, and the third is residential living for pregnant and young mothers. It has the '95-96 budget numbers, but there are no '96-97 budget numbers. Could the minister indicate whether in fact these programs are going to be funded primarily as they have been in the past or whether there is an increase or a decrease in the '96-97 budget projections?

Hon. D. Streifel: The programs will be supported. They're within an envelope of $72 million. They're not factored out, as I understand it, within the documents. They're in that $72 million envelope. The programs will continue.

L. Stephens: Could the minister elaborate on what day care support to teen parents is?

Hon. D. Streifel: The day care for teen parents assists young parents to resume education by providing qualified day care services to their children. I understand there are counselling services available in this as well. We refer the member back to some of the overall strategies on child care the government brought forward after the '91 election, where we include day care spaces and child care facilities in schools and colleges and things like that. I know I've participated across the province the last few years now in the opening of these facilities. That's all part of the program and the strategy.

L. Stephens: The Ministry of Women's Equality also has responsibility for day cares -- and also in the schools, as well. I'd like the minister to try and help me sort through what portion of day care support to teen parents falls under his jurisdiction. What is it exactly that this ministry does? How much money. . .? I see it was $1.14 million last year. Is there a supplement to teen parents? Does this ministry fund some of these child spaces in the schools? Exactly what does the ministry do to provide day care support to teen parents? Or is it simply counselling?

Hon. D. Streifel: The Ministry of Social Services provides counselling, homemaker support and parent training. Child care spaces, I understand, are funded through the Ministry of Women's Equality.

L. Stephens: Could the minister tell us about the program called residential living arrangements for pregnant and young mothers? How much of his budget allocation goes to that particular program? How widespread is this residential living arrangement? Could the minister just elaborate on what that particular program encompasses?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, this is included in the $72 million envelope. What this program does is provide for temporary residential prenatal care and training in life skills and parenting for young mothers and expectant young mothers. I've asked my staff to see if we could get a breakdown of that, on where it's located around the province and how it fits. I will have that supplied to the member.

L. Stephens: Thank you very much, minister. I look forward to receiving that information.

I'd like to ask a few questions about the child-in-care services. If I remember correctly, the minister did say that children in care have increased by 22 percent. I would like to ask the minister why this is happening. What are some of the reasons that the numbers of children in care have increased?

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess, in general terms, demographics have changed. There are more children. In fact, the ministry, and I guess communities in general, have been much more diligent in bringing forward concerns. The ministry has acted on those concerns. I would think that a lot of that would account for the increase.

L. Stephens: I'd like the minister to elaborate on the policy of the Ministry of Social Services on child apprehensions. Have there been some changes around that policy?

Hon. D. Streifel: After the Gove report and the ministry response to circumstances, with the interests and safety of the child paramount. . . . I guess that would be the answer to the question. The concern and care for the child's safety is paramount in all actions that the ministry takes.

L. Stephens: As I'm sure the minister knows, there was some difficulty around parents not being informed of their rights when there were apprehensions being made. This was a year or so ago. There was a lot of discussion around what is appropriate in the policy of apprehending children. The minister talks about the Gove recommendations, but I would like to know whether there is monitoring of the quality of care. Is there some monitoring of the workers and some kind of control at the local ministry offices around child apprehension? What kind of comprehensive focus at the local Social Services offices. . .? What kind of instruction have they been given around the policy on apprehension? A much more detailed and little fuller answer than the minister gave before, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: The policy is very clear. The new legislation requires that parents be informed. I would be prepared to supply the hon. member with a copy of the policy. It's very, very clear. To answer the question on monitoring the care: yes, it is an ongoing process. It does happen and will continue to do so, keeping in mind that the paramount interest of the ministry is the safety of the child in all of these circumstances.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

L. Stephens: The children-in-care homes that the ministry has a number of. . . . Could the minister tell us whether or not there is -- I'm sure there must be -- monitoring of the quality of care and of the safety of children? I would presume there would be a criminal records check of individuals or couples or families that come forward to volunteer their home as a care home for children in care. Could the minister please elaborate on the policy around the foster homes that children in care are placed in?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, there is a very thorough home study conducted on the foster homes as 

[ Page 408 ]

referred to by the member, and there is a criminal records check conducted. This is reviewed on an annual basis -- the home and the function within the home.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to hear that there is a review done annually. Could the minister elaborate a little bit on what that would entail? Would it entail a fairly comprehensive review of the home, or would it just require a phone call or a one-time visit by the local social worker? Could the minister elaborate on what an annual review would encompass?

[4:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: I compliment the hon. member for Langley on the focus of her questions and on her obvious concern for the children in our communities. I would hope that some of the answers will give her a level of comfort that we are responding and reacting in the best interests of the children in our society. The form the review would take, on an annual basis, is a discussion with the children that are there living in the foster home, and a discussion with the foster parents and with the social workers. It would be a thorough review in that manner, again keeping in mind that our interest is always and continually the safety of the children.

L. Stephens: I have one further question. Also included in the package that the ministry kindly presented to us and on the same page as residential services -- at the bottom there -- it talks about recoveries. It talks about federal special allowances for children in care, and it appears that this amount is up about $1.5 million. Would I be correct in assuming, minister, that the '95-96 budget allocation from the federal government to the provincial government for allowances for children in care has increased by $1.5 million for the '96-97 budget preliminary statements?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, as I understand it in reading the documents, the number has increased, but it's directly proportional to the number of children coming into care. It's not an extra bonus from the federal government to the province of British Columbia. It, in fact, reflects the increase in the number of children in care.

L. Stephens: So, in fact, the amount of money that the province is receiving from the federal government has increased and certainly is increasing this year coming. So the minister's remarks earlier that the federal government is decreasing funding is, in fact, not the case in this particular case, and I'm correct in that assumption.

Hon. D. Streifel: For information to the member for Langley, this figure reflects the family allowance that comes to the ministry, so in fact if there were more children there would be more money. It still does not reflect the overall circumstance that British Columbia is in, where our social dollars that come from Ottawa are 33-cent dollars and other provinces get 50-cent dollars. Because the number elevates -- it's driven by the number of individuals, the number of children, in that part of the system or in the system overall -- that gets back to the answer to the question from the member for Vancouver-Langara. We are still getting 33-cent dollars from Ottawa, and that's where the unlevelling, the unbalancing, the different treatment that British Columbia receives from Ottawa than the treatment other provinces receive. . . . So I hope that helps the hon. member, that in fact these are family allowance dollars that come to B.C. We have more children, we get more money. It doesn't mean they are 50-cent dollars; they are still 33-cent dollars.

L. Stephens: The fact of the matter is that this particular program is still up $1.5 million. I would agree with the minister that because British Columbia is a have province, the transfer payments that have come to British Columbia aren't as great as the money that we have sent to Ottawa. I think a number of British Columbians have a great concern about that. I would encourage the minister to put forward valid arguments to the federal government when he goes to talk about national standards and when he goes to talk, hopefully, about a national child care strategy, and hope that he will, in fact, press the federal government for a more equitable distribution of tax dollars that flow to Ottawa from this province. So I just want to put on the record that, in fact, this Liberal opposition does support services to families and to children, and that this minister fight for whatever dollars are available for our province from the federal government in Ottawa.

Hon. D. Streifel: I very much appreciate the support that has been demonstrated and spoken by the member for Langley on this very important issue. Yes, I will be pressing Ottawa very strenuously in my dealings, and I will be pressing for fair treatment for British Columbia. I would like to see British Columbia funded at 50-cent dollars like the rest of the country. I will be pushing Ottawa to examine the strategies that we brought forward for child care in British Columbia. It's very complimentary to this government that the member says that our child care strategies are pretty good. I think that's what the tone of the conversation was, or the tone of the positioning. In fact, I agree. I like to think that the rest of the country would envy and try to emulate what we've been able to do in British Columbia with a continually shrinking dollar amount from the federal government.

I'd like to caution the hon. member not to get caught in the trap that the dollar amount might be larger. We have more people in the system, more people being taken care of within the system. That does not mean we're getting more money from Ottawa. We're still getting 33-cent dollars. We're absorbing. . . . During this next year B.C. will lose an additional $1.2 billion in transfer payments from Ottawa that support our programs of health and social services, and post-secondary funding. We can't any longer accept that as the status quo for British Columbia's relationship with Ottawa. We need all the help we can get, and I very much appreciate the support that the member for Langley has delivered to us this day on behalf of the Liberal caucus -- that they will be diligent, they will be supportive of British Columbia and particularly this ministry when we go forward to achieve what we view as a fair share for all British Columbians.

M. Coell: The minister in his opening remarks talked about the government's desire to cut down on fraud in the welfare system. I just wonder if he could outline for us how many people have been identified as fraudulent cases, how many have been charged, and how many have been taken off the income assistance rolls.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for the question. As a matter of fact, I think it's one of the initiatives that is working for us in British Columbia and working on behalf of this ministry, and my compliments to those folks in the field who are making this a successful endeavour. We will continue to be diligent at zero tolerance for fraud in the social services system and welfare. The prevention, compliance and enforcement program established in 1994 focuses on combatting fraud and abuse, and increasing public confidence in the system.

The ministry policy requires that all detected cases of fraud be referred for investigation. In 1995-96, 12,746 cases 

[ Page 409 ]

were referred. As a result of investigating these referrals, welfare benefits were stopped in 1,133 cases, 4,986 repayment agreements were undertaken, and 177 court compensation orders resulted from court convictions. In addition, 233 new charges were laid, an additional 169 cases sworn in 1994-95 are still before the courts, and there were 141 convictions. The number of charges laid has increased by 110 percent since the establishment of the PCE division -- a 56 percent increase in 1995-96. Some investigations result in an inability to locate clients or insufficient or unfounded evidence.

I would like to add that this is the first time in the history of British Columbia that the Social Services ministry and this government in particular have taken seriously the issue of fraud and abuse. Other jurisdictions in the past have paid mere lip service to the problems that arise when somebody takes something out of the system they're not entitled to, thereby denying that support to the very needy in our province.

I for one am offended by that, and the taxpayers are offended. Those folks that need our help want us to do all we can to ensure that they get maximum help and that those individuals who are abusing and defrauding the system cease and desist -- that we do whatever we can to ensure that this happens. That is why the ministry has established zero tolerance of fraud and abuse. Again, my compliments to those folks in the field that are supporting us in this endeavour.

V. Anderson: I'm having difficulty hearing the reply because of other conversations that are going on in the House.

The Chair: Thank you for that reminder to everyone to keep your conversations low or not at all.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline for the House how the cases are referred to the PCE and what method investigations take?

Hon. D. Streifel: PCE is prevention, compliance and enforcement. We receive information from a number of sources. It could be from the public; it could be from the hon. member, as a matter of fact. It could be from workers in the field, it could be from staff workers. When each complaint or referral comes forward, it goes on a referral form. They are computerized, tracked and there has to be a conclusion.

I imagine the investigation process is very much like any form of investigation process, where you answer questions such as who, what, where, when and why. There has to be an outcome, there has to be a conclusion to each referral, and before it's signed off. . . . The supervisor would sign this off and bring conclusion to the case. As a result of this type of enforcement -- and my previous answer is on the record of how successful it has been. . . . I will repeat that this is the first time in the history of British Columbia that a provincial government and a Ministry of Social Services have taken seriously the fraud and abuses in the system and are doing something about it. It never happened under any other government jurisdiction. We began that process when we were elected in 1991, and we carry it out today.

M. Coell: Has the government completed any studies that would look at the potential of fraud throughout the whole system of income assistance? If so, are those studies available to the opposition or to the public?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the ongoing diligence in fraud and prevention in the system is relatively reactionary. The information comes forward, we act on it, and the evidence is there that we are making that move. In fact, I think it would be somewhat difficult to try to predict the level, the size, the area and the avenue. I guess that whatever systems we build that are supported by government and funded by taxpayers' dollars have some abuses in the system.

I was reading in the Vancouver Sun this morning of the report that was done about the construction industry in British Columbia and the fair-wage policy. The individuals who did the review used very, very strong words in their report. They used stuff like, "We believe very strongly that a failure to comply with this legislation" -- that's the fair-wage legislation -- "is tantamount to fraud," and they talked in terms of stealing from the public and stolen tax dollars. That's the same diligence, the same avenue and the same language that the ministry approaches when evidence -- complaints, as a matter of fact -- of fraud and abuse in the system are brought forward and we go through the investigation process. We will continue to be diligent on fraud and abuse in the system.

M. Coell: I don't think the minister fully answered my question. Has the ministry undertaken any studies that would predict or give any advice to the House on the percentage of fraud expected or estimated in the system?

Hon. D. Streifel: To try and answer the question, there's nothing that I have seen on these kinds of projections -- nothing that's been brought to me since I've been the minister.

M. Coell: I wonder if he would research that question with his staff. If there have been any studies, the next time we're dealing with these estimates could he let us know what studies have been done?

Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry has zero tolerance when it comes to fraud and abuse in the system, and that's what I'm interested in. As a matter of fact, I will take the presentation from the member under advisement. Thank you for the presentation.

M. Coell: With that answer, I must presume that there are some studies done in the ministry, and I look forward to further questions on that item. If there are estimates of fraud, I think this House would like to know, as would the citizens of B.C.

I'd like to turn now to a number of other questions. The ministry and support services budget is down by 8.1 percent, and the ministry is actually hiring 242 people this year. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on where those bodies will be placed and what positions they will take in the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: Primarily, the positions will be in fraud and in services to children. I can supply the specifics to the member, if he so desires. As I understand it, those are the areas covered by this -- fraud, and services to children.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could comment on the amount of money spent on the PCE -- the fraud group -- and the money that was actually saved in the ministry -- or the cost of the PCE as related to the cost savings to the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll endeavour to supply specifics. I understand that for every dollar we spend in PCE, we save or retain $5. I think it's a very good return. There may be some 

[ Page 410 ]

investment folks over in your part of the House who would be interested in that kind of return. In fact, I think it's money well spent. It's money that supports the policy of zero tolerance, and it's money that supports the policy of this government to ensure that those individuals in the system who need help and support will get the maximum help and support they can get. Those who are defrauding the system will fall under the zero-tolerance policy of the ministry, and we will pursue them.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could elaborate on how many of the 242 new employees will be in PCE. He mentioned that some will be in child support services, and I wonder just what numbers are in each.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's sometimes difficult for a new minister to break down the numbers and actually find them.

We have within one section here that 140 FTEs were provided to carry on and expand the caseload management initiatives in income assistance that were started partway through last year. These initiatives were one of the reasons we were able to reduce the caseload from 16,000 from June '95. The PCE folks, as I understand it, are within that 140. I'm attempting to break that out to get the exact number for the hon. member.

I have a number here in front of me; I guess this is the answer. The 158 FTEs for PCE includes headquarters and fields, so the broad number is 158. I'm going to have to ask how that reconciles with how 158 fits under 140, but I expected you to ask that question, anyway.

M. Coell: I assure the minister that we have patience. We're not in any hurry.

In the minister's initial remarks, he also commented that there were a number of institutions that would be destaffed this year. Are any people being laid off because of the closure of Glendale, or are those people being absorbed into the system in other positions?

Hon. D. Streifel: Like most situations where we have a change or a downsizing, we would like to see that there has been a strategy put in place to take care of the workers. In my former life I've been involved in those labour adjustment strategies and how they're applied, and the purposes and the goals that they achieve. In this case, the FTE number will be absorbed in other parts of the ministry. In fact, there are some folks here who may move out of the system, who may retire and take other options, but all others will be placed within the ministry.

M. de Jong: I wonder, in dealing with the issue of fraudulent recoveries within the ministry, if I can ask the minister how the members of what I call the fraud squad are being recruited and what their training is. What is the profile for those individuals -- where they're coming from?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would be pleased to supply for the member the job description and the criteria. I think that's available and that I can get that done. In fact, one of the criteria that I've been made aware of is that each one of these individuals would have to have an investigative background. Many of them are former police. I understand a number of them are former RCMP. They would all go through an interview process and, in fact, have to qualify within that interview process to come into the ministry to protect those who are most in need in applying the zero tolerance policy that the ministry has in fraud and abuse.

M. de Jong: Within the realm of that job description, is there a minimal standard? The minister has mentioned some of the types of people who have been applying. Are significant numbers of those people coming from elsewhere in the ministry? Are they coming from outside of government? Is there a minimum qualification level that they must meet, and if there is, is the minister saying that he'll release that to us?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, there is a minimal qualification level. I've offered already to lay out that criteria and send it to the questioner from the Liberal opposition. As soon as it can be done, it will be done.

M. de Jong: With respect to the new people being brought on line, my question was: are they being recruited from outside of government or are the majority of them coming from elsewhere in government or elsewhere within the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, it's a posting process. There's a call out for applications to these positions. Some come from within, some come from without, but individuals have to meet the criteria of the job, as I understand it. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

M. de Jong: I appreciate if the minister doesn't know that that kind of answer doesn't really provide us with any additional information. Are the majority of the new people being recruited from within government, or are they coming from outside of government? If he doesn't know, that's fine. Maybe we can get the information.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's not an attempt to skirt the issue. I don't have the breakdown of the numbers. I will have that supplied if that helps the hon. member. I think it's a valid question and a valid position; it helps support the ministry's position of zero tolerance in cases of fraud and abuse. I will supply whatever information. . . . When the information comes, if it doesn't exactly answer the question, I would offer the services of my staff to fully complete the information as it comes forward.

M. de Jong: I recall that in the last estimates debate, which took place with the minister's predecessor, we spent some time dealing with the issue of recovery of the objectives that had been set and the incidents that resulted in the laying of charges. I wonder if the minister could obtain some information. There really are two components to this: the ministry's desire to recover funds that have been fraudulently obtained by recipients, and the question of whether criminal sanction has been brought to bear. I know they are two very different issues, and I wonder if the minister could provide some information about the number of cases that ultimately result in criminal charges being laid.

[5:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: I can't bring my mind to whether the member for Matsqui was in the House. The question was asked in different terms, and I gave quite a broad answer. I'll try to pick out of the answer that I gave the member for, I believe it was, Saanich North and the Islands. In fact, 233 new charges were laid, an additional 169 charges are still before the courts, and there were 141 convictions. I wonder if 

[ Page 411 ]

that's the information the member for Matsqui is looking for. We could supply. . . . I guess we can't supply more detail, because numbers are numbers, and those are the totals.

M. de Jong: That is the information we're looking for. I'm wondering how that relates to the numbers of investigations that result in recoveries -- my point being, as I understand it, that the number of these cases that ultimately carry on and see a criminal charge being laid is a very small proportion of the actual number that result in the ministry getting recovery orders or signing agreements with recipients guilty of fraudulent receipt of funds.

Hon. D. Streifel: I hope this is the information the member for Matsqui is seeking. As a result of fraud investigations in 1995-96, hon. member, welfare benefits were stopped in 1,133 cases, 4,986 repayment agreements were undertaken and 177 court compensation orders resulted from a court conviction, resulting in a total savings of $14.9 million. I think that's admirable. These folks brought forward, investigated and brought to conclusion these cases to support the ministry's policy of zero tolerance in fraud and abuse and to ensure that those individuals in our communities and our society receive the help they so desperately need.

M. de Jong: The question that emanates from that information is: if I am correct in suggesting that where agreements for repayment have been obtained. . . . I understand that not every single case will have resulted from the fraudulent receipt of moneys, but of those 4,986, maybe the minister can indicate how many would have involved allegations of fraud by the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: If the member is referring to an oops versus a fraud, I don't. . . . I've been informed that we have a total number, and we will attempt to break out the differences for the hon. member. So if the member would bear with us in our attempt to get this out, we'll get it to him as soon as possible. It may not be at this moment, but we'll try.

M. de Jong: We'll appreciate receiving that information from the minister and his staff. The minister knows where I'm going with this. This is something that we didn't address satisfactorily the last time we went through this exercise. There's clearly a discrepancy between the number of cases where the ministry alleges fraud and the number of cases that result in a charge being laid.

The other mechanism available to the ministry is to have the recipient of funds enter into a repayment order, and I understand that. I'm going to ask the minister momentarily about the recovery rate on those voluntary repayment agreements. For the moment, I would like to ask the minister to explain the policy that is at work in the ministry to determine when a charge will be brought and when a charge won't be brought.

Hon. D. Streifel: If I understand the question, the question was: how is it determined, or who determines, whether the charge goes through the courts?

I'm getting two nods and a non-moving head. If the third head would go up and down, then I think I can answer that question. It's just sitting there smiling at me, hon. Chair. Maybe the new minister is absolutely confused here. I understood that how our court system works is that information is brought forward to Crown counsel, and a decision is made by counsel to lay the charges. Is that the system? The member is probably more involved in this than I ever have been or will be, so perhaps the member could educate the minister on the process of our criminal justice system and the laying of charges.

M. de Jong: I wouldn't presume to do that. I'm not sure we have time.

As I understand it, staff within the ministry would make a decision as to whether to make the recommendation to Crown counsel that the minister is referring to. I presume -- and I have to say with all candour to the minister that his predecessor was not able to explain this process in any satisfactory way -- that there is a criterion by which staff in the ministry decide to accept a repayment order as satisfying their desire to recover the funds, or to do that perhaps and move to the next step, which would be to recommend to Crown counsel to bring criminal sanctions against the individual. I would like to know what that policy is. What is that criterion? When do staff recommend to the Attorney General's ministry that the next step be taken?

Hon. D. Streifel: I hope the hon. member would allow -- I don't know, he'll probably come back and hit me with this word -- some discretion here. I mean, there has to be an equation that determines the value of bringing forward a $25 collection or something through the system. I stress to the hon. member that each case is evaluated on the individual merits of the case. That's the way we have to proceed in our system. Certainly the member would understand how the criminal justice system works for that evaluation process. There's got to be a rationale or a reason. I am unable to lay out line by line, specific by specific, what dollar amount triggers or what activities trigger. . . . That's left within the movement and the operation of the investigative process, which I laid out earlier.

It's a very rigid process, and each one of these cases, each one of these complaints, goes through a referral process to a forum, and it has to have a conclusion. There's got to be a rationale of sorts for the consideration of the courts. The time and ten bucks and a case. . . . I'm sorry; I can't lay out a line-by-line specific of what would trigger that movement, and I think the individual understands our system well enough to appreciate that that must be so.

M. de Jong: I am not arguing the fact that a certain amount of discretion is necessary, but we are talking about millions of dollars at work here. This minister and all members in this House have had telephone calls from irate constituents who are wondering why action hasn't been taken against people who are ripping off the system. It's one thing to obtain a repayment order, but I'm not sure I understood. Is the minister saying that he doesn't know precisely what the policy is for his ministry to make a recommendation to the Attorney General's branch, or is he saying that there is no policy?

Hon. D. Streifel: The policy is zero tolerance. That's been stated and restated many, many times in my presentation. I can't speak to an exact trigger on a case-by-case basis, but there is evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. In '92-93 there were 117 charges; in '95-96, 233; before the courts in '92-93, 86; before the courts in '95-96, 169; convictions in '92-93, 75; convictions in '95-96, 141; for a total number of 161 versus 310.

Part of the member's presentation causes me some concern. He states that in fact we all have had instances where individuals have brought forward complaints of what they know to be abuse and fraud within the system. I believe the 

[ Page 412 ]

hon. member stated that some of these complaints have come to him. I would hope that an officer of the court would in fact effect his obligation and responsibility and bring these complaints forward to the individuals and the bodies where they actually belong so they can be investigated. I would hope that the hon. member wouldn't just lay off and say: "It's somebody else's responsibility." The activity and policing within this system is everybody's responsibility as we carry on and exercise a zero-tolerance policy in fraud and abuse to ensure that all of those in British Columbia that need the help of this ministry and of these programs get the help they so desperately need.

M. de Jong: The minister is an astute and clever politician and will be very effective at endeavouring to move the conversation from areas he doesn't want to deal with.

He hasn't said what the policy is with respect to proceeding with prosecutions of individuals accused by his ministry of defrauding the system. He's given a figure of 5,000 recoveries. He begs and asks for the people of British Columbia to cooperate in providing information to his ministry, and they are eager to do so. In return, I would suggest that they would like to know when the ministry is simply content to have the recipient sign a repayment agreement and when the ministry will hold those people to account for stealing from the state. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask in this forum that the minister explain what the criteria are for imposing a very serious sanction on those individuals, which is a criminal record for stealing from the state. For him to simply say, "Well you know, it's a discretionary thing, and we look at it on a case-by-case basis," is not satisfactory.

Hon. D. Streifel: I get somewhat disturbed when the hon. member for Matsqui refuses to reflect in an accurate manner the words of this minister in debate. The policy is zero tolerance. The disposition of each case is based on the criteria that are particular to that case, the merits of that case and the individuals involved. And I would suspect -- I would hope -- that as an officer of the courts he understands that very real need within the criminal justice system that we move within that system.

The answer to the question. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order!

Hon. D. Streifel: The hon. member will be able to rise in a moment when I take my seat, and the protocol, the rules of the House, require that he ask the question. The question is: what are the criteria? The criterion is zero tolerance for fraud and abuse in this ministry.

[5:15]

M. de Jong: I'm going to ask a question that I think I know the answer to. Zero tolerance, in the context that we are discussing it, would mean that in every single case the ministry would provide a recommendation to Crown counsel to proceed with charges. Surely that is not the case. So my question to the minister is -- let's make it simple -- if you're accused by the ministry and admit to having appropriated $2,000 or $10,000 or $15,000, at what point. . .and what are the criteria by which his ministry staff send a memo to the Attorney General and say: "We recommend charges."

Hon. D. Streifel: Now the individual member for Matsqui would require that this minister delve into the world of hypotheses and pretend to create cases, create levels of injection into a case and create criteria. The member should know that within the rules of the House the hypothetical question is not in order.

M. de Jong: Neither is a hypothetical policy, hon. member. The minister talks about zero tolerance. What does zero tolerance mean in the context of recommending charges be laid by his ministry through the Attorney General? What does zero tolerance mean in that context?

The Chair: The hon. member continues.

M. de Jong: Can I take it from the. . . . I just want to be clear on this, and I want, in fairness, to give the minister a chance to respond. Is he saying that there is no policy beyond those words "zero tolerance"?

The Chair: I believe the minister has expressed his views.

I recognize now the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister could help us. We use figures, and we sometimes get them out of context. If 5,000 persons have been charged and found wanting out of 200,000 cases in the system, what percentage does this give us of people who are convicted of fraud against the system? What percentage of convictions of fraud do we have against the total number of cases? That's an argument we hear again and again, and we have figures everywhere from 2 percent to 50 percent. But in your actual experience of the number of cases of those who receive assistance -- 200,000, or whatever it is approximately -- what percentage of those have been convicted of fraud in the last year?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer to the member a restatement of the answer I gave earlier of 4,986 cases and the recovery figures. I suggest to the member that fraud, by its very nature, isn't predicted in our general communities, in some respects. If fraud is uncovered, we react; we have zero tolerance. We have 4,986 repayment agreements. We have recovered a huge amount of money within the system that can go to those who are in very desperate need of our help. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this issue of examination for the past 45 minutes.

V. Anderson: We didn't hear what the minister said after 4,900. We didn't hear the end of his statement, so I'm not sure what he said. Could he repeat it for us, please?

Hon. D. Streifel: We have zero tolerance for fraud in this ministry. We act when fraud is detected. Fraud, by its very nature, becomes an affront when it's uncovered. We investigate the cases. They go through a referral system. We have evidence of increased success, if you want to characterize it that way: increased recoveries, increased conviction rates. We will be diligent. Zero tolerance is the policy.

V. Anderson: The minister is answering a question other than the one I asked, so let me try again. We hear various estimates of the number of people who are consciously defrauding the system and the number of people who are convicted for that. I'm simply asking: what is the percentage of cases that have been convicted for defrauding the system in the last year? I'm not asking for the percentage of increase or decrease but the percentage of the number of people who have been convicted in this last year.

[ Page 413 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: I think what I'm going to attempt to do here is in some way supply the information through the staff to the member. I keep hearing about people and cases, and I'm not quite sure if the member is suggesting that everybody within the system is in violation of something or other. So he wants a percentage to build this number off of the 4,986, and that somehow makes an equation that's relevant. I hate this one, but because I'm a former grocer, I think you're dealing with apples and oranges: cases versus people and whatever. But I will attempt to supply the information to the hon. member, and I would ask that we move on to another line of questioning, as a matter of fact.

V. Anderson: It's not quite another line of questioning, but it's relevant to the same area. In the renewed attempt to discover persons who have been -- perhaps we could use the word, although I don't like it -- defrauding the system, what has the ministry discovered about the ineffectiveness and the inappropriate way in which the system operated, which enabled them to lose money? What have they learned by this process, and what changes have been made within the system so that the money isn't going out of the system because of the inadequate way in which the system was operating -- not because of people defrauding it? There must have been some lessons learned in the process about how the ministry was losing money because of the inappropriate way the system was operating.

Hon. D. Streifel: Excellent question. An excellent answer is coming, as a matter of fact. Over the last year, we have taken steps to manage the income assistance caseload and protect benefits for the most vulnerable. Various caseload management initiatives are saving taxpayers millions of dollars. These initiatives include: tightened eligibility guidelines for hardship grants; revitalization of the family maintenance program; new rental security deposit procedures; tightened criteria for crisis grants; tightened work, clothing and transportation allowances to income assistance clients; changed policy regarding replacement of lost or stolen cash or endorsed income assistance cheques; reductions in allowable assets; and recovery of overpayments.

As a result of these initiatives, and with the introduction of B.C. Benefits and the residency requirement, B.C.'s welfare caseload has declined by over 16,000 cases or 7.4 percent from June 1995 to June 1996: from 222,191 in June 1995 down to an estimated 205,800 in June 1996. The income assistance caseload has shown a decline each month from January to June of 1996, the first time this has happened since 1989. It's a movement and an initiative by this government for the first time in the history of the province, a real movement within this structure.

British Columbia will continue to manage the income assistance caseload downward through expanded data matches, including matches with student loans, Ontario and Revenue Canada; additional eligibility reviews; continued savings from caseload management initiatives; additional job and training opportunities, particularly for young people; transfer of clients to student financial assistance; impact of the family bonus and Healthy Kids; and through generally providing a climate that makes work a better deal than welfare. My compliments to the staff in the field, who are working on behalf of British Columbians to bring forward a renewed and changed social services system that we can all be proud of.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the response of the minister. My personal concern in raising this is that for too long the clients have been blamed for the faults of the system. The minister has highlighted a whole series: where the system has been changed, where staff have been given different training and support, and where they've been given computers and other systems. It seems to me that a good deal of the credit in the system for the money being saved is not because clients have become more honest or more dishonest; it's because the system is being run in a way that is much more effective. If that's what the minister is saying, I congratulate you for doing that. I think we've always needed to put the blame on the system rather than always putting it on the client. That's also why I was asking about the percentage, which the minister seemed reluctant to give, because for too long we have blamed the faults of the system on the clients. The statistics the minister has given me so far indicate the validity. It is not the clients, by and large, who are abusing the system. In the past, at least, it has been the system that has abused the clients.

M. Coell: I think, minister, the question of the number of charges and convictions is an important one, although I don't want it to detract from what I have to say. Approximately 370,000 people in the province are recipients of income assistance. We have had this year only 100 convictions from the PCE program. That isn't a lot. I also see that the ministry has decided to have approximately 5,000 people pay back what the ministry has decided they had defrauded, rather than pursue the court system, which is costly. So there is some logic to that. The minister said that the savings from the PCE are approximately $14 million. I wonder if he could confirm that those savings are from fraud detection and prevention, and payback. Or is that the total of all of the projects that he was just answering the question on?

Hon. D. Streifel: If I got the numbers correct from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, he talks about 370,000 individuals in the system and 200,000 cases. I hope the suggestion wasn't that they're all in some form a circumstance of fraud. The $14.6 -- fourteen point something -- million is recovery. It's through prevention and enforcement programs. In some circumstances, individual clients, we suggest that we'll be doing a tape match with Alberta, for instance, as a preventive mechanism. Individuals may not come under the system, if they choose, at that time. There may be a difficulty in the jurisdictions where we have protocol for information exchange to help support those in British Columbia that are most desperately in need of support and to effect a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to fraud and abuse in the system.

[5:30]

V. Anderson: In the payback of the persons from whom they're receiving a payback, minister, are they including the persons who have had WCB advances and are paying that back? Is that part of the payback, and is that amount included within that figure?

Hon. D. Streifel: The number doesn't include assignments of that nature. No, that's not there. But there could be a bit of spillover if an individual hasn't told us that they've had a benefit from another area. But in just the regular scheme of things, if someone needs an advance to get them over a hill, it's not included in that. So the assignment structures going in are not part of that total figure, only those who have not been upfront with our folks in the field and have then said: "I've tried to hide something."

[ Page 414 ]

M. Coell: There are 5,000 people with whom the ministry has decided to have an agreement for a payback. If you take that number and divide it by the $14 million of savings that the minister is saying this program has brought the ministry, that's about $28,000 a person. Is that the level at which you would just have a payback, and after that level you would take someone to court?

Hon. D. Streifel: We're going back to that area of each case being adjudicated and investigated on its own merits and having information brought forward. That's how each case is assessed: on individual merits of the individual cases and on the circumstances surrounding those cases.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to what the average agreement for payback would be.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, there is no average agreement. There are variances. I'd like to go back a step to the round-out of $15 million and the round-out of 5,000 people. Are we dealing with $3,000 per person or $30,000? I would ask the member to recheck the arithmetic and maybe correct this minister if I'm wrong on the fingers-and-toes routine on the total number here.

M. Coell: The minister is correct: it's approximately $3,000, I would imagine. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the average court-ordered settlement is in the amount of money to be paid back to the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't have the information here -- the average court-ordered figure. We'll attempt to get it if it's available to us. If we have it, we'll supply it to the member. There's a real need for openness and sharing and questioning here, and we'll supply all the information that's available to us in the area of the court-ordered settlements.

M. Coell: I appreciate your comments, and I look forward to receiving that information.

There are a couple of other areas that I wish to touch on. I realize we don't have much time left this evening before we're joined by other members. The Healthy Kids program, under health services, is a new line item of $15.7 million. I wonder if you could outline that program for us, possibly regionally, as well as tell us where you see that money being spent in the province.

Hon. D. Streifel: The Healthy Kids program extends dental and optical to all working-poor families in British Columbia. As for the income levels, I think $30,000 is the ceiling within that structure. It also extends dental to all children under the income assistance blanket.

As for the regional breakdown, we'll attempt to get that for the member; I think that's possible to get. I don't have it right here with the graph or the chart or the log on a regional breakdown. If the information I'm about to bring forward to the House is incorrect, I would expect someone to grab the back of my jacket and sit me down rather quickly. I understand that a program like this would be delivered on a per-individual-child basis, so the demographics of a region would supply the answer on the application on a regional basis. I think that would be fair to assume.

M. Coell: I wonder if you could outline the differences between what's being offered people on social assistance now as compared to what this program will offer them.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the program is in place, and all children are covered. The tabletop, the playing field -- however it's described -- is now level. In the past, children of dual-parent families did not have some of these benefits; now they are all covered under this. That's the application. It's a significant improvement in the health and lives of the children in our society.

M. Coell: I was looking for specific dollar figures: what six months ago was available to people on income assistance or the working poor, as the minister has suggested, and what the dollar figure increase per child would be because of this program.

Hon. D. Streifel: The system works off the MSP system. There are 15 million new dollars in the system. Six months ago the working poor weren't covered, hon. member.

M. Coell: What I'm looking for is. . . . Someone on social assistance had a dollar figure that they were able to use last year for a dental program for their children. Is this going to increase that person's allotment of money for dental work or glasses? If so, by how much?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to attempt this one, to see if this is where the member is looking. Dental benefits: $700 per child per year. Overall, there are 15 million new dollars that cover all children within the system. Six months ago there were many children in our communities, our societies and our own neighbourhoods who weren't covered under these benefits, whether they were income assistance families or working poor. We have now covered all those children in B.C., and I'm particularly proud and pleased that we have been able to do that. We're leading in Canada; nobody else does it.

We would like to think that during the focus of examination and debates, we will garner a certain amount of support from the Liberal opposition for these programs that do support the very poor and the very needy in our communities, whether they are on income assistance or find themselves as a working-poor family and quite disadvantaged in the general stream of our communities. If the Liberal opposition chooses to support these programs and initiatives, I think it would be a compliment to them. That's what they were elected to do.

M. Coell: Could the minister outline how a family that would be classified as working poor would go about applying for dental work for their children? How much money would be available to a family classified as working poor that is now covered by this program?

Hon. D. Streifel: If the family in question qualifies for MSP premium assistance, the program is automatic. They would go to a dentist, the dentist would perform the service, and the ministry would do the paperwork. In fact, it's an automatic trigger within the system based on the MSP premium assistance support mechanisms that are built in there.

V. Anderson: Eighteen thousand dollars is the break-even point for the working poor to get the full $103 per child. Over and above $18,000 there's a scale by which it is reduced. Does this also apply for dental and optical above $18,000? Is that on a scale, or at what point does the dental and optical coverage cut in and out for people who are working poor?

Hon. D. Streifel: Is the member looking at where the maximum benefit of the dental and optical coverage fits 

[ Page 415 ]

within this structure? We'll get that exact figure; we can bring it back tomorrow. I think it's an easy figure to achieve. I don't have it right here, unfortunately.

The other question around the $103 and the $18,000 family income level, if there was a question. . . . If it wasn't a question, it would just go like this. If it becomes a question, I would offer the hon. member the services of the Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance estimates to examine that. In general terms, on the $18,000, if you have a full-time job with two weeks' vacation, you're dealing with 2,000 working hours a year. That's what it looks like, so very simple arithmetic would determine that an $18,000-a-year floor is actually somewhat above the minimum wage level in British Columbia. So we are helping out a large number of working families -- not just in minimum-wage jobs, not just minimum-wage earners. We all know folks in our own communities, within our own families and extended families, who have children and who work in $12-, $13-, $14- and $15-per-hour jobs, and they will receive benefit and support for their families in British Columbia for the very first time. Again, it's leading edge in Canada; nobody else is doing this.

V. Anderson: I thank you, and I look forward to that additional information when it's available.

Related to that, it's my understanding that the Social Services ministry and the dental community don't have an agreed fee schedule between them at the moment. So with this additional influx of patients, I'm wondering what the relationship will be there and what contract has been set up with the optical people. Are you paying in full or, again, is there a contract where you're paying 80 percent or whatever it is of the regular fee? What's the contract between those two professions and the Social Services ministry for these additional payments?

[5:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: Was the question what we spend for eyeglasses or optical coverage, or are we dealing with an amount, the value? There is a basic fee schedule. I don't think it addresses the choice of high-fashion glasses. It's basic optical care to aid the vision of those on income assistance and children of the working poor in British Columbia. Within that structure there are limits, I guess; it's not unlimited for frame or style. It's basic coverage and very appropriate and helpful. These folks help them see.

I don't know if that was a question around the dentist or a statement. If the member would restate whether it was a question or a statement, I'll see what I can do to answer it.

V. Anderson: My question was: is there an existing agreement with the dental profession, and is there an existing agreement with the optical profession? If so, what are those agreements? Or are they still being negotiated?

Hon. D. Streifel: The current agreement with the dentists in British Columbia expired in December. We are currently in negotiations. The agreement on eyeglasses is to provide basic optical coverage.

With that, in view of the hour, in view of the enjoyment we've had today in examining for the very first time the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and our wonderful policies of zero tolerance of fraud and protecting those who most need support and protection in British Columbia, I move -- and I'm sure I will receive full agreement from the Liberal opposition on this next motion -- that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: May I first introduce my deputy, sitting to my left, Maureen Maloney. There are other staff that will be introduced later on.

I want to begin by welcoming the new MLAs elected May 28, and particularly the MLA and Attorney General critic from the official opposition. I trust we will have a productive relationship.

As the Premier has said, we on this side of the House have listened to British Columbians. They have told us they want a leaner but not meaner government. Our government and each government ministry is addressing that concern. At the Ministry of Attorney General, it presents a special challenge: to continue to make public safety the number one priority, as is my personal commitment to British Columbians, and to do so within the fiscal constraints that the public also demands of their government. We must be more creative than in the past in spending tax dollars wisely and where they will have the most impact. That means being more efficient and more effective, and I have directed my staff accordingly.

As I have said, protection of the public is the number one priority in our ministry. Over the past several months we have laid out a number of initiatives that will keep our communities and streets safe. We have taken a tough approach to serious crime, especially crimes of violence, and coupled it with an increasing role in the justice system for communities and victims of crime. We're putting in place policies that combine strong enforcement measures with enlightened crime prevention, for the long-term security of British Columbians and our province. I want to touch briefly on some of these initiatives this afternoon.

[ Page 416 ]

We are taking action on violent and serious crime, giving our police significant new resources to investigate and solve these crimes. We are ensuring that the skills, experience and commitment of the province's police are fully supported with the latest crime-fighting techniques and technology. That includes establishing a new provincial homicide squad dedicated full-time to investigating unsolved murders in our province. We have allocated $800,000 for the homicide squad, which will be made up of 20 to 25 senior experienced officers from the RCMP and municipal police departments. We anticipate quick results from this new unit.

We are also providing state-of-the-art equipment for British Columbia's DNA lab. We are investing $300,000 in a DNA gene sequencer, allowing police to use better DNA testing faster to solve serious crimes. And we are providing $500,000 to launch Canada's first dental detective lab, located at the University of British Columbia, which will use groundbreaking technology to improve crime investigation and prosecution. Ensuring that police have the right tools to protect us goes hand in hand with our commitment to more effective policing.

[2:45]

B.C. is a leader in applications for dangerous offender designations, allowing violent criminals to be imprisoned indefinitely. Indeed, the federal initiative to establish a nationwide system to identify dangerous offenders is following the lead of British Columbia.

We are putting 100 new police officers on the street this year to further enhance community policing and to make our neighbourhoods safer. We're also building new partnerships. For example, we are actively cooperating with our American colleagues to protect consumers from fraud. The consumer services division, which joined my ministry as part of last February's streamlining of government, has worked closely with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to help rid B.C. of advance-fee loan companies that defraud consumers. The message sent out is clear: we simply will not tolerate shady businesses operating in British Columbia and preying on people who may be experiencing financial problems.

We also continue to press the federal government for more changes to the Criminal Code. We are working with other provinces to get Ottawa to return dangerous criminals to face trial in their province of origin. We successfully pressured the federal government to incorporate access to DNA testing in criminal trials, to toughen penalties for persons purchasing sex from children and to make some changes that ensure that the Young Offenders Act better protects public safety. We continue to push for stronger provisions for transferring cases of violent crime, including murder, to adult court and for changes that facilitate the admission of statements made by youth as evidence in court, to ensure that youth are held accountable for their actions.

We continue to call on Ottawa to conduct a joint federal, provincial and municipal review into policing needs at British Columbia's major seaports before any decision is made to eliminate Ports Canada police. We want the federal government to honour its commitment to protecting British Columbia from the kind of crime at international ports that threatens the safety and well-being of everyone in our province.

Of course, the best strategy for public safety, both socially and economically, is preventing crime in the first place. We believe crime prevention must be community-based: local answers to local problems. Our commitment to working with police, communities, neighbourhoods and ordinary British Columbians is very clear. We have funded 80 community crime prevention projects in the past three years. We are also providing 19 storefront police offices and 21 bicycle patrols to make police visible and accessible, and comanaging the volunteer police program -- 1,400 B.C. volunteers are now donating some 300,000 hours of their time each year.

I am particularly proud of initiatives we are undertaking on behalf of young people. The Premier and this minister strongly believe that if young people are to be assured of an opportunity to reach their full potential, they need support, relevant skills and positive alternatives. We have made a commitment to offering youth healthy social and recreational opportunities, and a chance to develop conflict resolution and life skills. We are getting young people off the streets -- providing them with positive alternatives to violence and crime -- through our Nights Alive initiative. Nights Alive uses schools and recreational centres after hours for sports, arts, music and other activities chosen and organized by local youth. We have allocated $672,000 for Nights Alive to be fully operational in 23 communities across the province by October 31 of this year.

We've also provided $490,000 to establish youth action teams in more than 60 communities to address local issues related to violence and crime and focused on safe communities. Youth are getting a chance to develop crime prevention programs for themselves and their communities, to use their enthusiasm and creative ideas to be part of the solutions. Last week I was pleased to be able to announce the seven regional youth workers who will consult with youth to develop the action teams, and at the end of April, British Columbia joined the federal government to establish the new All Together Now program. We're providing $280,000 in funding over three years for this early-intervention crime prevention program for elementary school kids aged nine to 12, which includes special strategies for immigrant and aboriginal youth. Programs such as the youth action teams, Nights Alive and All Together Now are an investment in young people, building a better future for themselves and for all British Columbians.

We have not forgotten the consequences of crime. In my tenure as Attorney General I have met regularly with victims and with their families and friends. I pay tribute to these British Columbians who live in the aftermath of violent crime yet have transformed their personal horror into working to spare others the devastation they have known. I also want to recognize the hard work and dedication of those British Columbians on the front lines who have been trained to help victims -- the hundreds of coordinators and volunteers who work thousands of hours every year to assist police and who have been affected by experiences as varied as arson, robbery, wife assault and child sexual abuse.

B.C. has the most comprehensive and best-funded victim services in Canada, with programs in 170 communities and a provincewide toll-free victim assistance line to provide information, referrals and support. On July 1 we proclaimed the Victims of Crime Act, the most extensive victims' rights bill Canada has ever known. This act gives victims the right to information about their case from investigation through prosecution, including the right to be informed about the status of the charged person or offender. Five million dollars has been allocated for implementing these new services.

B.C. has made it possible for the families of murder victims, victims of stalking, and people who have been criminally injured on the job to receive compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. A central registry of protection orders has also been established to help police protect 

[ Page 417 ]

victims from further crimes. We are gratified that the national victims rights group, CAVEAT, has recognized our commitment by giving British Columbia the highest grade of any province for victim support and crime prevention initiatives.

When I was appointed Attorney General last August, my ministry also took over the responsibility for multiculturalism and human rights, which I brought with me from the Ministry of Government Services. This government believes in British Columbia as a province where people of all beliefs, cultures and lifestyles are welcome, and where the rights and well-being of all our citizens are protected. We have worked to increase cross-cultural understanding by taking real steps against crimes of hate in our community and by recognizing our province's rich multicultural diversity. We have strengthened British Columbia's Human Rights Act to protect British Columbians from organized hate propaganda and activities. I'm delighted that in October of this year, changes will come into effect which will allow the new Human Rights Commission to remedy discrimination when it occurs, address systemic discrimination and other patterns of inequality, and actively promote human rights in our province.

As we approach the new century, there is no place for discrimination in British Columbia. It will not be tolerated by this ministry or this government. British Columbians have told us they want their government to fight crime and the causes of crime. We are committed to doing just that and to ensuring an open, effective and fiscally responsible justice system.

I would now like to give you a brief summary of the 1996-97 Ministry of Attorney General budget. The 1996-97 budget estimate for my ministry is $905.566 million. This represents an increase of $30.45 million, or 3.5 percent, from the 1995-96 restated budget of $875.12 million. The restated budget in turn reflected a $30 million net increase in program transfers over the 1995-96 estimate.

The increase of $30.45 million in this fiscal year's estimates over the 1995-96 restated budget can roughly be broken down this way: $9.81 million to court services for such expenditures as the opening of the Prince George courthouse and for annualization costs for the new Port Coquitlam courthouse, which I was pleased to assist in the official opening of this past April; an $11 million increase for public safety and regulatory expenditures, mainly for additional policing services to support the speed-monitoring program of the traffic safety initiative; a $5.46 million increase to the corrections branch budget, primarily for overcrowding pressures in institutions, sick leave and overtime cost pressures, and unachievable prior-year reductions; a $1.34 million increase in agencies, boards and commissions, mainly reflecting a tentative allocation of $1.33 million to the office of the public trustee for the adult guardianship initiative; and an additional $1.5 million for the B.C. Human Rights Council, tentatively provided for implementation of a revised decision review process for complaints and to reduce the existing backlog.

I'm confident that 1996-97 will see continued progress toward a more open and accessible justice system, one that protects the safety and security of British Columbians, encourages public participation and spends the hard-earned tax dollars of the people of this province wisely and responsibly.

G. Plant: If I might, I want to begin by thanking the Attorney General for his opening remarks and for his kind words to me. It's going to take a little while to absorb some of the numbers that just came at me.

Perhaps we could get underway in this way: I don't have any general opening remarks to make. At this point, I'm mostly interested in beginning to explore what the minister's vision is, both in the short term -- that is, within this year -- and over the longer term, recognizing that we are at the beginning of the mandate of a new government. Obviously, to some extent the minister's vision is reflected in the spending decisions he wishes the House to approve. I'm also interested in a statement of his personal vision, both short-term and long-term for his term as Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Thank you, hon. member. The vision, whether it is long term or short term, is the same: what I believe we need to do in British Columbia is deal with the causes of crime. When the government deals with the causes of crime in a comprehensive fashion, then we begin to deal with the consequences of crime and hopefully reduce crime.

In terms of the consequences of crime, I want to be working on victims' issues. I also want to make sure that in the next three or four years, if possible, we begin to deal with strategies for reducing our corrections overcrowding and dealing with minor offenders in a way that we can rehabilitate them in a less costly fashion. I would be very pleased if, in the next two to three years, I can shut down a corrections facility rather than continue to build corrections facilities in British Columbia.

[3:00]

In the last couple of years, the crime rate is down in British Columbia. Violent crime has gone up to a certain extent, and we've been working with the federal government in terms of the young offenders legislation. What we want to do in a comprehensive fashion is deal with the causes of crime, reduce crime and then begin to deal with those minor, non-violent offenders so we can rehabilitate them sooner rather than later into the mainstream of society, and so that they can be productive members of society rather than being a burden in overcrowded corrections facilities. That is essentially the vision I have for the criminal justice system.

The courts, of course, are backlogged in terms of the provincial bench as well as the Supreme Court, and we need to deal with those. If we can, we need to reduce the backlogs there by moving into non-adversarial methods of dealing with issues, particularly in the family law area. If we can move into alternative dispute resolutions and get away from the litigious attitudes in society that some of us take, I think we'll be better off as a society. The children would be better off, and the spouses who go at each other in the family courts would be better off. Society as a whole would be much better off because we would be able to cut costs and do a better job in terms of dealing with the issues confronting families and children.

In terms of some of the other areas such as consumer protection, I have asked the ministry to look at what we want to do in the next two or three years. There are areas of change to legislation that I hope to bring forward, particularly in the area of increasing the exemptions in the Court Order Enforcement Act, so that those exemptions can be brought to the end of the twentieth century rather than being $2,000 or a few dollars here and a few dollars there. Where you would declare bankruptcy, or where execution proceedings are taking place against you as a debtor, and you face difficulty and have very small exemptions. . . . I want to look at how we can protect some of those people in difficulties.

[ Page 418 ]

In terms of human rights legislation, you have the new act coming into force in October. I want to make sure that we do proactive work on human rights so that the backlog decreases, and we also want to deal with the backlog that exists today. We want, of course, to separate the educational functions, the advocacy functions, the investigative functions and the adjudicative functions so that we can have human rights in British Columbia that are the envy of North America rather than being behind others in this particular area.

Those are some of the things I think about as I sit in my office and deal with the issues.

G. Plant: I wonder if I might at this point turn directly to a couple of specific items. I'm grateful for the minister's expression of his vision, and I'll reflect on this over the next few hours and days as I'm sitting in my office.

The question I want to ask first has to do with the expenditure for the minister's office, vote 16. The total 1995-96 voted expenditure is stated at $785,000, and it is forecast to be reduced to $425,000. I wonder if there is a fairly simple explanation for that reduction in projected expenditure.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not great at dealing with figures, but let me tell you what that basically represents. Consumer affairs and housing was part of this estimate, and that office is no longer with me. That portion has been taken care of, so the estimate is essentially cut in half -- if that makes sense to you.

G. Plant: Would I be right in saying, then, that from an internal organizational perspective within the ministry, bringing consumer protection services under the umbrella of your ministry has not resulted in any increase at the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister level but has, rather, resulted in a decrease? Is that how it works?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there has been a decrease, and the total decrease is one deputy, two ADMs and 35 positions.

G. Plant: To restate that -- and I wonder if I'm correct in doing this -- the ministry is doing more work, but with less senior deputy ministerial staff. Is that how it works?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's correct -- and with no salary increases.

G. Plant: I want to turn now to the ministry operations budget in an introductory way. I can't think of any better order to go in these things than the order in which they generally appear. The first item under the heading of ministry operations is administration and support services, which I understand encompasses a broad range of services provided to the ministry. I understand that the total expenditure there is going down from $47.6 million to $42.8 million. I have a question about a specific item within that vote, and that is the question of aboriginal policing. Am I right that the proposed expenditure for administration and support services for 1996-97 includes an amount for aboriginal policing services, or has that already been moved somewhere else?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand it is included in the figure.

G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could then assist me in explaining what it is that we're talking about here when we're talking about aboriginal policing. As I understand it, the administration of this program involves some cost-sharing with the federal government pursuant to an agreement. I'm concerned to know in a general way whether, from the province's perspective, this agreement and policy or program are working. If it is the view of the Attorney General that this is working, what are the criteria for success here? How does the Attorney General define the success of this program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is cost-sharing. We receive a 52 percent contribution from the federal government, and we inject 48 percent.

In a general way, without talking about any of the policy issues specifically. . . . From my point of view, to be effective or considered effective, aboriginal policing would have to satisfy all of the standard criteria for policing in British Columbia. There has to be a certain level of comfort within the aboriginal communities that they're being policed in a way which is appropriate. They essentially have to feel that they have a stake in the kind of policing services being provided to them. I mean, that's how one would generally look at it. In terms of what the different models are, we can share that information with the hon. member if he so wishes.

G. Plant: Is this a program which exists on an as-demanded basis -- that is, that the government makes funding available and considers policing models when it is approached by first nations communities? Or is it a program where the government essentially reaches out into communities and from a top-down basis imposes particular solutions and policing models on them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We always provide aboriginal policing with a particular model when we're approached by the community or communities in question. That is, of course, not top-down. Among other reasons, one of the reasons we can't approach them is that there isn't enough money.

G. Plant: That leads me into the next aspect of this that is of interest to me. It's implicit in what the Attorney General has just said that there isn't enough money to satisfy all of the demands under this general umbrella. I suppose the question that arises is: in those circumstances, how would the Attorney General decide whether this program is succeeding? Is it succeeding? If so, why is it that you say it is succeeding?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I can tell you in general terms, hon. member. Ever since I've been in this office, I have not heard either directly or indirectly of any complaints from the aboriginal communities being served by this form of policing, from the police officers who may be part of that service or from the police in general. So I assume that there's a fairly high degree of satisfaction with the arrangements that are in place.

G. Plant: Am I right that what is being talked about here is alternatives to what might be called mainstream policing available under this umbrella to particular aboriginal communities when they come forward to the ministry and ask for them? If I am right, do we know approximately how many first nations have taken advantage of this program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First we have the ten communities that are being policed by the Lillooet police, and the second is the Kitasoo area. I understand that there is going to be an evaluation done in the fall, and we would have better results then. But I can tell you, from what I hear, that that experiment -- if we can call it that -- is working admirably so far.

[ Page 419 ]

G. Plant: Perhaps the Attorney General could explain what sounds like two different models. One is the model of policing provided by Lillooet, as I understand it, in ten communities, and the other is another area, the name of which I'm afraid I didn't hear well enough to dare and try to pronounce it myself.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me give you the information, hon. member. With respect to the ten first nations of the Lillooet region, the form of governance is modelled on a municipal police board. There are nine constables appointed under the B.C. Police Act. The provincial share, of course, is 48 percent, and for 1996 it was $396,000. For the Kitasoo public safety area, that is a Kitasoo public safety officer project. It's a community-based project, a first-response police service acting as an enhancement to the RCMP. Two officers appointed under the B.C. Police Act are accountable to a community oversight committee in that particular case.

G. Plant: I believe that in this context one also speaks of RCMP special constables. Is that another type of model for policing under this umbrella of the aboriginal policing within this section of the vote? If so, in how many communities across British Columbia is that model of policing currently being provided?

[3:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that model has a total number of 67 aboriginal officers, and it's serving approximately 120 aboriginal communities.

G. Plant: In an answer to an earlier question, the Attorney General spoke of limited funds. The question I then have, I suppose, is. . . . That's a fairly large number of reserves, but they aren't all of the reserves within British Columbia. Does the ministry have any plans with respect to the allocation of more funds, if it should be necessary to do so, if more first nations communities step forward and want to take advantage of the special constable model or either of the other models -- or any other model, for that matter?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The total allocation for this year is about $3.5 million. We're not looking to expand this form of policing at this time, because we don't have any funds. However, as the hon. member would know, we've promised that 100 new police officers will be added to the forces across British Columbia. Essentially, the thrust of that would be the enhancement of community policing, and at some point some of those members might be located in the aboriginal communities. But that process has to be worked out in consultation with the municipal police forces and the RCMP.

G. Plant: Does the Attorney General have the figures here that would show, on a year-by-year basis and, I suppose, most directly last year and this year, whether there has been an increase in the amount that he says is going to be $3.5 million? Has it remained constant over the last two or three years, or has it risen? What is it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand it has been $3.4 million for the last three years, and it's now at $3.475 million.

G. Plant: I want to turn, then, to the broad subject of court services. In the estimates the total voted expenditure under this heading is anticipated to be in the order of $139 million in 1996-97, which is an increase of some $10 million. I have a series of questions about a discrete range of subjects that, as I understand the organization of the ministry, fall under this general heading.

The first has to do with the important question of courtroom security. I'm sure the Attorney General and others here will recall an incident -- a horrible incident in the New Westminster courthouse several months ago -- where a relatively young member of the bar was attacked viciously by, I guess, an unhappy litigant or someone who managed to get into a courtroom with a weapon that was capable of causing serious bodily harm.

In the most recently published annual report for the ministry, reference is made to a pilot project -- the magnetometre project -- which looks like a security project that has as its aim controlled access to provincial courthouses so that people with weapons and other items will not be allowed into courtrooms. I would like a sense of what the minister's plans are in this general area to ensure that these kinds of incidents don't happen again. Specifically, what projects are underway, if any, to enhance courtroom security? Included in that would be a question about the specific magnetometre project.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: While it was unfortunate that that incident occurred, and we were all very concerned about the consequences of that to the individual who was victimized. . . . I believe it was the New Westminster courthouse where that happened.

The pilot project that you refer to has been in place at 222 Main Street, the courthouse in Vancouver. That pilot project has been deemed successful, and it is now permanent. If I remember from reading some material some days ago, I understand that in the last year they have confiscated approximately 7,000 knives as people were walking into the courthouse. So I think that that proves rather useful, but we also have to remember that the court services branch is carrying on discussions with the courts and is dealing with this issue in various ways. If the member is interested, I can advise that over the summer months of this year emergency plans will be updated at courthouses and risk assessments will be conducted pursuant to WCB regulations. The branch is currently reviewing prisoner escort security, in order to develop standards for all 35 sheriff offices, and several other initiatives that are underway.

We all must remember -- and I'm sure the judiciary is quite cognizant of this as well -- that our courts are open to the public in British Columbia. We want to retain and maintain that openness. Justice not only has to be done, it has to be physically seen to be done by people who may want to go in and out of the courtrooms to see the courts functioning. So while we are concerned and are taking appropriate steps, we also need to keep that need for openness in mind. With that in mind, the court services branch is aggressively dealing with this issue of security.

G. Plant: Thank you for that general assurance with respect to aggressive pursuit of this issue. Perhaps I could impose on the minister for some details about what's going on right now -- which, in the view of the minister, does constitute the aggressive pursuit of the security issue, with respect to some of the initiatives that are underway.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've mentioned a couple of them; let me mention a couple more. Over the next several months, sheriffs will be discussing courthouse security issues with members of the local bar and judiciary in order to improve 

[ Page 420 ]

security where possible. The branch has established an expert committee to assist in developing all security initiatives. The branch is currently reviewing policy with respect to using the Vancouver city police emergency response team for high-security trials and to the type of handguns used by sheriffs. Those are some of the others, just to give you an idea of what kinds of initiatives are being looked at.

G. Plant: I want to turn to a different issue, which is the problem of case management. The Attorney General referred to that issue in his opening remarks, or at least when I asked him about his personal priorities and vision. In my limited experience at the bar, the problem of overcrowding in the civil court system is one that never goes away and always seems to get worse. I recognize that the judiciary has a role to play, if not the pre-eminent role to play, in this vexing problem. The question that I have at this stage, again reflecting on the fact that we're at the beginning of a new mandate for the government, is whether there are any particular initiatives or ideas which the Attorney General has in mind as a way of addressing this serious, longstanding problem.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The main thrust of the ministry over the next two to three years is going to be to try to get some of these adversarial, litigious approaches out of the courtrooms and into mediation counselling so that we can reduce, as I said earlier, the costs and backlogs of the courts. In terms of the Supreme Court, however, there is a case management initiative that we've entered into discussions on, through the court services branch and the judiciary. I understand Justice Shaw has been appointed by the judiciary to work with the court services branch. There was a workshop in the spring of this year to deal with some of those issues, and the discussions continue.

In terms of the Provincial Court, I understand that small claims case management guidelines have been discussed and perhaps almost concluded. Similarly, discussions are underway with respect to the criminal aspect of the Provincial Court, as well as family matters. Those are, of course, a little more onerous, and the discussions continue. What we want to do over the next few months is to try to arrive at conclusions with the judiciary as to the nature of the backlogs that we can expect and the procedures and guidelines that can effectively deal with them. Those discussions are ongoing. In fact, if I remember correctly, the deputies -- both Stephen Owen and Maureen Maloney -- and myself had discussions with the bar. Members of the judiciary, the law societies and the benches were also present. That happened some months ago -- before the election. That was the beginning of the process of exploring many areas where changes can be made, including case management and backlogs in the courts. Some of the discussions that are now taking place in terms of managing those issues flow from that as well.

G. Plant: One of the concerns that always arises with issues like this is that the processes of consultation which appear to have started will continue. I take it that the intention of the Attorney General is that, having initiated these kinds of processes or begun new ones, members of the bar and those who are affected by these kinds of initiatives will continue to be consulted as progress is made or not made in developing ideas.

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the last five to ten days, I've met with both Karen Nordlinger and John Waddell. We indicated our mutual willingness to sit again with the Law Society, the benchers, members of judiciary and the activists on the bar so that we can have a continuing discussion on these issues. As we make progress in discussions with the Provincial Court as well as the Supreme Court judiciary, we will also take into account the views of the bar, particularly so that we can all work together. I had committed to actually arranging a meeting similar to the one that took place several months ago.

G. Plant: I wanted to make reference, on a slightly different subject but under the same general heading, to a couple of matters that are referred to in the 1994-95 annual report, in the section dealing with the court services branch. The first is a reference made on page 14 to something called the debit card pilot project. This is an annual report that takes us up to a period that's now 15 or 16 months ago. My question is about the current status of this pilot project -- whether the ministry intends to continue to use the debit card system at not only the Vancouver court registry but perhaps other court registries over the next little while. What else is generally happening with this pilot project?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the pilot project has been very successful; however, I think that you have to have a certain level of automation in the registries for it to be completely successful and to be expanded to other registries. I'm advised that we will wait for that level of automation to be able to successfully utilize it across other registries as well as in Vancouver itself.

G. Plant: So the current status, then -- am I right in assuming this? -- is that the machine is in place still in the Vancouver courthouse but not anywhere. . .? There is no debit card system in place in any other courthouse in British Columbia yet?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the best information at this time, but we'll check that for you.

G. Plant: Mechanically, how does this work? I seem to recall that the banks have this thing about Interact -- they think it's theirs and that the rest of us can't have it. Are you able to explain how. . .? Is it just simply a method by which people who have to pay filing fees at the registry desk are able to do so by handing over their bank card and punching in the requisite numbers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the distinction between the bank card and this debit card is that the bank card takes the money right out of your account and this card takes the money out of the account that you set up with the government. I am somewhat mechanically challenged as well, so I would not be able to explain it to you much better than this.

G. Plant: That means, therefore, that in order to use the debit card, you have to have a pre-existing account at the registry. I assume that what follows from that, generally speaking, is that the people who make the most active use of this service would be the registry companies as opposed to the ordinary person on the street who happens to show up and needs to file a document.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the technology was perhaps at the current state, that may be the case. But I think in future we are going to have to address the needs of all the consumers of 

[ Page 421 ]

court services, and we may have to devise a better system, where there might be another form of card which could be utilized. I don't know -- I'm just thinking out loud here with you. At some point maybe the ADM can advise me. At some point you may be able to use your Visa and other cards. It might be the most convenient thing at some point.

G. Plant: A great thing for lawyers, I guess.

I wanted to ask, then, questions about something else. Perhaps the Attorney General could update me on the status of the progress that's been made in relation to the judgment database project, which is referred to on page 15 of the annual report. This is the project looking into the feasibility of providing public on-line access to judgments through a computer database, both at the Supreme Court and at the Court of Appeal.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judgments will be available on the Internet in the fall sometime. Those are current judgments from the time that the Internet facility starts. With respect to the prior years, I understand those judgments would be put on disks and would be available from the Queen's Printer.

G. Plant: This strikes me as being an important tool to make the work product of the judicial system, if I can put it that way, available to the public. It also strikes me as being potentially fairly expensive. Does the minister know what the implementation of this project is expected to cost in the current financial year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there is no cost to the ministry directly. The Internet availability of the judgments is being facilitated by the judiciary out of their budget, and the Queen's Printer, of course, might begin to sell those CD-ROMs at cost or at a margin of profit.

G. Plant: Up until this point in history, people who wanted to read the written word of the judiciary would ordinarily do so by reading judgments in published law reports or in the growing plethora of services available -- the weekly law digests, and so on -- that allow you to order a copy of a judgment through a commercial firm that makes the judgments available at a price. What are the implications, if the minister has considered them, of the information superhighway for the marketplace that has existed in the past and has, I suppose, facilitated or controlled access to judgments? Are people complaining about it, or is this all happening as nothing but a great, positive step forward?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I personally haven't thought about that issue, but if one sort of looked at it, one would know that the traditional publishers add certain value to those cases by such information as headnotes or summaries, whereas the Internet, of course, wouldn't -- or it may start doing that as well. Who knows?

I think there are going to be quite a few older readers, such as myself, who are left behind by technology and who would still look to the traditional published word.

G. Plant: I won't join that group. I'm bound and determined to stay ahead -- or at least up to date. Whether I achieve that is another matter altogether.

I want to now ask a question or two about the subject of court filing fees generally. Of course, fairly recently there have been significant increases in all of the filing fees associated with civil litigation. The result is that it has become, and is becoming, increasingly expensive to use the civil litigation trial and appeal process of British Columbia. I understand that there is a balance that needs to be struck between the need for government economy on the one hand, which tends to drive a user-pay philosophy in areas like this, and on the other hand, access to justice. I suppose the concern that arises is that if and when fees get too high, ordinary people will no longer be able to afford the system and won't have access to at least the superior courts.

[3:45]

The question that arises out of this for me is whether the ministry has budgeted for any further fee increases in relation to Supreme Court and Court of Appeal civil court document-filing in the year that we're now embarked upon. Are there plans or processes underway to alter the status quo in the near future -- that is, to keep raising fees?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, we have not budgeted for any new increases in court fees. We have made a promise to the judiciary and the bar that we would continue to consult with them, perhaps for a more strategic, focused approach to any future increases in court fees that might happen five or ten years down the road, or earlier. But no, we haven't budgeted for any increases in '96-97.

G. Plant: As I understand the way the books are kept, as it were, the amount government receives from filing fees is not included as a recovery or an offset in respect of court services, but it appears elsewhere in the estimates as revenue of the Attorney General. As I understand it, the amount received in respect of filing fees, excluding fines, for example, is on the order of about $51 million. That's the amount estimated for this year. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and that's inclusive of the increase.

G. Plant: The question that arises from that -- and it may be impossible to answer without more specific information; I certainly don't have it -- is to what extent has the system become self-sufficient by the increase in fees? That is, what percentage of the cost of administering the system of civil litigation is now offset by revenue obtained from filing fees?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The increased fees now take care of about 75 percent of the total cost of the judicial process, exclusive of the judicial salaries.

G. Plant: In answer to a question I asked about the development of the judgment database, the Attorney General earlier indicated that the funding for that was coming from the judiciary. Just to make sure I understand which round peg is being fit into which square hole, did the Attorney General mean it was funding its role in this project out of the provincial government's allocation of funding which appears as a different item within the ministry's expenditures?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The question that occurred to me in that context a minute or so ago -- which I may as well pursue now, even though it's perhaps technically outside the bounds of the court services issues -- arises in the context of court overcrowding. 

[ Page 422 ]

One could say there are too many litigants and not enough courtrooms, and one often hears debate about the question of whether there are enough judges, both at the Supreme Court level and at the Provincial Court level. Do the ministry's estimates for the '96-97 year allow for any increase in the number of judicial appointments at all three levels -- that is, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the federal appointments, we haven't budgeted for any increase in the appointments at all. You know that sometimes they happen, and we'll have to find money for those then. But in terms of the provincial appointments, there would be three appointments specifically added because of the traffic safety initiative, and seven JPs.

G. Plant: I wanted to ask some questions about one other aspect of the court services branch work, and that has to do with the subject of technology in the courtroom. The way trials are conducted increasingly requires lawyers -- even with the age and experience of the Attorney General -- to become technologically proficient, even if they don't want to. There have been a number of experiments and initiatives undertaken to attempt to introduce technology into the courtroom. I suppose my first question for the Attorney General is: what are his personal views and his personal vision about how these initiatives should or should not proceed over the course of the life of this government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, the ministry is looking to do two things at the same time: (1) trying to save money for the taxpayers; and (2) making the system of justice more accessible for people. If we can do that electronically -- dealing with court reporting through recording, automating the registry functions, or taking over the court clerk's function with electronic recording -- we will do so. But always keep in mind when we talk about these issues that, at the end of the day, we want to present a friendly and human face of the system of justice to anyone that comes to the doors of the court. In the next three to four years we are going to be working on all of these initiatives, but in the back of our minds the overriding concern is going to be: how do we do all of that and keep that system of justice as humane as it is, or make it better?

G. Plant: What is the traffic safety initiative that was referred to in the context of the appointments to the Provincial Court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Photo radar.

G. Plant: Just because I can be very stupid more often than I want to admit, that means that the imposition of photo radar is expected to result in an increased level of prosecution of individuals for traffic safety offences, which will require more judges to adjudicate these matters.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There will be an allocation of $15 million to our ministry to deal with the increased costs as a result of the traffic safety initiative. But in terms of the number of cases before the courts, that's why you have seven JPs. We are presently working with the courts to make sure that we deal with these issues in a way that doesn't unnecessarily add to the costs.

G. Plant: But the answer referred to the seven JPs. Does the same reasoning also apply with respect to the intention to make three additional appointments to the Provincial Court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I want to move onto another broad subject -- legal services generally. The estimates indicate that under this category there is a budgeted increase in spending from $22.4 million to $23.7 million. Is it possible to say, generally speaking, what this increase represents?

[4:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are several factors. First of all, there is increased funding for aboriginal ad hoc legal costs. Then there is increased funding for salaries due to the Crown counsel agreement; funding for the traffic safety initiative, of course -- 1.5 FTEs; the increased funding for the change in the employee benefits costs, from 20 to 20.5 percent; and, of course, building occupancy costs as well.

G. Plant: Perhaps I could explore a little more what the minister meant by "aboriginal ad hoc legal costs."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That relates to the Kispiox Valley Road case with respect to OIC 1036, and the Boothroyd case with respect to federal OIC 208. I'm certain the member probably has more knowledge of these kinds of issues than I do, so. . . .

G. Plant: It's just that I didn't understand, and don't even want to presume that I'm beginning to understand, the complex issue of terminology. I find that every time I ask a question using a word that I know the meaning of, I'm informed by a civil servant that I'm not using the word the right way. At the risk of committing the unforgivable sin of speaking in plain English, what I think we're talking about is money that the government is spending on outside lawyers -- in particular, in connection with the two lawsuits that the minister just referred to.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes.

G. Plant: Thank you. I want to speak about the general question of the allocation of legal expenses within the ministry and the legal services branch in the sense of the legal services which the branch provides to government. I touched on this issue during interim supply debate a few weeks ago. I guess I should say that my general interest is in the question of the cost-effectiveness of the legal services which the Attorney General is required to provide to government. I was much assisted by the briefing on this issue that I received from ministry staff a few days ago, and I want to make sure that I understand the general purport of the arrangement.

As I understand it, there is an allocation made within the legal services branch of the legal services which are anticipated to be provided to the various ministries of government and agencies. That decision is made at some point in the budgeting or estimating process and becomes more or less cast in stone for a fiscal year. If, after the implementation of that model or regime of funding allocation, one particular ministry overspends its allocation, then it has to come back to your ministry and say: "We still need more legal help from your ministry. We've overspent our budgeted amount. May we please have some more legal services?" Then you say: "Yes, if you pay for it according to this formula." Having set that out at some length, I wonder if I have it right.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct in his description of the system, except that there is no charge back 

[ Page 423 ]

in place. Whenever additional resources are required, the particular ministry would pay for them, whatever the additional resources are. I was told by someone that this might be in the form of FTEs and funding for FTEs.

G. Plant: So it's the client ministry that has to fund the need for additional legal services. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is it possible to describe, in a general way, the process that leads to the allocation of the ministry's legal resources among the various client ministries of government? In particular, I'm interested in knowing whether that process involves any disciplined or rigorous assessment of cost effectiveness in terms of providing that service. Just how is it that decisions are made -- presumably -- to make some legal resources available to one ministry and other legal resources available to another ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These, what may appropriately be called estimates, are arrived at based on the historical experience from various ministries. If and when there is additional need, then the ministry in question pays for those additional resources.

G. Plant: A system that is based on the experience of history is not always a system that keeps up to date with the needs of the present. I began to ask this question during interim supply: within the legal services branch or elsewhere in the ministry, are there assessments or reviews being undertaken to look at the question of the cost-effective allocation of legal services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, there is an ongoing review of these kinds of issues. Currently, I understand that legal services will assign or is assigning a lawyer to a particular ministry. That lawyer would try and assess the needs and enter into an MOU for the coming year or the coming period based on the assessment the lawyer arrives at in consultation with the ministry. So we have some re-examined bases for the estimates we have in place.

G. Plant: So the process involves a discussion or negotiation between a lawyer within the branch and the people who are in his or her client ministry, if I can use that term. Then there is something arrived at, which you've just called an MOU, that sets out -- in a very rough-and-ready way, I expect -- what the expected demand for legal services will be over the course of the year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That particular lawyer would have the coordinating role but wouldn't have the final decision to come back to legal services and say: "This is what we're going to provide." That lawyer would be the interface between legal services as well as the ministry in question. The MOU would be arrived at between legal services and the ministry. The lawyer would simply be instrumental in taking us to that conclusion.

G. Plant: This takes me to the subject of client satisfaction. Having put in place lawyers who are primarily intended to provide legal services to other client ministries, the question is: are the lawyers doing good work? How is that measured? I understand that in 1994-95 there was a client-satisfaction survey conducted within legal services branch. Perhaps the minister could comment generally on this survey. Who was surveyed? What were the kinds of questions asked? What outcome were you looking for in conducting this survey? Was it completed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That survey was directed to all of the deputies, the ADMs and the senior directors in the various ministries. There was a high return of that survey. I understand that there was a high level of satisfaction expressed with the legal services provided by the branch to the ministries. There were some issues identified, of course, such as communications, workload and the like, and I understand that they have been dealt with.

G. Plant: Is the outcome of the survey a public document, and if not, why not?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We can certainly make that available to the hon. member. If one really wanted to do an FOI, it's FOI-able. We'll be able to give it to you in any event, if you so desire.

G. Plant: I think that what lawyers do in this context is say something like: "I leave my request on the record." If in fact it's available, I would like to see it without being put through the happy task of doing an FOI request.

What the marketers will tell you, and what the people in this business will tell you, is that doing a survey is only the beginning; learning from past experience is only the beginning. That takes me to the question of what kind of work is being done, if any, to monitor the implementation of whatever you've decided to do as a result of the survey. Is there an ongoing survey of client satisfaction? I know that the model doesn't translate completely from the private sector; nonetheless, your ministry is faced with the fact that a great deal of what you're doing is for other ministries.

[4:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the lawyers in the ministry, I understand that there is a performance management process in place that is gone through. I also understand that the branch will be doing another review this year. Hopefully, we'll be able to give you those results as well.

I'm interested in what the member might have to say in terms of what we should be doing, because obviously the member comes from the private bar, as do I. He comes from a large firm; I come from a small firm. I'd be happy to hear the perspective the hon. member may have on what we should be doing within the ministry. When you have a captive number of lawyers at the service of the various ministries, sometimes it's natural for people to develop likes and dislikes either for what's being done or for the individuals. We work in a very close-knit environment, particularly in these pointy buildings. I'd be happy to hear what the hon. member may have to say as to what we should be doing.

With respect to the issues I have needed to deal with, I can tell you from experience that the opinions and information I have received from the legal services branch have been of the highest calibre. Of course, as a lawyer or as anyone dealing with those opinions, you may agree or disagree or choose to ignore or accept that advice. That's up to us at the end of the day. But the quality of advice is not necessarily in the conclusions that it arrives at; sometimes it's in the process that it uses to arrive at the conclusions. I think I would be remiss if I didn't say to the hon. member and everyone else 

[ Page 424 ]

that the legal services branch personnel. . . . The lawyers who work there provide very good service to the province, but of course we're always open to suggestions. In fact, I'll be asking the hon. member to tell us what he thinks we should be doing. I'd be happy to incorporate that in any future work, if I can.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for his invitation. My comments did not speak at all from a concern about the ability of the individual lawyers within the legal services branch; all of those I've ever dealt with are, in my personal experience, lawyers of the first rank. The issue that strikes me, as an observer from the outside and as someone who has seen the management and administration of legal services within other large institutions, is the issue of cost-effectiveness. It's important. This is the lesson that I have to learn from those for whom I work in the private sector. I never have a choice.

To be concrete about it, if you're pursuing a debt for $250,000 -- and even assuming that as a lawyer acting for a plaintiff you have the luxury of suing a defendant that's good for the money -- the issue arises: at what point have you spent so much of your client's money on legal fees that recovery is no longer an economic proposition? If you know it's going to take $25,000 in legal fees to recover a $25,000 judgment, in the private sector there is a decision made about whether or not that should be carried out.

It's less clear to me whether the same process of reasoning applies within government. I have seen it not apply in other large institutions, like banks, for example, where occasionally -- and I'm not personalizing any particular bank -- decisions are made to damn the torpedoes and throw three orders at a file that's intended to recover on a $12,000 debt, just because the bank is angry at the debtor.

My question is more around whether and how government is alive to the issue of cost-effectiveness, of managing the delivery of its legal services recognizing that each of the high-quality people within the legal services branch come at a cost. That's the extent of what I guess I'll call the insight I have on the problem at this point. It's a subject of continuing interest to me.

I want to turn to a different issue, but also an issue within the umbrella of the legal services branch. That is the federal-provincial family law project. I noted with interest that in both the 1993-94 annual report and the 1994-95 annual report of the Ministry of Attorney General, reference is made to something called the federal-provincial family law project in a way that makes it appear that this project has been ongoing for several years, but it doesn't really make it clear what the objectives of the project are or when it's expected to finish, if it hasn't already done so.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is a committee made up of various government representatives from across the country that deals with family law issues. That's the committee that has recently developed the child-support guidelines that are being implemented federally.

G. Plant: Does the development of those guidelines mean, in effect, that the work of the committee or of this project has exhausted itself, and it's at an end? Or is there more on the agenda?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is an ongoing committee that deals with issues as they arise. It's not a one-issue committee that would terminate.

G. Plant: What issues does the committee currently have before it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of many of the other issues at this time. For instance, the implementation of the child support guidelines across the country is an issue that's of ongoing concern to the committee.

G. Plant: Who participates in this committee? Are there representatives of each of the provinces and the federal government, and who are the representatives from the province -- deputy ministers, or lawyers, or who?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, this is a committee composed of all representatives of the provincial governments as well as the federal government. These are not DMs or ADMs but lawyers who work in the ministry, and they report to the deputies.

G. Plant: The minister will forgive my ignorance; he will have to do it more than once. What are the child support guidelines that have been developed by this committee and are being implemented federally? I just don't know what that relates to.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are child support guidelines that have been worked out by the provinces with the federal government. With respect to maintenance orders and these guidelines, of course, the provinces have to implement them in each province. To jog the hon. member's memory, there was also the issue of the tax consequences. That's a separate issue, but these are two related things.

G. Plant: Are these guidelines implemented by regulation, to be used in the context of applications for custody in that context, or are they simply guidelines made available to lawyers and the judiciary with respect to what it really costs to support a child?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These guidelines, of course, would be implemented legislatively. The province would have to pass a law to deal with the orders pursuant to the provincial legislation, such as the Family Relations Act. To have those guidelines apply to maintenance orders made under that legislation, we would have to bring in a new law or make some amendments to that legislation. Whether or not at the end of the day courts would have discretion to not follow the guidelines in certain situations would, of course, be left up to the legislation that might be enacted provincially.

G. Plant: Are the guidelines fully developed? To put it another way, is all that remains from a provincial perspective their implementation by some form of legislation or regulation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The guidelines are fully developed. It remains to be seen whether or not they fulfil the function and purpose for which they were made. As I looked at them when they were made public, I and others had some questions as to whether or not the end result would be what they set out to achieve with these guidelines -- i.e., more money for the needy children and the needy spouses. If we decide that those guidelines actually lead us to that result, we will implement them as they are.

G. Plant: I have some questions about aboriginal issues generally in the context of the legal services branch. I suppose I could begin with what I hope is a fairly simple question. 

[ Page 425 ]

Is the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs one of the client ministries to which the legal services branch lawyers provide legal services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Does the legal services branch provide legal advice and assistance to other ministries in respect of aboriginal issues that may arise in those ministries?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Does the legal services branch provide legal advice to provincial treaty negotiators?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: How is the provision of this legal advice -- relating to aboriginal issues generally, and specifically, legal advice relating to treaty negotiations -- organized administratively within the legal services branch?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a specialized unit that deals with aboriginal issues in the legal services branch. There are ten members of that unit.

G. Plant: And the ten members of the unit are ten lawyers who are presumably supported by support staff. If that's so, what is the name of the unit?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The name of the unit is the aboriginal law and research group. There are ten lawyers, there is one historical researcher and there are approximately six staff.

G. Plant: Does the legal services branch or the Attorney General's ministry generally have any ongoing responsibility in respect of the legal assistance which may be necessary to draft the anticipated final agreement with the Nisga'a Tribal Council?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I understand the ministry will be assisting in the drafting of that.

G. Plant: The Nisga'a agreement-in-principle is a wonderfully complex document all by itself, and I am sure it will lead to an even more wonderfully complex final agreement. I want to know what the challenges are that the Attorney General sees, and by that I mean legal challenges, in turning the agreement-in-principle into a final agreement -- for example, division-of-powers issues, constitutional issues. What are the technical legal issues that are going to arise during the transition from the AIP stage to a final agreement stage?

[4:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is better versed in this issue than I am. I think those are the kinds of questions that would be appropriately put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, because I do not deal with those issues on a day-to-day basis. My ministry provides the legal assistance and advice and sometimes research that they might need, but beyond that, I don't engage in dealing with those kinds of issues, except at the cabinet table -- which I can't tell you anything about, in any event.

G. Plant: I knew about that problem.

Are there legal personnel within the legal services branch who have specific responsibilities in relation to assisting in both the preparation and the negotiation of the Nisga'a final agreement? That is, are there people assigned to the task of providing this legal support in relation to the development of the Nisga'a final agreement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This enterprise would involve a number of people. This is a very significant undertaking, and I understand that the legal services branch is coordinating the putting together of a team. Of course, members of that team would have different duties with respect to perhaps drafting or putting together various parts of the agreement.

G. Plant: I want to be sure I heard correctly part of the last answer -- that there is a team being put together. It is anticipated that there will be a team put together? Or is it that the team is already in place? I just didn't hear what the statement was.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The team is being put together. It is not in place.

For hon. members' information, the chief negotiator with respect to the Nisga'a agreement is on secondment at the treaty table from the legal services branch.

G. Plant: By secondment, does the Attorney General mean that this individual -- who I guess is Mr. Ebbels -- is in some way. . .?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I told you that you knew more than I did.

G. Plant: That I'm not sure about, but at least I have a name or two.

By secondment, you mean that he has kind of an ongoing specific full-time assignment serving as the chief negotiator. Is that what was meant?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. He is doing that task on a full-time basis, and while he's doing that, the Aboriginal Affairs ministry pays for him.

If I may, hon. Chair, could I ask your indulgence to allow a break for about three or four minutes. I know we don't want to be courteous to the members of the media, but I had a date with one of them about 2:30 and we missed each other.

The Chair: If the committee is in agreement, we will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

The Chair: I'll call the committee back to order and recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Hon. Chair, I want to turn now to the important but troublesome question of legal aid and the operation of the Legal Services Society within British Columbia. I should begin by making sure that I have a few of the basic facts, in terms of the current situation, correct.

I'm going to refer here to a memorandum of understanding which officials in the Attorney General's ministry were kind enough to provide to me. As I understand it, it's a memorandum of understanding dated March 29, 1996, 

[ Page 426 ]

between the Legal Services Society and the Ministry of the Attorney General. This is a quote of a portion of the memorandum: "In 1996-97 the Ministry of Attorney General will provide to the Legal Services Society funding in the amount of. . . ." Then there are three bullets. The first bullet is "$81.5 million in base grant." The second bullet is "one-time grant of $5.7 million," and the third bullet is "additional grant of $6.2 million in consideration of the deficit at the end of 1994-95."

Perhaps I could pause there to ask the Attorney General if, in the estimates which he is now asking us to approve for the year 1996-97, he is seeking the authority to provide that amount of funding to the Legal Services Society.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The figure of $6.2 million was the deficit at the end of 1994-95. That was charged to the year 1995-96, so it is not in the budget for 1996-97. The 1996-97 budget would have essentially the figure of $81.5 million, plus the $5.7 million.

G. Plant: If the $81.5 million and the $5.7 million are in fact granted, and having regard to this additional grant, what. . . . I think the question is probably wrongly put. What I want to know is: what is the accumulated deficit of the society as of the end of the '95-96 fiscal year -- that is, at the beginning of the fiscal year that we are now in? In other words, what is the starting point of the deficit position at the beginning of this fiscal year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be approximately $10 million. It was $22 million, and we provided them, of course, $5.7 million and $6.2 million with the understanding that that would go to pay down the deficit. So you take that out of $22 million, and you're left with the actual deficit at the end of fiscal '95-96.

G. Plant: How was the figure of $81.5 million calculated? I recognize that the Legal Services Society is independent of government, but I assume that you know -- correct me if I'm wrong. . . . In terms of the base grant, how did that figure come to be $81.5 million as opposed to some other figure?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was $83.5 million last year, and we passed on the $2 million federal cut to the Legal Services Society. Hence the $81.5 million. Also, the hon. member's party was saying that that was the money they were going to give them if they formed government. Just joking.

G. Plant: I am resisting the growing tendency to say something ever so slightly partisan.

The base grant figure, in effect, represents the maintenance of last year's funding, subject to the $2 million reduction, which is a pass-through of the federal government's cut?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I suppose -- in case someone were ever so perverse as to want to read this discussion in written form at some date in the future -- that the provincial government continues to receive funding from the federal government and that this funding is generally intended to be used towards the provision of legal aid. My recollection is that this year that amount is going to be in the order of $16 million. Perhaps the Attorney General could correct me if I'm wrong.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, hon. member, the contribution made by the federal government has continued to decrease over the years. In 1986, for instance, they provided 54 percent of the total cost of criminal legal aid, and in 1996-97 they'll be providing 19 percent of the total cost of criminal legal aid -- and the figure is approximately $16.5 million.

G. Plant: In the course of the discussions with the Legal Services Society which led to this memorandum of understanding, did the society present a budget for what they expected to have to spend in '96-97?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the Legal Services Society representatives asked for approximately $88 million, but at the end of the day, as negotiations progressed, they were more concerned about the deficit. Hence the arrangement that you have before you where $11.9 million was given them to go toward that deficit.

G. Plant: Was there some principled basis that saw the allocation of that $11.9 million in two separate sums, one for one fiscal year and another for the other fiscal year? It's not a round number. How were the two numbers arrived at?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The one-time grant of $5.7 million was part of the $10.7 million that they were to receive as part of the reform package, and this was the balance of that $10.7 million. The $6.2 million had been agreed to be paid to them because it was a new board coming in, and they were inheriting a previous year's deficit of $6.2 million. It was agreed that the new board would be able to start off without that deficit.

G. Plant: But the new board would still have an inherited deficit of something in the order of $10 million.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The balance of the deficit that you have today, which is approximately $10 million, is the deficit of this particular board that you have in place today.

G. Plant: When was that board appointed?

[5:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can get the exact dates for the hon. member, but I understand that the new board was appointed in late spring 1995.

G. Plant: So the $10 million deficit was incurred, roughly speaking, over a 12-month period immediately prior to the agreement -- I mean, within months.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: One of the provisions in the memorandum of understanding reads: "There will be no additional funds to cover increased court fees." It sounds like a father speaking to his errant child. What was going on? What's the issue in this provision of the memorandum?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue here is simply that this was the time -- I don't recall the exact date -- around which the increase in court fees was brought in. There was an issue as to whether they should expect any more money to cover the increase in court fees. It was made clear to them that there should be no such expectation on their part.

G. Plant: The next paragraph in the memorandum of understanding, paragraph 5, says there will be a jointly spon-

[ Page 427 ]

sored management review of the Legal Services Society operations conducted by June 30, 1996, paid for by the Legal Services Society. My questions are: has that review been conducted, and what was its outcome?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the review now will be completed by October 15. It hasn't been completed. Of course, we're all working on it.

G. Plant: Is it still the case that the review of which the Attorney General speaks is jointly sponsored, by which I take it that the Ministry of Attorney General is to participate in this review?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the ministry would be comanaging this review. We are considering the possibility of asking the auditor general to do this review. We haven't made that decision. That decision, of course, has to be made jointly with the Legal Services Society.

G. Plant: What was the intention behind this review? What was it that was to be reviewed, at least from the perspective of the Ministry of Attorney General when it entered into this paragraph?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This was to deal with the issue of the general management of the Legal Services Society as well as whether it was following the eligibility criteria appropriately, whether it was managing the offices in locations other than the head office, whether they were being managed properly, whether the head office was being managed properly -- whether the whole of the financial resources that were being made available to the Legal Services Society by the taxpayers were being utilized in the best possible fashion to provide the services they're mandated to provide.

G. Plant: It sounds, therefore, as though it was intended to be a very broad-ranging review of the extent to which the society was operating within the parameters of its current mandate -- that is, whether it was doing the job we expected it to do -- as opposed to a review that would take into account the possibility of changing the eligibility criteria or its mandate. It sounds like a fairly broad review of the whole way in which the Legal Services Society was operating.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, those are the kinds of issues that are intended to be looked at by the management review. I don't think the management review would look at whether or not the eligibility criteria ought to be changed. At the end of the day, once the management review is in our hands, the Legislature or others might decide that we need to do something about the issue.

G. Plant: I think I understand the point the Attorney General is making. What I'd like to know now is: what steps in relation to this review have been undertaken since March 29, 1996 -- or April 2, or whatever is the effective date of the agreement?

I guess another way of asking that question. . . . I apologize for rising again while you were probably thinking about the answer. What actual progress has been made in respect of this review since the beginning of April?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are currently discussing the terms of reference of the management review. Once those terms of reference have been concluded, we'll be looking at who should be doing that review.

G. Plant: I want to be sure I heard the last part of that. You're currently discussing the terms of reference, and then once they're agreed upon, you will be discussing who will do the review. Is that what was said?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. The two approaches that are being considered right now are that either we would ask the auditor general to do the review or we would put it out to tender.

G. Plant: In either event -- that is, with either of those approaches -- the intention is that this review be conducted by a body which is independent of both the Ministry of Attorney General and the Legal Services Society. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I was thinking of Maitland's line -- I think it's Maitland's line -- that "forms of action are the chains clanking in the past." I'm sure there's a good reason for this procedure, and I'm sure it will occur to me in the fullness of time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You don't have these problems in the courts; you just jump up and say it.

G. Plant: That's right. I grab you by the throat and say: "Tell me."

The minister referred to discussions that I understand are ongoing in relation to the development of jointly agreed upon terms of reference for this review. The question that arises for me, then, is. . . . I take it that these are discussions taking place between the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Legal Services Society.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: We're past the originally agreed-upon deadline to conduct this review. I take it that the reason for agreeing to this deadline in the memorandum of understanding was to give effect to, among other things, the general sense of concern that there is, and has been, some mismanagement within the Legal Services Society, and that it's in the public interest to find out whether that's so as quickly as possible.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that was the intent; that is the intent. But the board is an independent entity, and, of course, I have no mechanism at this point to force the board to do anything they don't wish to do. Hence, we are still negotiating the terms of reference.

G. Plant: Well, far be it from me to give the Ministry of Attorney General legal advice about whether or not the agreement with them has been fundamentally breached, but I suppose if the breach consists of their failure to participate in a jointly sponsored review, there are some complicated questions that arise.

There is another aspect of this agreement, which has to do with managing the Legal Services Society. In paragraph 3, the parties to the agreement agreed that the "Legal Services Society Board will submit to the Ministry of Attorney General by September 15, 1996, a plan to eliminate the cumulative deficit in three years." I suppose my first question for the Attorney General is: having regard to the current status of the jointly sponsored management review, does the Attorney 

[ Page 428 ]

General have any expectation that he will in fact receive this plan on September 15, as promised in the memorandum of understanding?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is my hope that they're able to provide us with a plan by September 15. Of course, it remains to be seen whether they do so or not.

G. Plant: Has the Legal Services Society been engaging in any dialogue with the ministry with respect to the development of this plan?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there is a body called the policy and planning council which is made up of the representatives of the board and various -- for want of a better term -- stakeholders. I understand that the policy and planning council is chaired by a member of the board, and that it is meeting and has a retreat planned in the very near future. Hopefully, they will be forwarding their plan to us, as envisaged by this memorandum of understanding. On that policy and planning council are also representatives of CBA and the Law Society.

G. Plant: Are there any representatives of the Ministry of Attorney General on this policy and planning council that has a retreat planned in the near future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Also, there is an addendum to that agreement dated April 2, 1996. I don't know whether you have a copy of it. I'll provide you with a copy.

[5:15]

G. Plant: I can advise the Attorney General that I was provided with the addendum -- a letter of April 2, 1996, from the Legal Services Society to Ms. Maloney, the deputy minister. I hadn't really reached the point of trying to understand the implications of this, but perhaps I do understand one implication. There is an agreement on the part of the society to maintain operations at current levels of service until September 15, 1996, and implement such cost-saving measures as are viable.

I take it that one thing achieved by this aspect of this provision is the extension of the undertaking given in the original agreement, which was only to provide service -- or not to withdraw service -- up to April 8. So what the government has is some assurance that services will continue to be provided until September 15, 1996. Is that the intention of this provision?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's true. We wanted to make sure that there are no disruptions to the service and also that they don't make any cuts to the service.

With respect to implementing cost-saving measures that are viable, it was our hope that they would do so, in any event. I was in a meeting with members of the board and other representatives, and at one of those meetings I was advised. . . . When I pressed them on this issue of cost saving, they said they could very easily save a couple of million dollars. I said: "Well, why haven't you done so?"

G. Plant: What was the answer?

Does the Ministry of Attorney General currently have any assurance from the Legal Services Society that it will continue to deliver services after September 15, 1996?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That date is now October 15, so there have been changes as we go along. But I am hoping that the board lives up to the mandate that it has under the legislation, which is to provide services.

G. Plant: Correct me if I am wrong, though, that the context of the memorandum and its addendum was the threat by the society to stop delivering services or to withdraw services. I may be wrong in my recollection of history, but I thought that was the crisis that had arisen earlier this year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The ministry had been in discussions with the Legal Services Society for some time. In fact, as long as I remember, as the Attorney General from August of 1995, I've been hearing about the concerns and difficulties -- except that the possible disruption in the services and discontinuance of services was a major concern. Discussions were then held -- I believe there was a day-long session, or longer than a day -- that eventually resulted in this agreement.

G. Plant: The undertaking in respect of maintaining operations at current levels of service until September 15 has, I am now informed, been extended to October 15. Is that assurance expressed in writing? Is there a further addendum to this agreement? If so, does it alter any other provisions of the agreement which are material to the general examination of the state of the society?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that that understanding has been expressed orally. As well, there is, I believe, a letter to the deputy minister indicating that that's the agreement: that both the management review and the plan are to come forward to government by October 15.

G. Plant: It sounds like the two originally hoped-for and agreed-upon deadlines of June 30 and September 15 have both been pushed up to October 15. That is the point in time at which the ministry expects to have in hand both a plan presented by the society on how it will eliminate its deficit over three years and the results of its independent management review of the operations of the society, which was originally anticipated to have been completed by June 30.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: There are other colleagues of mine who have a passing interest in legal aid, and I think they may have some questions at this point.

J. van Dongen: As the minister knows, I do have an interest in legal aid. I'll try to pick up on the discussion that my colleague was leading. I'm looking at the annual report of the Legal Services Society, 1994-95. The report, first of all, makes reference to a report on core services of the Legal Services Society that was done in 1994. According to this annual report, it talks about statutorily-mandated services and board-mandated services -- that's the Legal Services Society board. Does the minister have any sense of what the split on the funding of those two areas of responsibility is?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have a breakdown, but I'm advised that the overwhelming majority of the expenditures are on statutorily mandated services. The board-mandated services might be poverty law and the like. I can get more information for the member -- perhaps not during the estimates, but maybe after or perhaps tomorrow.

[ Page 429 ]

The overriding understanding I have is that the board- mandated services would have to fit within the objectives of the legislation. I don't have a copy of the act. It refers to section 3.1(a) of the act.

J. van Dongen: If we could pick up on a discussion that we had a few weeks ago on the mandate of Legal Services, where we compared legal aid in British Columbia to legal aid in New Brunswick, I think the minister had said that in New Brunswick, litigation of family law issues is not funded through legal aid. I'm wondering if the minister could provide any more detailed comments on the differences between B.C. and New Brunswick in that respect, if he has more information on it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am not fully enlightened as to all the differences between us and New Brunswick, but I can tell the hon. member that in British Columbia, criminal and family law are each almost 40 percent of the total expenditures. In New Brunswick, I'm told, they do provide emergency legal aid but not general legal aid for family matters.

J. van Dongen: I've had some correspondence with the minister and with Legal Services with respect to mediation as opposed to litigation. I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed in the letter that I got from David Duncan, the CEO of Legal Services. He talked about the need for mediation and alternative dispute resolution services, and then turned around and said: "Well, we can't look at that now, because we have a severe financial shortfall and we are unable to consider implementing new projects at this time." It seems to me that considering mediation is part of the solution rather than of the problem, and I think it's the unwillingness of Legal Services to look at options that's creating some of the cost pressures that we have had. I'm wondering if the minister could comment a bit further in terms of what he might consider mandating in some manner, through legislation or an agreement with Legal Services, as to the expenditure of funds related to family matters.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that I think we as a society have to move towards mediation, particularly in the area of family law. It's less costly and less taxing in terms of the emotional and litigation-related difficulties that individuals go through.

I understand that the policy and planning council, with respect to the Legal Services Society, is looking at budget issues as well and is very keenly interested in promoting mediation. I'm hoping they will come forward and make it part of their broad mandate to push mediation, which is, at the end of the day, cheaper financially and better for all concerned. Whether we can do that as part of the legislative mandate or whether we even need to do that, given the broad objectives that the legislation has. . . . I don't have a copy of the act, but if one goes through the broad objectives of the legislation, one can find room for saying that this legislation mandates the board to look for avenues for cost saving -- and, of course, saving the tension, pain and suffering that people go through in adversarial situations, particularly in family matters.

I personally -- and there might not be an appetite for this on the part of other legislators in the province -- think that once we're able to deal with the management review and with a plan to deal with the deficit. . . . If those issues aren't resolved satisfactorily, I think that we really have to search for a much broader solution than simply dealing with what we have in the memorandum of understanding. I'm open to that, whether or not that's possible, doable or desirable at the end of the day. We'll be able to debate that, perhaps in the next sitting.

[5:30]

J. van Dongen: I guess the minister has more time than I do to debate. I am concerned about the record of the Legal Services Society, not just on the financial front but certainly on some of the things I've seen. I don't pretend to have a very broad knowledge of legal aid or the Legal Services Society, but I am concerned that they seem to be really dragging their feet on dealing with issues that are their responsibility.

I think it needs to be said that these are taxpayers' dollars. There are lots of people currently in society who do not qualify for legal aid but who, at the same time, can't afford to hire a lawyer. There are certain inequities there. Again, I say that as taxpayers we have a right to establish conditions under which we are forwarding the funds. I hope that the minister would take that view.

I'm wondering, does the Ministry of Attorney General. . .? What is the process of monitoring the performance of the Legal Services Society on an ongoing basis? Is there, for example, anybody within the ministry designated to advise the minister on an evaluation of the society's performance, say, on an annual or semiannual basis?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me go back to the previous discussion just for a moment. I understand that the Legal Services Society screens cases and does refer appropriate ones to family mediators if they are available locally. The Legal Services Society is also working with the family court counsellors to achieve, of course, greater effectiveness in this area. How effectively they do this is another issue, I think. With respect to the monitoring, the Legal Services Society board is independent. There are, of course, audit requirements implicit in the legislation. Part of what we attempted to do in this memorandum of understanding was to try and inject some accountability at the end of the day through the management review, through a three-year plan, so that the board and the Legal Services Society understood that we the legislators need to make sure that these tax dollars are spent effectively and provide the best available services to the needy people at affordable prices. That's the nature of what we're trying to do. There are obviously difficulties in this area, and the member knows that as well as I do.

J. van Dongen: I might just pick up on the minister's comment with regard to family court counsellors. I appreciate the fact that Legal Services is trying to identify cases that might be appropriately diverted to family court counsellors, but I'm concerned for the minister's ministry because I know that requires funding out of his budget, and we've got $35 million-some-odd in the Legal Services budget going into family litigation.

On that note -- the issue of family court counsellors -- I know that the ministry did a pilot project, which I thought was a good idea. But it appeared that near the end of the project, sometime last December or so, there was a need to curtail funding of those additional 12 family court counsellors in British Columbia. I'm wondering: has there been an ability to fund those additional family court counsellors, or what's the status of that situation?

[ Page 430 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have about 70 staff, including family court counsellors across the province, who do mediation as well as child custody reports. We have also had four family justice centres across the province on which evaluation has come, and the evaluation is highly satisfactory. Some of the programs that were part of the family justice centres, such as parent education, which are very successful in reducing litigation and reducing court costs, are going to be spread around the province. We're hoping that we can multiply those programs across the province and make some headway in reducing both the aggravation to the families and the costs to the taxpayers.

J. van Dongen: It wasn't clear to me from the minister's answer whether there's going to be an increase in funding for staff. Will there be any increase in staff levels for family court counsellors?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have arrived at some efficiencies in the family area -- about half a million dollars. We're going to be utilizing that money which we have saved through realizing efficiencies to spread throughout the province on programs such as parent eduction and the like. So we can deal with your concerns such as more expansive and extensive mediation services and counselling services throughout the province. That's not enough money. We could utilize millions, but that's all that's available.

J. van Dongen: I was interested in the comments by the Attorney General on the management review that's being talked about and am pleased that it will be an independent review. The auditor general could probably do as good a review as anyone. Looking at the financial statement, I found it interesting that over the two years shown here there appears to be a shift in dollars being expended in what I would term "administrative" and "policy" areas as opposed to hard dollars available to provide service, whether it's through staff lawyers or the private bar.

There was another interesting item in the annual report here that was news to me, and I wonder if the minister could just comment on it. There's a note that says: "Under cost-sharing agreements, approximately 18 percent of the society's expenditures on legal aid are recoverable by the province of B.C. from the government of Canada." I'm wondering if that applies to all provinces. What's the background to that situation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We dealt with this issue earlier on. We do receive approximately $16 million, which is about 20 percent of the cost of criminal legal aid in the province. In 1986 we received, I understand, 54 percent of the total cost of criminal legal aid in British Columbia. I understand Ontario receives about 40 percent of their total cost of criminal legal aid, so we are prejudiced to a certain extent by the federal government. I know there is something to do with capping -- I don't understand it -- but we don't get as much money as Ontario does.

J. van Dongen: Are the eligibility criteria that are applied to applications for legal aid determined solely by the Legal Services Society, or does your ministry have any involvement in those? Does the ministry have any involvement or discussions with the Legal Services board on those policies?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The board determines the eligibility criteria by itself. There is obviously a reluctance on the part of the board to discuss those kinds of issues. They look at the objectives of the legislation and the confines of their mandate, and they determine and draft those guidelines.

J. van Dongen: I have just one more question. Is it the minister's understanding that the application of those criteria would be uniform across British Columbia? Or is there a fair bit of discretion between the different offices providing legal aid?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe I can answer that question for the member. I understand that there might be some variation, for instance, between urban centres and rural areas in terms of how the eligibility is assessed. We can get that answer for the hon. member at the earliest possibility.

R. Thorpe: I have just one question. With respect to legal aid, when aid is required within a community, is it your understanding that the legal services come from within that community, or are there cases where lawyers from other parts of the province are brought in to work on cases?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that occasionally it might be difficult to find lawyers in a particular area who might want to provide legal services based on legal aid tariff. Therefore, in instances where lawyers are not available, lawyers may need to be flown in from other areas where they are available.

R. Thorpe: If in fact those cases do exist, does legal aid pay for all of the travel, hotel and out-of-pocket expenses in addition to the fees? Is it all-encompassing cost coverage?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, all reasonable expenses incurred.

G. Plant: If this is a hard question to answer we can deal with it tomorrow. But we've had some discussion this afternoon about the development of reviews and plans, and deadlines for the submission of those being moved to October 15. My question for the Attorney General arises in the context of the important need for public consultation in respect of this issue. Is it the intention of the Attorney General to make public the reports that may be produced, either by the society or by the independent authority that's conducting the management review, when they are presented to the ministry in mid-October?

[5:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The management review would of course be a public document. However, the plan submitted by the Legal Services Society will go to Treasury Board and therefore will be a Treasury Board document, and I'm unable to say that it would be public at this time.

Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada