(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 1, Number 21, Part 2
[ Page 471 ]
The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the Ministry of Attorney General. In this House, I call Committee of Supply to hear the estimates for the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
On vote 51: minister's office, $398,000 (continued).
B. McKinnon: I feel very privileged to be here today as the critic for the implementation of the Gove inquiry. The Gove inquiry showed us the weaknesses in the system in the care and protection of our children and their families in this province. It has been four years since Matthew Vaudreuil died at the hands of his mother. Since then, 19 other children have died. Some were murdered; some died of neglect and abuse; others committed suicide. What is so terribly sad is the number of abused and endangered kids whose cases are lost in a bungling bureaucracy.
The Gove inquiry, with the intention of overhauling our flawed child protection system, produced 118 recommendations. The appointment of Cynthia Morton as transition commissioner was a step in the right direction. I wish her all the success possible. She has a horrendous job ahead of her.
The Gove inquiry raised a number of serious concerns about standards of practice in child protection services. Many suggestions have been made for improving the situation. A careful analysis will show that many of these proposed solutions have been tried for years and have failed to achieve the necessary results. Without a massive injection of resources into child protection services, our children will continue to be neglected, abused and killed -- despite the best efforts of our social workers. Our social workers are overburdened with their workload. Many are burned out or are near burnout. Under this kind of stress, they cannot give the proper care to families, children and foster parents, regardless of the education they have received.
Our children and families will continue to suffer until our social workers receive better treatment. It is time, hon. Speaker, that this government developed a social conscience and started investing in families. By investing in our families today, we will save megadollars and lives in the future. If we don't begin to have a social conscience, the vicious circle will continue through generation after generation -- and will cost more money in the long run. When our abused and neglected children grow up, the dysfunction continues as the abused become the abusers: crime goes up, we have child prostitution, and our youths end up in jails or group homes.
All of these things cost the taxpayers money -- megadollars. It is the price society pays unless they develop a social conscience. When we don't have this social conscience, separation develops and we have two classes of people. The separation just continues to widen. By developing a social conscience, giving a massive injection of funds into child protection and families, we will begin to see the light, begin to deal with the horrendous problems that our society has created. We must start finding ways in this province to invest in the future of our families and in the protection of our children.
I implore the government not to piecemeal this very important resource. Our children are our most valuable resource, a resource we can no longer ignore. Our future is in our children.
I ask the minister how much of last year's warrants have so far been used for the implementation of the Gove report.
[6:45]
Hon. D. Streifel: I welcome the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to the debate around this very, very serious issue. Within this ministry, the issue of child safety is treated very seriously. The government approaches the issues of child safety very seriously.
I would particularly like to address some of the comments from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. She recognizes the very hard work of the staff in the field. They work in very, very difficult times and trying circumstances. We know that when a ministry like this is in transition, it's difficult for the field staff, but I believe they've responded admirably and will continue to deliver the best possible service to the people of British Columbia, to their clients, on behalf of government and on behalf of all British Columbians.
Your direct question related to resources within the estimates for child programs. Somewhere around $5 million would be the direct answer. We have done many, many things within the ministry to improve the safety aspects for children in our communities, one being that between April 1, 1995, and April 1, 1996, we established 158 new social worker positions across the province for front-line child protection and family services. At the same time, we've seen a large increase in the demand for services from ministry social workers and service partners. But I would assure the member -- and I would assure all in the House -- that the ministry and the government have as a top priority the safety of our children.
B. McKinnon: Of the minister's budget for child protection for this year, how much is actually going to the implementation of the recommendations that Judge Gove made?
Hon. D. Streifel: We're still in the early stages of the transition of implementing some of the Gove recommendations. The transition commissioner hasn't reported in yet. The report will be delivered to an all-party committee, and there will be an opportunity at that time, I would believe, for direct questions to the transition commissioner, Cyndi Morton, around the implementation of Gove and what the recommendations are. I believe the transition commissioner's budget was $5 million, and we have, if I understand it, an additional $5 million within the structure directed at children. I believe it's tomorrow that we had planned on the possibility of examining the budget of the transition commissioner. If some of these questions could be held over, we could try to be more direct. Or, if we carry on this evening, which is not a real difficulty for us, we'll get all the information we can to the members opposite -- particularly the critic from Surrey Cloverdale, to enable the critic to carry on her role and represent her community and bring forward her line of question-
[ Page 472 ]
ing. If we appear to be a bit stumbly over here, I beg your forgiveness. It's brand-new for me to be in the ministry and it's a new area of endeavour. My interest is to have as much information available for the opposition as possible on these very, very serious issues.
B. McKinnon: Do I understand the minister correctly that he would like me to hold my questions over until tomorrow? If that is the case, I would be willing to do that. If he wishes to adjourn for this evening until tomorrow when we can get more information, I'd be quite pleased to wait until tomorrow for my answers.
Hon. D. Streifel: I wouldn't want to leave the member with the false impression that we would be adjourning the debate on examination of my estimates. We would carry on and examine other avenues. If the member is prepared, we can carry on tonight; there is no difficulty there at all.
To further answer some of the questions on expenditures, there is a 9.5 percent overall increase in the budget for child, family and community services. I believe it's an additional $35 million to children in the budget. If that helps the member, those are the numbers -- the percentage and the actual figures.
B. McKinnon: I have many questions to ask, because I understood that tonight we would be prepared to question on the Gove inquiry. I have prepared all my questions on that topic. It's now my understanding from the minister that he hasn't come prepared with the information he needs to answer those questions. If that is so, I would suggest to the hon. minister that we adjourn until tomorrow when we can have these questions answered. As he said, he will be having the information tomorrow, and I think that would be only right and just.
Hon. D. Streifel: The member can bring forward all the questions that are required this evening; that's not a difficulty. I'm just offering the member the knowledge that there will be an opportunity to address the all-party committee. When the transition commissioner reports to the all-party committee, there will be the opportunity to have a number of these areas examined. I can't presuppose what some of the members' questions will be; we will attempt to answer everything we can. We will endeavour to get information for the member on the questions that we don't have answers to this evening. If we just carry on as would be normal in examination of the budget and the minister's office, I think we'll have a very successful evening.
B. McKinnon: It's my understanding that there's not a lot of point to me asking some questions, because the hon. minister said that he didn't have the answers. I don't know if I have the right, but is it in order to move adjournment until tomorrow? Is that in order?
The Chair: Hon. member, there is a proper motion -- which is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. That's the appropriate motion.
B. McKinnon: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 28 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dalton | Gingell | Farrell-Collins | |
| Hurd | Sanders | Plant | |
| de Jong | Coell | Anderson | |
| Nebbeling | Whittred | van Dongen | |
| Thorpe | J. Wilson | Hansen | |
| C. Clark | Symons | Abbott | |
| Jarvis | Weisbeck | Chong | |
| Coleman | Nettleton | Masi | |
| McKinnon | Krueger | Barisoff | |
| Neufeld | |||
|
NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Geisbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | G. Clark | Dosanjh | |
| MacPhail | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Gillespie | Robertson | |
| Farnworth | Smallwood | Conroy | |
| McGregor | Janssen | G. Wilson | |
The Chair: Shall vote 51 pass?
[7:00]
B. McKinnon: I'd like to ask the hon. minister, through the Chair, if he is going to be able to answer any of the Gove inquiry questions I may ask tonight.
Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand the question, you asked if the minister would be able to answer any of the questions that the member asked. I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I can answer them until I hear the questions. I don't have a crystal ball.
G. Farrell-Collins: It doesn't seem to matter what the question is. I've been watching for the last little while, and the minister doesn't seem to be able to answer very many of them. In this case, the opposition is trying to be cooperative. We could get up and ask questions on any area in the minister's capability -- which may be somewhat limited, hon. Chair. We could get up and ask questions on any area within the minister's purview; that's certainly our entitlement.
One would expect that when one makes the extra $39,000 a year and gets the nice office and has the staff and has the people there to give him the answers, the minister would be able to answer some of the questions.
The member for Surrey-Cloverdale and the member for Saanich North and the Islands were kind enough to offer to the minister some sort of plan or agenda of the order with which we would be asking questions. The intent behind that was that we wouldn't occupy the time of all the senior staff, the bureaucrats, who are busy people and have lots of work to do. Heaven knows that in this ministry they have more work to do than in any other one, with lots of projects on the go...
An Hon. Member: Especially on Gove.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...and particularly with regard to the Gove report.
[ Page 473 ]
The intent was to advise the minister well in advance that the next time the House met to deal with his estimates, we would like to ask questions in that area. I think that was kind; I think it was nice of the member to do that.
I guess my question to the Minister of Social Services is: how would he like us to progress? Would he rather that we all got up on different areas and had the whole back bench there full of bureaucrats, who could be doing other things with their time? Or would he rather that we approach this in some systematic manner?
We are trying to do that, to help the minister help his ministry be more efficient with its time and use. Perhaps the minister can give us some guidance on how he would like us to deal with this. We're trying to accommodate him. We know he has difficulty with many of these questions, as far as being up to speed on them, so we would like to make sure he has the right person beside him to whisper in his ear, to get the answer. If he could just tell us how he'd like us to approach this, it would be very helpful for the opposition.
Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer my apologies to the Opposition House Leader, and the plan he refers to. I'm not sure that I'm aware of which plan and which offer he was referring to. I'm not sure that it came to me.
It's not my intention to try and delay or stall, but we are examining the estimates of my ministry, and we can examine areas under the ministry. I think that's appropriate. My intent is not to deflect the Gove inquiry or the transition process. My concern is that to try and say I can answer questions without knowing them, if they revolve around the transition commissioner's report, which hasn't happened yet, as I understand it, and will be working through an all-party
I offered a solution earlier. If that's not helpful, again I apologize to the opposition for that. I think we can make major progress tonight, as we did last night, and that's what we should be looking at. If you have questions, I would be pleased to answer what I can. On what I can't, I offer the services of my staff, as I did last night, and I would offer the services
Interjections.
Hon. D. Streifel: I have answered all the questions that were brought to me on this issue so far this evening.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding from the member for Saanich North and the Islands is that it was made clear to the minister, or to the ministry, that the next time we did his estimates we would be dealing with the Gove report. Perhaps the minister isn't getting that information. I'll find out why, hon. Speaker.
That's certainly the intent: to try to do this in some systematic pattern. The alternative is that we just get up and ask the questions in whatever area, and we can go all over the map in his ministry. We can certainly do that, if he chooses. There won't be much accomplished, quite frankly, because I don't get the sense that the minister yet, in the time he has been there, has had the time to get a grasp on all those issues and would probably be required to rely upon his staff to a great extent. Knowing the wide range of issues that fall within his portfolio, I would suspect, as I said earlier, that he would probably need at least a dozen people shuffling chairs beside him.
We can move on to another issue. We'll find out why that information didn't get to the minister, or if the minister forgot about that advisement. We'll get onto some other areas; we've got other issues to deal with. We will make it very clear to the minister -- and I'll wait until he is listening to me, just so he gets it this time -- that the next time we deal with the Social Services ministry, we would like to advise the minister that we would like to deal with the issues surrounding the Gove report.
I would expect that at that time, whenever it is -- and the minister's House Leader will be making that determination, when she moves the motion -- she would be advising him of when that is, and that the proper and appropriate people would be there to advise the minister, so that he is able to answer those questions when they're given, without having to answer, perhaps, some of them and not answer some of the others.
So, if I can make that clear to the minister, and if he understands that, then perhaps in a minute or two we can move on to a few other items. And the member for Cloverdale, who is prepared to go this evening, will go and get just that many more questions to the minister prepared for next time.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like to make it clear to the members opposite that I had not been approached by the critic, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, as far as I understand, to present tonight.
I have a briefing prepared for myself tomorrow morning to prepare for this. We can examine many, many areas under child welfare and we can do that this evening. I think it would be productive time. I say again that we are prepared to deal with the issues under my ministry. We are prepared to deal with them tonight, as we were yesterday, and we can deal with them at length. Whatever the members opposite choose.
G. Wilson: On the matter that deals with child welfare, I would like to talk to the minister specifically about costs with respect to the new regulations on adoption and the effect that these have had on the placement of children; whether or not these new regulations introduced by this government last year have found that placement costs and the matter of adoption have been more or less effective; and the extent to which those dollars will be applied in that direction this time.
Hon. D. Streifel: The new Adoption Act won't be proclaimed or enforced until November 4 of this year. We're still costing out the processes, if that helps the member. If not, we'll carry on with other information.
G. Wilson: My understanding is that some of that act is indeed proclaimed and that there already are programs underway. In particular, let me go directly to the heart of the questions I want to raise. It has to do with aboriginal children, who I know this minister is notified of, and who I understand are currently housed in institutions for the mentally ill. They cannot be placed, as a result of legislation introduced by this ministry last year which precludes their placement until such time as there has been agreement with the bands. The exact number of these children, I understand, is in dispute. The cost of placement is not clearly assigned, as to whether it should be this ministry or another ministry.
Their current housing is most regrettable, and I think this minister would agree with that. So I'd like some guidance from the minister as to what has been done about the identifi-
[ Page 474 ]
cation of these children, and why, if this act hasn't been proclaimed, the placement of these children has not been proceeded with.
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the act has not been proclaimed. It will be proclaimed and come into force on November 4 of this year. I would encourage the hon. member to bring forward the specific instances that he's referred to with aboriginal children. We work very, very closely with the aboriginal community and with the welfare of the children of aboriginal heritage in this province. It's a protocol and a process that we've worked out with the native community. If the member has specifics, I would appreciate it if he could bring them forward to my staff so that we can deal with these on a case-by-case and individual basis. And I thank the member for the question.
G. Wilson: I know that the specifics of this particular issue with respect to these children have indeed been raised, with staff of both Aboriginal Affairs and Social Services. The information that I have -- having talked with people within the ministry who are directly responsible for these children -- is that this ministry is not clear on the number of these children, in terms of how many we're dealing with. Secondly and more importantly, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism in place with respect to their placement.
What becomes even more concerning is information that comes out of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs with respect to this, which claims that, while there may be avenues in which the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs might be able to act, they cannot do so, because the act precludes them from doing so. This act is not yet proclaimed, the minister says, and yet it's still affecting the lives of these children.
There is no mechanism in place within this ministry. Neither does there seem to be any budget set aside, or any workers set aside, or anybody actually dealing with children who -- our information is, from ministry staff -- are now housed in institutions for the mentally ill. This is a big problem.
Hon. D. Streifel: The circumstances for aboriginal children will improve and are improving under the spirit of this act. The placement of an aboriginal child for adoption must be considered together with the extended family, the child's aboriginal community, or other aboriginal community. Only when that's not possible would we consider a non-aboriginal placement. This consultation is required in the new act, and we're working within that spirit, unless the child's birth parent or guardian objects to such discussions taking place. Further, the new act provides for the court to recognize aboriginal-custom adoptions, and I think that's very, very important.
The member has referenced, a couple of times already this evening, aboriginal children being kept in mental institutions. I would encourage the member to bring forward the specifics of these individuals so we can maybe take action and investigate on a case-by-case basis. If the member would bring that forward to my staff, it would be much appreciated.
[7:15]
G. Wilson: I'd be happy to do that outside this chamber, and we can discuss that issue. The information comes, actually, from the minister's staff. I don't have any separate set of information.
Let me come back to my original set of questions on this matter, because it's one of both jurisdiction and budget, and in these estimates I think it's important for us to establish this in the line of questioning. Then I perhaps would yield to other members, if they wish, and reserve the right to come back at some of these issues and other issues later.
But the key is that there doesn't seem to be, within the estimates provided here, any dollars identified primarily with respect to the identification of these children. Who's out there actually doing the work to identify who these children are? There doesn't seem to be anybody identified, or any part of this ministry or dollars assigned, to work directly with the Indian bands. That's a problem, because we have to have their consultation and their consent under the act. And there don't seem to be any dollars assigned in terms of long-range tracking or placement of these children to make sure that when there is resolution to this question, the welfare of these children is being properly monitored. If the minister could assure me that that program is in place and if the minister might tell me who and what dollars are assigned, then we could move on.
Hon. D. Streifel: I understand it's true that there's not a clear indication within the estimates. The budget for that purpose -- for services to aboriginal children under these circumstances -- is $7.3 million. I believe we liaise. We have workers that are working with the aboriginal communities. Indeed, within the group that I know personally within the Fraser Valley -- the Sto:lo -- we have some dedicated workers out there. I believe there are 11 agreements already in place with aboriginal bands.
Again, to repeat, the budget
G. Wilson: I'd like to track those dollars down and I will, perhaps, touch base with the minister's staff. If the minister might indicate where the lines of jurisdiction extend with respect to Aboriginal
Hon. D. Streifel: The cost is borne by the federal government. They must fulfil the responsibility for all aboriginal children, not just reserve-based status Indians. The delegation-enabling agreements -- DEAs -- are in place with the following first nations: Sechelt, Lake Babine, Cariboo Tribal Council, Squamish, Cowichan tribes, Sto:lo, Nuu-chah-nulth, Nicola Valley Tribal Council -- and for this one I would apologize to the first nation that I'll blow the pronunciation of completely; it is Nlaka'pamux, I think -- Spallumcheen, Carrier-Sekani and the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council.
G. Wilson: I don't expect that the minister would have this information at hand, but if he could commit tonight to forwarding the number of children who have actually had placement through those agreements and what process was used in the identification and placing of those children, that would be most useful for me.
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, of course, we'll supply what information we have and what we can. I offer the member the
[ Page 475 ]
services of my staff to secure that information. We'll bring it forward in written form or in a briefing of sorts -- whatever the member desires.
R. Neufeld: Just carrying on a little further with adoption, about a year ago, I believe, we debated the new Adoption Act. The minister states that it will not come into effect until November 4 -- a very definitive day. Could the minister please answer two questions? Why has it taken so long to get to the point where it can be proclaimed? Are children presently being adopted under the act that's in place?
Hon. D. Streifel: There are many reasons that there's a lag between passing a bill of this nature and its implementation. There are specific requirements for assigning staff to write the needed regulations in policy and develop training to ensure that the staff and agency are in place to deliver newly mandated services. There's a public awareness campaign that has to proceed so that all are aware of the time, date and implications of the new act. I think it's appropriate that we take the time to do that work. It's a very important piece of legislation, and the lag time between passing it in the Legislature and its proclamation and implementation is taken up with very serious work to make sure that everything is in place.
R. Neufeld: There were two questions there, but I'll follow up on the one that the minister answered. Would it be fair to say that the ministry is experiencing quite a bit of difficulty around regulations that deal with privacy and issues surrounding past lives of some individuals who do not want that information released? Would that be correct to say?
Hon. D. Streifel: With the passage of the act, there's a balance that's been struck between those who wish to access their birth identity and history and those who wish the government to keep adoption records sealed. We'll be going into a national advertising campaign to bring information for this act out. It's not necessarily accurate to characterize this as "a difficulty" as the member has stated. The work goes on to ensure that the act comes into place and that all are aware of the existence of the act and the provisions of the act.
R. Neufeld: I tend to differ quite a bit. I've had some discussions with some of the adoption agencies that have had discussions with the ministry regarding regulations about the Adoption Act, and there are some difficulties, whether the minister wishes to acknowledge it or not. Could you maybe inform us of the national advertising campaign: what that entails, what's happening, how it's going and how much money has been spent on it? When you talk about a national advertising
Hon. D. Streifel: The intention is to launch this ad campaign and national awareness next week. We'll be putting ads in major and local newspapers and nationwide news releases, public service announcements, feature articles, ads in personal columns, Internet postings, 1-800 toll-free phone lines, and other creative means to inform people everywhere in British Columbia, Canada and North America. I think it would be important to note that the number of the toll-free information line is 1-888-236-7888. As I say, the intention is that we'll be kicking off next week and be involved in this information campaign.
R. Neufeld: So I understand, then, that the campaign has not been launched; that it's going to start next week. Could you explain why it has taken from last, I believe, June or July until now to be able to come up with the national advertising campaign -- to put it out across Canada -- for the new Adoption Act?
Hon. D. Streifel: The information line has been operational since last May. We've had work ongoing since the act was passed. We've been getting information out to adoption groups, community groups, conferences, and what not. This national ad campaign is the next in what will probably be the final step in awareness of the act, provisions of the act, and who could be affected by the act. We have had work in process, an ongoing information stream out there. This, as I say, is the next and quite likely final step in the information stream.
R. Neufeld: Then I would understand, if we're at that point where we're doing a national advertising campaign, that regulations have been developed. I understood from earlier discussions that there was some difficulty with getting the regulations established. Would it be fair to say that the regulations are established if you're going to a national ad campaign and a 1-800 number has been out since last May?
Hon. D. Streifel: The "last May" I was referring to is May of 1996. In fact, there are some regs being developed; it's an ongoing process. If the member has an interest in knowing which ones are and where we're going with this, I can arrange that information.
R. Neufeld: I wouldn't mind a bit of a briefing on the regulations that have taken place, so I'll take the minister up on that rather than deal with it here.
The other part of the question was: how many children have been adopted since the bill was passed in the House almost a year ago? Are there children still being adopted under the old Adoption Act?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, there are some children still being adopted under the old act. We're looking for the number of children that have been adopted to answer the question of the member. I can supply that. If the member bears with us, we can maybe extract it from the material tonight. If not, it will be supplied to the member as soon as possible.
R. Neufeld: Another part of the act that brought a lot of attention was the adoption of infants by same-sex couples. Would the minister be prepared to tell us if there have been representations made by gay and lesbian organizations to the ministry in regards to the development of regulations?
Hon. D. Streifel: Since the new act was tabled, the minister's office has received cards and letters and petitions from over 1,400 people, all of whom strongly voiced their opinions on this subject. I would imagine within some of those presentations there would have been presentations from lesbian and gay individuals. I think that answers the question.
[7:30]
R. Neufeld: Not really. I'm asking: have there been submissions made to the ministry in regards to the development of regulations around the issue of same-sex adoptions of infants?
Hon. D. Streifel: We work up the regs around this with the Attorney General, not with external advocacy groups. That's the information I have for the member.
[ Page 476 ]
R. Neufeld: Is the minister saying that no representation has been made to the ministry by any organization, whether it is a gay or lesbian organization or any other organization, surrounding the development of regulations for the new Adoption Act?
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, there were 1,400 people, all of whom strongly voiced their opinions on this subject. I don't think anybody was sorted out, in the member's terminology, by any specific group. Our regs are developed with the Attorney General. They're not developed with direct input from or work with external groups.
R. Neufeld: Are you confirming, then, that regulations are drawn up and are being drawn up at the present time to implement the new Adoption Act in isolation of any information given to the ministry by any organization?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll repeat again for the hon. member that the office received cards, letters and petitions from over 1,400 people. So there would be an influence on the activities and thought processes that went into constructing the processes that we are following here. There were 1,400 submissions that came in. If the member is asking whether there was a flag on any one of those submissions by any group, I don't really have that information because I didn't see the 1,400 submissions. I would ask for clarification from the member on where we're moving with this line of questioning. There were 1,400 submissions on this act.
We're dealing with a Charter of Rights issue. If the member is interested, citizens of British Columbia can apply to adopt, whether they're single or married. Those who apply, I guess, are judged in some respects. There are home studies done. Their profile is looked at: who they are, whether they are good citizens and whether they would make good parents. That's part of the evaluation process that goes into it. There were 1,400 submissions to the building of this act.
R. Neufeld: I think I had probably that many submissions to my office in regard to the act we debated a year ago. What I'm specifically asking and I'll ask it again: are groups of people and organizations, not the 1,400 people who wrote in letters or made phone calls to a 1-800 number, submitting information to the ministry at the present time in regard to regulations to implement the new Adoption Act?
Hon. D. Streifel: Maybe this will help the hon. member. There is an adoption advisory committee that the ministry works with around the act and the implementation and the regulations, which are developed with the Attorney General's ministry. The Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee has input into the process. I hope that satisfies the member.
R. Neufeld: The minister is confirming that there are groups and organizations presenting information to the adoption advisory committee in the development of regulations to implement the Adoption Act. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Streifel: I suppose the member or I could accept that an adoption advisory committee would have input given to them from various groups or individuals or various interests or whomever. The member himself would probably like to give some advice to the adoption advisory committee, and he's welcome to do so. I fail to see what we're on to here or what we're looking for. There was broad, broad consultation in developing this new Adoption Act. I don't have a list, individual by individual, group by group, focus by focus, political party by political party or member by member, of who presented information, or when. If there were 1,400 submissions in one process and the adoption advisory committee carries on gathering information to help the ministry as they develop their regs with the Attorney General so we can have, once and for all in British Columbia, an acceptable and workable Adoption Act, then that's what has happened.
The Chair: Hon. members, just before the hon. member continues, I wonder if I might take a moment to remind all of us of standing order 61. I'm not trying to curtail the debate in any way; but just watch where the edges are going here. I'll just read it to you: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."
We're not totally into legislation, but we're getting close. I don't want to curtail that, because it is part of the administrative responsibilities of the ministry under discussion at the moment. So if hon. members will confine themselves to that general area, then you'll be within the realm of what's okay here.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that explanation. We are dealing with regulations, I agree, and not legislation. I'm also amazed that it took me this long to extract out of the minister some of the answers that I wanted. I haven't been trying to be repetitious; I've been trying to get an answer.
To the minister: is there an opportunity for members of the Legislature that are interested in the Adoption Act -- and to be honest with you, I'd like to see the act implemented as soon as possible -- to receive information that has been given to the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee by different groups and organizations in regard to the development of regulations?
Hon. D. Streifel: I have the numbers the member asked for earlier: 126 special needs adoptions and 73 infant adoptions through the Ministry of Social Services. This does not include private adoptions.
R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for those numbers.
The question that I posed to the minister was not answered. Rather than reword it, I'll ask the minister if that information is available to members of the House.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's rather a curious position, given, I understand, that the member voted against this act. The member is looking for very quick implementation of this act which will come into effect on November 4. But yes, I will
M. Coell: I wish to clarify for the minister our intent. Yesterday at 2:34 when we began the debate the minister made some opening remarks and introduced his staff. At that point I realized that his staff for the Gove commission were not present. I said that our intent was to ask questions when
[ Page 477 ]
his staff were present at the next sitting of the House, and I thought that was appropriate. Obviously the minister misunderstood me. We came to talk on the Gove commission this evening. We have other questions, and we'll continue with them.
V. Anderson: It's unfortunate that we got off on the wrong foot in discussing the adoption services, because these are, as you are aware, very critical concerns for many people in our community. The first problem is that in the briefing we got, the various categories for adoption support services, assisted adoptions and active adoption
Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand, there will be changes with the new legislation and the lines that are applied here. We can see in the '95-96 year the breakdown the member is referring to, and that's the breakdown the member is looking for this year. There could be some changes with the new legislation when it becomes effective on November 4, and I understand that those lines could be completed. I'll endeavour to get whatever information I have available on those lines to the member, but the budget is essentially the same
V. Anderson: We would appreciate that. Any information that has been discussed this evening by us or other members that you were going to get back to, we'd appreciate receiving a copy of that as well. It would be helpful to fill in these questions, because I know our phones will ringing about this issue once it has been discussed. Adoption is a very hot and concerned issue for many people.
[7:45]
About the concern about aboriginal children and youth, I would like to refer to the report of the child, youth and family advocate, which we just received at the office. It deals directly with this issue. I might just read this portion of her report. One of her main concerns of the seven that she listed was aboriginal children and youth.
"At the same time that we fulfil our commitment to develop culturally appropriate services for children and youth, we must also attend to the needs of aboriginal children and youth who are presently within the service system. Given that approximately one-third of the young people in the care of the Ministry of Social Services are aboriginal, the advocate's office has considerable interest in the resolution of problems related to self-government, funding, delegation of authority in child welfare matters and putting the needs of today's children and youth first. We will work with the Ministry of Social Services in developing policy, provide direct advocacy in individual situations where appropriate, and work with the people of various nations to address the service inequities created by diverse funding arrangements."
This is a situation which has been discussed very much for over a year now -- the situation of aboriginal children being left in limbo. I am surprised that this has been allowed to not only continue but get considerably worse over this period of time -- not only the children's concerns regarding adoption but their concerns regarding foster care and care under the ministry, which was referred to earlier this evening. Would the minister be prepared to respond and say what he is prepared to do in response to the youth advocate with this particular concern around aboriginal children?
The Chair: Hon. members, while the minister is reviewing his information, I would remind all of you that the office of the child, youth and family advocate is a separate vote, vote 3. There may be some principles or general notions that you raise, hon. member, that can be responded to by the Minister of Social Services, but there is a separate vote that will be discussed at the appropriate time. For your information, I'm sure the House Leaders will be discussing that.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I thank you for the caution, but if you would permit me a bit of a response here, because we do share the
V. Anderson: I would like to correct an impression left this evening in the discussion about regulations. As I listened to the discussion among our hon. members, it sounded to me as if, except for the advocacy group, which I know must be in contact with the ministry in the development of regulations, because they were very much in touch with the Ministry of Social Services and Ministry of Attorney General in developing the act
Hon. D. Streifel: To help the member for Vancouver-Langara, the adoption advisory committee
[ Page 478 ]
committee and all those groups that fall under that committee structure. Writing the regulations is done between the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Attorney General. This group does not write the regulations. But they've had input all the way through the process and the development of the act. We think it's a very good act and a very timely act for the province.
M. Coell: I wish to get some information from the minister on the effect of the Youth Works program and the money the Premier announced today. What effect will having those funds and a portion of the 18-to-24-year-olds now not being eligible for welfare by the end of this fiscal year have on his ministry?
Hon. D. Streifel: I wish to advise the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands that the bill is not under my ministry. It's the Skills and Training ministry's bill. I would suggest that the member bring those questions to that minister when those estimates are up for examination. With all due respect, member, it would be out of order for me to participate in debate on a piece of legislation, particularly when it's in front of the House and particularly since it's not under my ministry.
M. Coell: Certainly the shift of 18-to-24-year-old individuals from welfare to a new program is going to have an effect on his ministry and his staff, and I'm inquiring as to what effect he anticipates.
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for the question, but again, it's an act that's not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Services. It is an act that's before the House, if I understand the standing orders. There's no funding, as I understand it, within these estimates, so I would refer the
M. Coell: I suspect the minister may misunderstand my questioning. The Premier today in his announcement said that welfare as we know it is changed. It may well be, and it will have an effect on the Ministry of Social Services. I just wondered whether the ministry has anticipated what changes could be seen. Certainly if 18-to-24-year-olds are not being dealt with within his ministry, that must affect his staff complement and the programs that their staff have been delivering. I just wonder what they've anticipated. I hope that they have at least given some thought to this.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'd truly love to accommodate the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I agree that there will be an effect within the whole structure of welfare as we know it. Youth Works is part of an overall strategy called B.C. Benefits. We've seen the B.C. family bonus rolled out, we've seen the Youth Works legislation, and in fact there will be an effect. I cannot properly lay out specifically what it is at this time, but we're bringing complete and massive change to welfare as we know it in British Columbia, particularly for this age group. But the examination of the details of Youth Works belongs under the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
M. Coell: I realize that. What I'm getting at is that after the changes have taken place -- which there will be, with the family bonus, with Youth Works, with a number of initiatives -- there will be a ministry that has a lot less to do. I'm just wondering -- and this probably won't take place until later in the year -- what effects these programs transferring out of Social Services will have on the complement of staff in the ministry now and, indeed, on future budgets.
Hon. D. Streifel: Maybe this will help the member. Income assistance will drop by $90 million. Some of that has been moved to support this program under the jurisdiction of Skills, Training and Labour. That's information that we have, and as we move in British Columbia to make work a better deal than welfare, there will be continued adjustments in subsequent years. I think it's a program that's worth supporting, and I encourage the hon. members across to support us on this one. It's a worthwhile program. We're changing the face of welfare in British Columbia. We have that opportunity in front of us, and we're going to take that opportunity.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell us how many people will be moved off social assistance? You have, obviously, the numbers. So it's those between 18 and 24 years old. How many people will that amount to?
[8:00]
Hon. D. Streifel: Did the member for Peace River North asked how many cases in Youth Works? There are 33,429 cases in Youth Works. Does that help the member? I may not fully understand the question. I apologize for that. If I can catch it again, we'll try again.
R. Neufeld: The ministry has statistics that break down by number how many are single employable males, how many are single employable females, how many are single-parent families, those with disabilities, and we have a total number of people on welfare in British Columbia. I guess what I'm asking is: the 18-to-24-year-olds that will be moved out of your ministry as employables into skills training will amount to what number -- 20,000, 30,000, 60,000 or 100,000?
Hon. D. Streifel: The staff member that has the information is being consulted. We will endeavour to get that information. But in general terms -- and again this gets into the focus of Youth Works, which is not under my ministry -- essentially, Youth Works ends welfare as we know it for 19-to-24-year-olds in British Columbia. We'll endeavour to get the total numbers the member is seeking; we're in the process of doing that now.
R. Neufeld: I'm certainly not trying to dispute the fact that it will move young employables into work and away from Social Services. I would like to have the number so that as time goes
The second part of the question is: what is the dollar figure? The minister might have said that, but I didn't quite understand it. What would be the dollar figure that your ministry would reduce if you moved however many people out of your ministry into another one?
Hon. D. Streifel: We're going to try this again, in our endeavour to supply information. As we are now, the Youth Works budget will move over when the legislation is passed and proclaimed. We expect a reduction of about 9,000 cases in this process. It hasn't happened yet.
[ Page 479 ]
When it happens, these are our expectations. We get a little bit hypothetical, I guess, but projections are by their very nature projections. I would still caution that to examine the guts, so to speak, of the Youth Works
R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell us how many employables between the ages of 19 and 24 are now receiving social assistance?
The silence is deafening, so I'll just ask another question and maybe there are some other people there that could look up these numbers.
What dollar amount is the ministry anticipating as a reduction with the movement of the approximately 9,000 cases?
Hon. D. Streifel: On a monthly basis, the total caseload under this category would be close to 30,000 -- 29,376.
R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that answer. The second part of the question was: what dollar amount will the ministry cost be reduced by the movement of the approximately 9,000 cases to another ministry?
Hon. D. Streifel: There's an $87 million reduction in income assistance, as explained in this budget. The 9,000 cases contribute to that $87 million. I hope that answers the question for the member.
R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to belabour this, but I wouldn't imagine that 9,000 cases equates to $87 million. The question -- and I'll say it again -- was about moving 9,000 people out of social assistance and into jobs. By how much will that reduce the ministry's budget? If it's $87 million, so be it, but I'd like to know the amount of money that you anticipate to save by moving 9,000 cases out of social assistance and into Skills Now.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this again, hon. Chair. Maybe about a third of the total amount would be attributed to the 9,000 cases, and I would endeavour to supply more detailed information. It's difficult, with the member's questions, to do some scratch arithmetic as we go along here. Again, I would offer to the member the services of my staff and the information they can bring forward to try and point to the numbers and exactly what he's looking for.
M. Coell: Following on that line of questioning, the ministry and the government have said that they expect savings of $90 million from the transfer and development of this program. Your budget is only down $37 million. That leads me to ask a question. There's still $50 million somewhere in your budget which either is being absorbed by staff complement staying the same or is because of fewer caseloads, possibly. But if you're claiming that you're saving $90 million and your budget only reflects $37 million, I think we need an explanation of where that other $50 million is allocated.
[8:15]
Hon. D. Streifel: Income assistance is down by $87 million, and some of that has been reallocated into child welfare and Healthy Kids, as contained in my opening remarks. This information was contained in a briefing that was supplied to the hon. member in document form. I can resupply that information if the member wishes.
M. Coell: Another $80 million in savings was said to be found in the three-month residency requirement for assistance. I just wonder whether the minister can explain whether that is taken into account in this budget. I guess the problem we're having on this side of the House is that there is a number of claims of large savings -- like $80 million for residency and $90 million for transfers -- yet the budget is only down $37 million. I mean, you can only transfer $37 million around to balance it, and then there's a large number of dollars that needs to be accounted for. That, I think, is what the hon. member and myself are endeavouring to find out.
Hon. D. Streifel: It appears that confusion reigns on both sides of the House. I'm not sure what $80 million in residency savings the member refers to; the number that I've used consistently is $26 million in savings.
A. Sanders: I have a number of questions to ask the minister. Specifically, I'd like to address continuity issues in the Ministry of Social Services. My understanding is that the ministry is managed by an executive committee, which is chaired by the deputy minister. One of the things that this government has done very poorly, in my estimation, is continuity. In this particular ministry, we have had eight deputy ministers and five superintendents. This, especially in the areas of child protection issues, creates tremendous fragmentation. I was wondering whether the minister had any programs or incentives in place to provide some continuity within the ministry and to provide a more healthy support system for the community social worker.
Hon. D. Streifel: My response is simply that continuity isn't always established at the executive level. We have a large number of long-service mid-management and field workers out there -- employees who are very professional. They have a dedicated career; they stay within the ministry from the beginning of their employment right through to retirement. That continuity is reflected in the efficiencies that are developed within the ministry, the ability to adapt to change and the very, very good work that those folks do on behalf of British Columbians.
The deputy minister that I have
A. Sanders: The circumstance that concerns me, in fact, is that the ministry is a top-down organization. This is identified
[ Page 480 ]
not by myself but by the Gove inquiry. One of the recommendations that was very appropriate and important was that the fragmentation of having a new deputy every year or so created significant problems for those working in the field. Again, my question is: will there be any incentives to provide a longer term for the people at the top to provide that continuity of service?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'd ask the member to clarify or define incentives. The individuals who support me here tonight are professionals. They are career professionals within this type of service. As I understand it, and I think it was addressed yesterday in examination of the estimates of this ministry, we have a very small percentage of what would be upper management in relation to other ministries and bodies that function within this kind of a budget. We rely very heavily on the field, the workers out there, the professionals who deliver on a day-by-day basis. I would think that those folks out there who deliver that service to British Columbians would be curious as to the position of the hon. member of the opposition on what incentives are being referred to.
I expect to have long service in this ministry myself, at least another five years, and I expect to have my deputy with me. We're building a very good working relationship as we're on a very steep learning curve, as many of us are in this chamber. In fact, I guess employment itself rewards. There are many rewards that happen in employment, particularly when you're delivering service on behalf of British Columbians. That is incentive enough to stay here and do a good job. When it comes time to move along, there are other positions available. Folks sometimes come and go. I have an individual on my left with 22 years of service. He started as a social worker and was a member of the executive for three years. That's very long service, very good service and very continuous service. That's what builds this ministry and allows us to adapt as our communities and societies change around us, and adapt we will.
A. Sanders: I read from "Matthew's Legacy" a guest comment from the hon. Judge Thomas Gove, where he says:
There is tremendous importance in having continuity if we are going to continue to have top-down service with the people in the deputy minister's office. If the hon. minister is suggesting that we will have longevity established in this ministry with our deputy minister, then I do support that.
I'll just touch briefly on some other issues that are of importance to my constituency. I will ask the hon. minister about the dental care program and what the maximum amount of money available is for individuals through the Social Services dental care program.
Hon. D. Streifel: There's a schedule available, and it can certainly be made available to the member. I'm going to presume or assume something here. I think the hon. member is most interested in the services to the children and children of single parents. Basic dentistry is $700 per year. We're currently in negotiations with the dentists on a new fee schedule.
A. Sanders: I'll answer the question for the minister as he does not know the answer, and I do. It is my understanding that it's $250 per year for an adult for non-emergent dentistry. Could the hon. minister tell me whether that figure is correct?
Hon. D. Streifel: The answer for basic dentistry from the member is correct. Emergency services are above that. I'm trying to lay out part of the schedule here as it is now, keeping in mind that we are in negotiations with the dentists. For the handicapped basic dentistry is $500 per year, for seniors it's $500 per year, for unemployables under 65 it's $250, for single parent it's $250, for children of single parents it's $700, employables receive emergency care, and children of employables receive $700 per year. Again, I would offer that this information can be made available to the member, bearing in mind that we are in negotiations.
A. Sanders: I was wondering whether the hon. minister has had any dental care lately and if so, was it covered by a benefits package?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's a rather interesting question. It's not contained anywhere within the estimates of the minister's office. I am wondering if the hon. member is referring to my broken front tooth. I bit into a nectarine about two weeks ago, and it was a very large stone with less than a quarter inch of flesh around it, and I chipped off this front tooth. I will get it fixed, and it will be covered by a dental plan. I will scan the budget, and honestly, trust me -- there is no dentistry coverage in my estimates for the minister.
A. Sanders: For those of us who are so fortunate as to have a dental
Hon. D. Streifel: Our stats from April to June indicate that 9,400 children have been treated. We have spent $1 million on this treatment, basic dentistry. We have a negotiation underway with the dentists. We have an interest in supplying basic dentistry for the very poor in our communities. The dentists are looking for a 15 percent increase in the fee schedule, and the dentists are weighing off, in some
[8:30]
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
A. Sanders: I don't disagree philosophically; however, I think it's appropriate and important for all of us who have paid for dentistry throughout our lives to recognize that $250 a year doesn't go very far. Specifically, as well, if we are remunerating people for their services, we should do it at the
[ Page 481 ]
standard set in the community that seems to be appropriate for the service. My concern is that the low amount of the total -- $250 per year for dental services -- is not sufficient, and I wondered if this ministry had any intention of accruing that amount over an annual basis. For those who did not use it one year, could they use an accrued amount in two or three years?
Hon. D. Streifel: We have no plans to accumulate those amounts year over year, but I would reiterate and stress very strenuously to the hon. member that the $250 per year is basic dentistry. Emergency services are above that. We supply $500 a year for handicapped, $500 for seniors, $250 for unemployable under 65 and $250 for a single parent for children of single parents it's $700 a year, and for children of employables it's $700 a year. I would also remind the hon. member across -- she has a very acute interest in this dentistry program -- that part of the B.C. Benefits package and program was to extend dental services to the working poor as well, within the province. I think it's a commendable program, and I think it's in everybody's interest to work through this negotiation with the dentists, where we're dealing with supplying basic dentistry to the very poor of British Columbia.
A. Sanders: To the minister, I am concerned about his antagonism towards the dental profession in terms of asking for 15 percent remuneration to bring their work into accordance with the standards of their profession, specifically when this government will pay union wages and has implemented a fair-wage policy, but feels that professionals should donate their services to the poor or to anyone -- and where we do not have the same way to look at union wages as appropriately. My question to the hon. minister: in a system where we will provide medical coverage to people on social assistance, is there a good reason why we do not provide them with preventive dental care to an amount that would keep them out of hospital, off drugs, out of emergency departments and out of physicians' offices?
Hon. D. Streifel: My apologies to the member opposite; I think I might have missed the last question. But as to her statements in and around dentistry, we are in the process of negotiations. Those negotiations will happen between the ministry staff and the dentists. The negotiations won't happen in the Legislature in the examination of my estimates. If the member opposite would indulge me with a repeat of her last question, I'll endeavour to answer it.
A. Sanders: I would ask the hon. minister to consider having a more sensible premium for dentistry on a preventive basis for adults. What happens quite often is that the system ends up paying, anyway, as these people often seek hospitalization care for acute abscesses. They are on medication for acute infection related to dental or gingival problems. The dental fees are not covered, because they are non-emergent and the $250 has been spent. Yet we are looking after these people in the hospital system. I wonder whether this minimum of $250 is under review?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this one more time. We're in negotiations with the dentists for the provision of a basic dental package for the poor in British Columbia -- income assistance individuals and those that come under the umbrella of the extended programs under B.C. Benefits. I caution the member that this minister is not going to negotiate that fee schedule during these estimates; it's not appropriate. I believe most British Columbians who are watching this process -- if, in fact, any of them are -- would be somewhat offended that we would attempt that form of negotiation here.
I spent a good deal of my life at the negotiating table, sorting out benefit packages and dental packages. I ask the hon. member if she has had any experience in the application of a fee schedule under a major collective agreement. As a matter of fact, within dental coverage and how it's structured and how it fits with the general
A. Sanders: I respect the hon. minister's comments. It was not my intention to pursue any negotiations on behalf of the dentists. I think they're well equipped to do that themselves. My concern is that there seems to be a concern from the hon. minister that providing remuneration equal with the wages that are considered fair by the profession is different from looking at unionized workers and our intent and promise to give them a fair wage agreement.
W. Hurd: I've been attempting to follow these debates for the Ministry of Social Services with some interest, and I hope that some of the ground I intend to cover hasn't been canvassed. I am sure the minister will advise me if it has been.
I want to start with some basic statistics for the ministry. It is my understanding that as of the end of 1994, employable single males and females made up approximately 59 percent of the provincial welfare caseload. In terms of a benchmark for reduction of that percentage, can the minister tell us where he expects the ministry to be in terms of the percentage of single employables on social assistance by the end of the current budget year?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to see if I can get this information to the member for Surrey-White Rock: single men, May '95 -- 90,830; May '96 -- 83,882, a drop of 7.6 percent; single women, May '95 -- 44,152; May '96 -- 41,289, a drop of 6.5 percent, and we expect that drop to continue; overall cases, May '95 -- 219,731; May '96 -- 209,615. That's a total overall drop of 4.6 percent, and we continue, as I
W. Hurd: It's comforting to know that from the high-water mark of 1994 the percentages are going down. In light of the programs the minister has described during the course of these estimates, I wonder whether there is an intention to establish some sort of benchmark or goal for the ministry to reduce the number of single employable people on social assistance, even in round percentage terms. It's my understanding that in '94, 65 percent of the people on welfare were aged between 19 and 34, without dependents. In looking at the astronomical increase in social assistance budgets over the four and a half years of the current government, the biggest single reason for that increase has been the number of single employable people on social assistance.
The minister will be aware that there was a huge additional increase because of a number of policy changes by this government. I wonder if the minister can advise us where he believes we should be headed, in light of the fact that we have seen an almost billion-dollar increase in this budget over a four or five year period, most of it attributable to the number of single employable people on social assistance.
Hon. D. Streifel: To answer the first part of the question and to respond to part of the statement, we don't have a
[ Page 482 ]
target, as has been described by the member for Surrey-White Rock, by family category or individual category within there. Our whole focus with B.C. Benefits is to make work a better deal than welfare, and our focus is to further reduce the income assistance caseloads that we have and the number of individuals on welfare. That's the whole focus of the multifaceted package of B.C. Benefits.
I would stress that it's the first time in the history of British Columbia that we've had a comprehensive program targeted specifically at bringing down the number of caseloads and making work a better deal than welfare. It's a program that I support very strongly and very strenuously. In the estimates yesterday, several members of the Liberal opposition complimented the program -- parts of it and in whole. The member for Langley particularly supported very strenuously many of the avenues that we've been following under the B.C. Benefits program. In fact, she indicated that there would be full support from the Liberal caucus on many of these programs, and I very much appreciate that support. British Columbians appreciate that support for these programs and initiatives. One of the reasons we were all elected was to deliver better services on behalf of British Columbians, and this B.C. Benefits program does just that.
W. Hurd: Just to clarify for the benefit of the committee and for this member, I want to explore with the minister the status of a change in policy that was made by the ministry some years ago with respect to single employable people on welfare who, as I understood it, were able to leave the family home and begin to collect social assistance, even though they might not have completed high school. I am aware that that policy change may have contributed to some of the increase.
I wonder if the minister could take a minute to outline for the committee how teenage youngsters in the 17-to-19-years-old category who, as I understand it, were not previously eligible to apply for assistance if they were to leave the family home, now can do that. I wonder if the minister can first clarify that policy for the committee and then advise us whether there is any interest on the part of the ministry in revisiting the concern that exists in the community about some youngsters leaving high school, leaving the family home and being able to collect assistance. What kind of checks and balances does he anticipate the ministry developing to monitor that situation and perhaps take some steps to examine the social assistance that they are receiving?
[8:45]
Hon. D. Streifel: Currently, any person, including youth under the age of majority, has the right to apply for income assistance benefits through the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act. However, following implementation of the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act consequential amendment, youth under 19 years of age who need assistance will be required to apply for a youth agreement pursuant to section 9 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act.
The hon. member should be aware, and we're well aware, that income assistance is not often the answer for young people. In fact, when young people fall under the new act, a social worker will be dealing with them. There are many aspects of the program: counselling and reconciliation. It's all part of the B.C. Benefits program, and I think it's a very necessary part.
Members of the caucus opposite have read some of the Blues clips to me from an examination of the estimates yesterday. This area was examined very extensively by the member for Langley, and I would refer the member to the Blues and to Hansard, when it's available, to see if the questions are answered within the context of the debate, because we were on it for quite some period of time. It's been examined extensively, and if that doesn't produce the needed information, I'd be very pleased to supply that information, either directly or through examination of the estimates or with access to my staff.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I could ask a couple of other statistical questions. It's my understanding that at the end of 1994, one-tenth of what British Columbians paid in provincial income taxes went to support single employable people on welfare, and that represents twice what taxpayers pay for income support to the disabled and low-income seniors. I wonder if the minister is aware of whether in the past couple of years, but in particular in the current year, we're seeing a change in that ratio of taxpayers to single employable recipients, and whether the ministry uses that kind of benchmark to measure where resources of B.C. taxpayers are going. Would he advise the committee whether he believes it's appropriate for B.C. taxpayers to pay twice as much for benefits to single employables as they do to people who, I think most people would agree, really need the support -- which are disabled and low-income seniors?
Hon. D. Streifel: I sincerely thank the member for Surrey-White Rock in his demonstrated support for our B.C. Benefits initiative. I share the concerns that the member brings forward. Indeed, all British Columbians do. This government has done something about it. Today we introduced Youth Works. Last week it was the B.C. family bonus, and indeed, as the rest of the initiatives and the legislation is introduced under the umbrella of B.C. Benefits, the strategy will be very clear. This ministry, in conjunction with the other ministries -- Finance and Skills, Training and Labour -- is endeavouring to make work a better deal than welfare, and that's the whole focus and purpose of the B.C. Benefits package. Again I compliment and thank the member for Surrey-White Rock for his support in our endeavours in this initiative.
W. Hurd: I'm aware that between March of 1990 and March of 1994 the income assistance caseload in British Columbia increased by 43 percent. I wonder if the minister could tell us what has happened, to his knowledge, in 1995 and what he expects to happen in 1996. In terms of a percentage, have we seen a levelling off? I wonder if I could just have him advise the committee on this. I realize that the increase would hopefully not be anywhere near that astronomical total, but I wonder if he could advise the committee where we've been since March 1994 and, in particular, what we expect in terms of the caseload in 1996.
Hon. D. Streifel: I wish to advise the member that the caseload is down 7.4 percent. It continues to drop on a monthly basis. Many initiatives have been undertaken by this ministry to reduce those caseload numbers. We will continue to implement initiatives that will make work a better deal than welfare in British Columbia. That's all part of the program and the process under B.C. Benefits.
W. Hurd: I just want to ask a brief series of questions about the issue of welfare fraud. I know it was raised to some extent yesterday. I am curious as to whether the ministry set some goals or benchmarks in terms of district offices verifying living arrangements. I understand that that's sort of a first line
[ Page 483 ]
of defence in terms of determining whether there are people out there who are receiving assistance who might not be eligible.
Could the minister advise us whether his ministry has a target or a benchmark or a strategy to increase the number of inspections to try to verify living arrangements and determine that there aren't, in fact, multiple households benefiting from the welfare system? Clearly the need for local staff to undertake those kinds of investigations is really critical in terms of ensuring that those who receive benefits are eligible and are justified in receiving them. I wonder if he could advise us what strategies the ministry has to step up the verification of living arrangements to track the movement of clients and just tighten up those procedural guidelines.
Hon. D. Streifel: I would again remind the hon. member that yesterday we canvassed very, very extensively the whole issue that has been brought forward and characterized by the opposition as welfare fraud. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the policy of this government and this ministry, which is zero tolerance. Last year, 1995-96, we added 63 new staff to our prevention, compliance and enforcement operations -- or PCE, as it's known in the division -- for a total of 158 FTEs within PCE. I understand that the members opposite are very interested in the composition of the PCE division. I'll break it down for you. Again, this all helps us enforce our policy of zero tolerance with fraud and abuse.
We have ten supervisors, each with a background in police work or ministry fraud investigation; we have 41 investigators, most of them former police officers; and we have 24 assistant investigators. These are the folk who deal with the cases where the amount of fraud detected is not large enough to warrant the time and money involved in criminal prosecutions. All of this helps us to be diligent in our endeavour of supporting our policy of zero tolerance for fraud and abuse.
I'll remind the hon. member again that this was canvassed very extensively yesterday when I explained our policy of zero tolerance for fraud and abuse.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the minister answering that question. I wonder if he could briefly offer us a breakdown in terms of the district offices. Are we seeing that complement of additional people spread across the province? Are they concentrated in specific areas of British Columbia? I wonder if he could advise us where they're being placed and what kind of measurements or what kind of accountability there would be for these additional hirings.
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for his interest in this issue. As I understand and know, the Liberal opposition supports the policy of zero tolerance with fraud and abuse. These individuals that I referred to are out in the field. They're not hanging around here waiting to be sent off; they're out in the field working. They're distributed across the province. Geographically, I don't have the exact individual by individual numbers where they are, in which communities. I can have that information supplied to the member if it's available specifically. I would assume that it is. But whatever information we have, we will supply to the hon. member on the distribution of the PCE division -- that's the prevention, compliance and enforcement division.
W. Hurd: I just have one other question with respect to this issue. The minister will be aware of a controversy within the ministry a few years ago, when an internal report was prepared about the extent of fraud and welfare abuse in the province. The minister will certainly be aware of the controversy at the time and that the minister was not advised of the contents of that report in a timely way. I just wonder if the minister could advise the committee of what he intends to do personally to be apprised of the progress of this initiative to deal with fraud and abuse. Has he perhaps studied the issue that arose a few years ago within the ministry, and the fact that the report was not reported in a timely way to either the minister or the public, and would he advise us what changes he has instituted or will institute, or that the ministry has instituted, to ensure that this information is received by the senior ministry staff in a timely way?
Hon. D. Streifel: It gives me great pleasure to stand up and say one more time that the policy is zero tolerance. I've made it a top priority since coming into the ministry that I will deal with this issue in a very serious manner. I would be apprised of our ongoing progress, so to speak -- in the language of the official opposition -- as we implement, support and aggressively pursue our policy of zero tolerance. I would expect ongoing briefings and ongoing information to be coming to me, and I will be monitoring it very closely. It's an absolute top priority for me that we ensure that those British Columbians in desperate need of our support and our help receive that support and that help, and that those who are defrauding the system are dealt with under our policy of zero tolerance.
R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I would be remiss if, before I got into my discussion this evening with regard to teens on the street and drugs and alcohol abuse relative to Social Services, I didn't compliment the member for Surrey-Whalley on the fight she waged to save a particular program in the riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove, known as the Chrisholme Society, which later become the Campbell Valley Centre, and which this year this government saw fit to cancel and remove funding for. It was an educational program for young men who came from abusive homes and had educational problems -- also drug and alcohol abuse.
I would like the opportunity just to prologue my statements with an example from my riding, which would allow me to then lead into the questions I would like to ask the minister this evening. In my constituency, I was made aware of a 15-year-old girl who was addicted to a number of drugs, including the free-basing of cocaine. She was also addicted to LSD. She disappeared for a month and a half, and she literally had to be brought home by her parents. They wanted to get an intervention in order to make her aware of what she was doing to her life, that she'd probably be dead in short order, that her prostitution on the streets of Vancouver was probably going to kill her and that she was going to abuse her life. There was no facility or intervention available through Social Services. Fortunately, these parents were able to mortgage their home to raise the money to bring in an intervention group from Minnesota to convince their child that she should go for some treatment. The problem was that there was no treatment readily available within this province for a teen of this age -- the 15-year-old daughter of these people -- so they had to spend $11,500(U.S.) over the past 45 days in order to get treatment for this child. Then they looked for an outreach program for the child in the province of British Columbia, and none was readily available. There was none available in Minnesota, because there you have to be able to work in order to enter an outreach program. Unfortunately, being a Canadian citizen and 15 years of age, this teenage child could not go into a program.
[9:00]
[ Page 484 ]
So on Saturday these parents will fly to Minnesota and will take this child to Louisiana to put her into an outreach program there. This will reintroduce the child into the community, into a non-alcohol and non-drug environment, so that she can readjust. Then, hopefully, they will bring her back to her home province or somewhere in western Canada where she can get into an educational program and she won't be exposed to these issues.
If you've ever walked the streets with a program and seen the child and youth problems on the streets of our major cities, and if you've walked the streets of this city at night, you will know that we have a problem with street kids. Yet we always talk about how we're going to address street kids, but we never put the programs, the facilities and the support mechanisms in place. So my questions to the minister are these -- and I don't want to get into the Gove report, although if he wishes, I'll give him a copy so he can read it by tomorrow when he wants a discussion on that. However, I do want to get into a discussion about street kids. It's very easy to say: "We're going to do something for street kids." But my first question to the minister is: do you know or does your ministry know how many agencies and societies are providing duplicate services for street kids on the streets of our two major cities, Victoria and Vancouver?
Hon. D. Streifel: If the member is bringing forward a specific case, a specific example, my staff will look into it -- if the member will bring forward the information to them.
We do spend a significant amount on programs such as Reconnect and other services for youth. Part of the question was specifically how many agencies there are out there. We'll endeavour to get that number; I don't have it with me. I don't have personal knowledge of the exact number of agencies that are out there doing work. When children are at risk, the Ministry of Social Services has a mandate to work with parents, families and communities to ensure their safety.
I think it's paramount that we all work in that direction. The ministry is committed to working with communities to address youth issues and develop services to meet community needs. Indeed, this minister, prior to being appointed, has attended many community meetings and open discussions around issues affecting youth and has helped develop some of the plans within the community of Agassiz, for instance. The Ministry of Social Services currently funds 33 Reconnect programs, providing outreach programs to street youth across the province. We also provide a range of residential services for youth, including safe house accommodation, and I sincerely thank the member opposite for his concern for the youth in our communities.
R. Coleman: The reason I didn't use specific names in my example was that I wasn't asking for an opinion with regard to a specific incident. I was using the incident to outline to the minister that we have a problem with how we can take care of the youth and some of their problems on the streets of our province. The reason I asked the question is that I would assume, seeing as a number of non-profit organizations could probably give you the answer, that you might know how many organizations were on the streets of Vancouver specifically offering duplicate programs for the youth on our streets -- outside of the 33 Reconnect programs that you've already got.
Those organizations are out there. They're specifically targeted to youth; they're specifically trying to offer programs. My question to the minister is this: has it ever occurred to the ministry that 211 of these non-profit groups providing services to youth on the streets of our major cities seek the same grants from different granting agencies and provide employees and duplicate services? How much is that? They all have offices, and they supply offices for their people. They have volunteers in the street, and the coordination of those volunteers is critical.
My next question to the minister is: have you ever considered convening a constituent assembly of all organizations that provide youth services to children on the streets of our cities, outside of government agencies, to find out where the duplication is, where the savings are and where the improvement of services to our kids is within the system?
Hon. D. Streifel: I again compliment the member opposite for his concern over street youth. I heard a couple of times in the presentation his concern for Vancouver and major cities, and I think we share the concern for street youth in our interior communities and smaller communities as well. We're always interested in efficiencies, in streamlining and in contract reform in order to coordinate the delivery of all these programs.
It's true there is some overlap: some comes under Health, some comes under this ministry. There are many non-profits, and there are many private and church-based organizations. If the member opposite would like to offer this minister some advice on how we can deliver these programs in a more efficient manner without abandoning our youth, I am sure he wouldn't hesitate to do so.
R. Coleman: I'm not really interested in compliments; I'm interested in action, because the kids on the streets in this province are at risk. My concern is that I'm trying to give you the answers I'm pitching, but it appears to me you're not catching. I'm saying to you that there are a number of agencies in this province, volunteer organizations, that are duplicating services. You, through different agencies and grant programs, are providing them with funds, and in addition you're providing government services to the same people. If you'd like one example -- I can't remember the riding, so I won't use the
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try to answer the question. Have I done a review? No. Do we have an ongoing process or contract reform project to improve the ongoing relationship between government, community, Social Services and health service providers, provide consistent standards and establish coordinated government contract management, focus on outcome and improve accountability? Yes, that's ongoing. If you're asking me if we review the services that we deliver from this ministry, yes, we do that on an ongoing basis. If you're asking me if I have intimate knowledge of every non-profit and church-based organization -- what they do, where their funding comes from and their budget -- no, I do not. I would ask the hon. member to bring that forward to me if he has that specific information, and we'll work within the contract reform project to ensure that the services are delivered.
R. Coleman: I guess my question is this -- and it's a short one: could you explain the review you're presently undertaking to assess these services that you've just mentioned?
[ Page 485 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: I will supply that information in a newsletter form, which outlines what we are doing and what is there. If the hon. member needs further information on that, I'm sure he could contact some of my staff. My ADM is involved in this program. The sheriff of the program is Les Foster, I understand, and it's an ongoing process. I appreciate the offer of help from the Liberal caucus as we deliver services more efficiently to our street youth, without the removal of much-needed services.
R. Coleman: I would like the House to make note of my riding and provide it to the hon. minister. There have been three occasions in this House when I've been told in questions to ministers that information would be provided to me, and it never was. I would like it noted that they have said again that they would provide me with information, and it usually requires a letter plus a memo and another letter to get the information.
I have some other questions. If a young girl is involved in prostitution on the streets of Vancouver and wishes to get off the street, she needs a place to go. She needs educational opportunities, and she needs opportunities to get off whatever substance abuse she may be involved in. She may come from a background of an abusive home, which is often the case in street youth, resulting in their ending up on the streets. Will the minister please tell me first of all what positive peer culture programs in a residential environment are available to young women on the streets, which they can go to versus going back to abusive homes in their communities?
Hon. D. Streifel: If we are dealing with a hypothetical case, I would like a nod; if we are dealing with a specific case, I would appreciate the member bringing forward that information to my staff -- not within the openness of this debate, out of respect for the privacy of the individual involved. In fact, if it's a hypothetical question, I'm going to try this as an answer.
We have the Vancouver action plan. Vancouver has between 300 and 500 street youth at any one time; this is the largest concentration of street youth in British Columbia. Introduced in November '94, with a budget of $1.98 million, the Vancouver action plan supports the development of local resources and services for Vancouver street youth, particularly young victims of the sex trade. These resources and services include a safe house for youth under 16 years of age, as well as detox information, referral, repatriation, housing registry and other support services. Other communities in the province are to be considered for similar initiatives in the future, as announced in the provincial action plan on prostitution from the Ministry of Attorney General. Again, that is under the Ministry of Attorney General.
Thanks to a coordinated community effort, an additional $100,000 in sponsorship funds was used during April, May and June to run a summer campaign which supports the Vancouver action plan's concern for the sexual exploitation of children and youth. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.
R. Coleman: Sadly, it doesn't. However, the minister has opened a few doors for some more questions in addition to the ones I haven't asked yet. So let's start out with the fact that he has identified 300 to 400 female youth at risk on the streets of Vancouver at any given time. It is very nice of him to read me the press release that has been released to the province at one time or another -- at least that's what it sounded like to me.
My question to the minister is very simple. You have the Vancouver action plan. My question is -- and I will do it one question at a time: how many beds are available for street kids in the province at any given time?
[9:15]
Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand, we have 6,000 beds available for children in British Columbia. Street youth can access these beds. There are also some specialized beds specifically for these individuals.
R. Coleman: There are only 8,000 non-profit housing units managed by the B.C. Management Housing Commission in the province of British Columbia. Would you like to identify for me, please, what these 6,000 beds are? Are they hostels, are they motels, are they whatever? And when they arrive at this particular location, is there counselling? Are there educational programs? Are there opportunities for them to get off the streets? Or are you just picking empty rooms off a list somewhere and identifying them as available beds for youth on our streets?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Streifel: We have a loud member across from us this evening.
We're dealing with a very, very serious issue. The answers are available to this member. We have group homes and foster homes available to service the needs of the youth. The ministry provides a range of residential resources in the lower mainland, including intensive child care resources, which provide a full range of services, one of which is education to youth with serious behavioral or emotional problems.
It's a very comprehensive program, and we continue to assess and monitor the activity within these programs -- and, in fact, the success rates, or however the Liberal opposition would like to characterize it -- in our endeavour to assist the youth of our province in achieving a stable life and in coming off the streets in that manner.
R. Coleman: I find it somewhat insulting to this House and to myself that you choose to lump foster homes into a question that has to do with youth at risk on the streets of a community. Most foster homes wouldn't take these children, because of the behavioral problems, the drug problems and the other problems they have. They require some special attention. These are human beings. They're not to be sloughed off in a category of statistics such as 6,000 foster homes being available in the province. They're people that need specific assistance. They're somebody's children, they're somebody's grandchildren, and they shouldn't be sloughed off that way.
It is a proven fact that the only way to deal with street children and get them out of a situation of risk, if they want it, is in a residential environment with a positive peer culture and an educational program to enhance it, so they have the opportunity to go halfway back to their communities.
Could the minister please tell me how many beds are available for young men who need positive peer culture in that type of environment, and how many beds are available to young women in this province who need positive peer culture in that environment -- not how many foster beds there are, but realistically how many facilities there are in this province for that particular use? And if the minister wishes to have the answer, I will give it to him after he gives me the wrong one.
[ Page 486 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to attempt this once more. We have a wide variety of accommodation and beds available. As a matter of fact, there are some specialized foster homes that specifically take street kids and youth with difficulties; that's what they do. I know some of those individuals myself, and we do have some homes available. I'm not sure of the total number that would take one gender or the other. I don't think we actually lay out a specific number for this gender and a specific number for that gender. When we encounter a youth at risk who wants to exit the streets and become resident in a safe environment, in a safe bed, we supply that bed. We don't discriminate by gender.
R. Coleman: This has nothing to do with discrimination; it has to do with the non-answering of a question. It's a very simple question, and I'll give a you a very simple answer. You had one program for young men in a residential environment with positive peer counselling that would actually take care of behavioral problems, family problems and what have you, and you cancelled that program. You have another program for young ladies that, as I understand it, you've cut back to six children. Can you tell me how -- and I want to know how, because it's fine to talk about the foster parent
I want to tell you personally that I was a parent counsellor. I was trained as a parent counsellor; I took these children into my home. It is not an easy program. But when it comes right down to
Hon. Chair, I heard the quiet statement from the minister over there that I don't understand what foster parents are or what foster homes are. I will tell the hon. minister that I do; I have been one. I've done it, so don't tell me what I don't know.
I want to take you to a specific location for a moment, because I think you can give me specific answers on a specific location. The Ministry of Social Services took over a program, known as the Chrisholme Society, three or four years ago. It reintegrated that program under the management of the Salvation Army and called it the Campbell Valley Centre. The provincial real estate association or organization, whichever is the arm of government, purchased the land for one point some million dollars. The program was shut down. Could the hon. minister please tell me why we spent one point some million dollars to buy a facility that we operated for only a year and then shut down?
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for his question. I will look into it.
R. Coleman: I'm sorry. I don't know whether the microphone wasn't working, but I did not hear the answer. Could I have the answer repeated, please?
M. Coell: Hon. Chair, I'm sorry the minister chose not to answer those questions, because they were important to the youth of this province. I wonder if the minister can answer some fairly basic questions for me. I want to know if his ministry monitors its budget on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis.
Hon. D. Streifel: For the hon. member's information, the government supplies a quarterly report on spending in the ministries. It's available; it's reported publicly.
M. Coell: At year-end, how long before you know your actual numbers for expenditures in your ministry?
Hon. D. Streifel: The Public Accounts Committee reports out. The auditor general releases the information, usually, I believe, in the fall. That's the process; it's been in place for a long time.
K. Whittred: Hon. Chair, I would like to make some inquiries about the teen mom programs. I would first of all like to commend the ministry for the increase in these programs. No one on either side of the House would deny that they are very useful and beneficial to both the young mother and the child, and to the economy in the long run. My question to the hon. minister is: what processes does your ministry have in place to monitor the progress of these programs, specifically the educational progress of the teen moms?
Hon. D. Streifel: The program is an educational program. There's a monitoring process throughout the length of the program. It's a procedure that's built within those educational programs. They're educational.
K. Whittred: I'm sorry, hon. minister, I found that answer to be somewhat vague. You mentioned an educational assessment. I wonder if you could be more specific.
Hon. D. Streifel: The contract is monitored by the area manager, and the area manager has a list of deliverables that are, I guess, monitored through the process and the progress of the contract.
K. Whittred: At the end of a school year, hon. minister, do you know whether or not the teen mother in the program has passed or failed the courses? That is my question.
Hon. D. Streifel: If the member is asking if I know each and every individual that receives a Dogwood Certificate and if they graduate at the end of a training course, I don't have that. However, I imagine that the educational processes where these individuals are educated have that information. I know that in my community newspapers a list of graduates is published. If that's where we're going with this, if that helps the
K. Whittred: I think the hon. minister is missing the point. There was a discussion about welfare fraud at length in this committee meeting yesterday, and I am not exactly alluding here to welfare fraud but perhaps to abuse of the program -- that is, to be in a program and not participate in what the program is supposed to do. I'm simply asking the hon. minister if there are any administrative processes in that program that say to the person participating: "Are you, in fact, going to school and getting educated?" Is anyone checking whether or not the student is attending school?
[9:30]
Hon. D. Streifel: I really thank the member for clarifying her question and actually asking it for the first time. Yes, we monitor participation in these programs. We would have saved 15 minutes had that question come straight off.
K. Whittred: I will now shift gears. Very briefly, I am extremely curious about something that is in the seniors'
[ Page 487 ]
supplement program. I note with interest that the veterans' benefit is clawed back and that there is a $50-a-month allowance exemption. I am curious about this, because I know that veterans' benefits are not taxable income. Why, then, have you arrived at an amount of $50 for eligibility for the seniors' supplement?
Hon. D. Streifel: The program I think the hon. member describes as the seniors' supplement has been transferred to the Minister of Finance. If the member is referring to a different program from the seniors' supplement program, which was transferred to the Minister of Finance, could she offer us clarification? We would then endeavour to answer the question.
K. Whittred: The program I am referring to is the seniors' supplement. It is an add-on to the old age pension; I assume you know that. I was curious, as I said, about why this particular amount is clawed back.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I'll attempt this one more time. The seniors' supplement has been transferred to the Ministry of Finance. I don't believe it's under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Services. If the member has other information, perhaps we could get it clarified. I will endeavour to supply some information for the member on when the transfer happened. It is no longer under the Ministry of Social Services.
K. Whittred: I thank the hon. minister, and I will ask that question of the Minister of Finance.
R. Coleman: You know, it saddens me that in my line of questioning, it's obvious that this minister has never seen a shaken, freezing, half-clothed, drug-addicted young person on the streets of the city. He refused to answer my questions, and I would like to have it on the record that my questions have not been answered and that I request answers to my questions. I will re-pose some of those questions under the report of the Gove inquiry and other questions in these estimates. I would like to pass the questioning on now to the member for Vancouver-Langara.
V. Anderson: First of all, just a comment, hon. Chair, in relationship to the discussion we've had about young people who are struggling with drug dependency or overcoming it. I think we should be reminded that at one time the government did take a very appropriate interest in the development of Peak House, which was one of two youth treatment centres for alcohol abuse -- residential treatment centres -- in the province. It was at government instigation, through Alcohol and Drug, under the Health ministry, that that began initially, but it was then transferred over, and it was this government which then finally did away with a program similar to it in Abbotsford. It was this government which also then downsized the Peak House, with the promise that they would be providing similar programs throughout the province, which they have never undertaken to do. I think we need to have it on the record that the situation is a critical one and the government has failed to respond -- or even to maintain the program that was in place -- when they had the opportunity to do so.
There was recently, over the last few months, a decision made to change the definition of "handicapped" -- recognition for those with disabilities and handicaps. Could the minister explain for us the new definition, so that it might be on the record, and its implications?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. D. Streifel: The definition of handicapped was developed through very extensive work within the community. We supplied this information to the critic for this area, the member just to your right. In fact, if you'd like, we could supply the information directly to you, or you could have the information shared from your colleague.
V. Anderson: I think it's important that the new definition of handicapped be in the record and be in Hansard, and that's the reason for asking. There are many people out there in the community who would like to know about it, and to have it in the Hansard record would be important.
Hon. D. Streifel: The definition has been deposited as an OIC. It's part of the public record. Very shortly, we will see it further exposed to the public view. I would encourage the hon. member to access that information -- as it was shared with his colleague -- from his colleague. It will be, in a very short time, further exposed.
V. Anderson: I'm disappointed that the minister won't explain and discuss the "handicapped" definition, because it's a very significant one and, as was pointed out, it's been worked on by people in the community. I'm disappointed that the minister wouldn't read it into the record, so I'll be happy to read it into the record, because I think it's important. It should be there. "Handicapped person" means:
Since the minister doesn't want to speak to this, I think it's important that the opposition speak to it, because the community worked very hard on this definition to make it fair and more just for the people in the community. It has made it possible for people to come on on a longtime basis, without having to go every six months to have it reaffirmed. For the people who have a real disability, it's very important that they have the opportunity to be aware of this. I think it's unfortunate that the minister has not seen fit to discuss this. I wonder if he would like to indicate -- or shall I do it for him? -- the kinds of disabilities that have been recognized, particularly because of this new definition. It would mean that people in the community who watch the goings-on of this legislative chamber -- maybe to the surprise of the minister -- would be very much aware that there is a possibility for them to come under the handicapped designation with their disability.
In particular, I am impressed by the statistic that shows that the highest number of people currently recognized under this definition are those with mental illness -- 23 percent, according to the figures we've been given of those recognized as applicants. The next largest number is people with musculo-skeletal difficulties. It goes down from there in the percentages.
I would hope that the minister might be prepared to make a few comments about the handicap application and about the process of how people may apply for and receive it.
Hon. D. Streifel: I sincerely want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara for his support for this very
[ Page 488 ]
important initiative, to recognize the very hard work that was put into developing this program and proposal by the community involved, and I guess to reiterate that this is all part of the B.C. Benefits strategy and package. We will be introducing very shortly the extension and the movement of the B.C. Benefits package. I look forward to the debate around that. I look forward to the members opposite, particularly the member for Vancouver-Langara, bringing forward continued support. In fact, I thank the member for reading the information he wanted to get on the public record from his perspective. I'm in no way attempting to hide from this issue; it is on public record. The member for Vancouver-Langara has now brought it into the public record again, in Hansard, from the perspective of the Liberal caucus, and I thank him for that.
V. Anderson: I'd like to move to another topic now, since we're talking about support of people. I have to confess
[9:45]
It's well documented by the ombudsman in her report, and it's documented by the Riverview Hospital staff and by the patients' advisory committee, that this particular support is very inadequate for those people who are having to struggle with mental illness, because this $82 a month is all they have available for every item of their personal needs -- apart from their food, their clothing and their shelter. It's what they would use for a bus pass; it's what they would use for clothing; it's what they would use for entertainment; it's what they would use for special toiletry articles. It works out to less than $2.50 a day, to cover your clothing, all of your personal needs and all of your social needs. These are the persons who have the most difficulty of all.
The problem that I put before the minister is: if these persons were not in the facility, they would be receiving more adequate support and more adequate finances than they do when they are within the facility. I ask the minister, if he has not dealt with this issue, if, at the very least, he is willing to take it under consideration, to give it serious thought and to give us a written reply as to whether they will reconsider the need of those who are in Riverview and other similar institutions for adequate support -- and a recognition that more should be done for them, as well as for others within the community. Or perhaps the minister can assure me that, under one of the B.C. Benefits programs, this particular program will be met and responded to. I'd appreciate the minister's concern and response.
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for bringing forward this concern. It's sometimes very difficult to make the choices that we do within the budgetary restraints that are on us. We have set priorities within our budgeting focus. Our priorities are on kids and the handicapped. These individuals, while they are in health facilities, receive $82 a month to cover their needs, and the facility that they are in supplies the basic shelter, support and sustenance. I will take the member's presentation under serious consideration, and I thank him for his presentation.
V. Anderson: I respect that the minister will take it under serious consideration. Could the minister also indicate that he would give to ourselves and to the patients at Riverview a written response within the next three months or so as to what he has decided, after he has given it fair consideration? I think it's important that people know that when we take things under consideration, there is a time frame and a response, whether it's yes or no or maybe -- they get an adequate response to the question. I think that's what they expect of us, and that's what I think we should provide for them. So if the minister would make some statement as to when he will consider it and that a written response will be available, we would appreciate that very much. I think that's the least that we can ask.
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I thank the member for his presentation and his concern. In fact, if the member wishes, he can send off my words that are in Hansard. I have met with the advocate for this group, discussed the situation with this advocate and explained some of the budgetary restraints, some of the tough choices we have to make. Indeed, it is very, very difficult to make some of these choices.
I report to the Legislature. I am responsible for the budget of this ministry. That's the process that we will follow in this instance. Again, I thank the member for his presentation, and I will take it under consideration.
V. Anderson: I think I have to follow up briefly, at least. When they say that there are priorities, I can't
I think the minister needs to re-examine the priorities, because he has indicated today that he has saved $170 million on just two programs. This program to meet the needs of all those people in the province who are in this situation would probably cost $5 million out of the $170 million he has saved in the last few months. Certainly $5 million could be redirected to the people in need.
I say to the minister that hiding behind that priority suggestion is a weak and false argument, from my point of view. I think that when you have been saving all this money that you have talked about, there is a real effective place to put it: in support of these people with mental illness whose care we have undertaken. By the way, I'll remind the minister that some of these people are not there of their own free will. They have been forced there by society, and then they have not been provided with the proper sustenance, support and recognition they need. I trust that the minister will reconsider his priority. When he says on the one hand that the decision is made and then on the other that he'll reconsider it, I'm sure if I send that out to the persons who are concerned, they will make their own judgments about the quality of decision-making.
M. Coell: We talked the other day about the deinstitutionalization of Glendale and Woodlands, and identified that there would be savings which would go into community-based facilities and programs. I'd like to ask the minister a
[ Page 489 ]
number of questions about those facilities and the people and staff who will be part of this program. Could the minister tell me how many new group homes for people with mental handicaps are being developed this year, the number of staff and the number of people who will be in those group homes?
Hon. D. Streifel: We don't have the exact number of group homes. We'll supply that to the member. Approximately 100 individuals will be moving into the group home structure and into community living.
M. Coell: What I'm looking for is the number of staff in those group homes and whether they are one- or two-person operations, and also the number of people per group home.
Hon. D. Streifel: The total staff within this program is about 10,000, and it includes residential programs and day programs. I hope that's the
M. Coell: There is a small number of people still left in the institutions. They will be going into the community this year. What I'm interested in is: how many group homes are being developed for those people, and how many staff will be in those group homes?
Hon. D. Streifel: To restate the answer, we have about 100 individuals moving in. We don't know the exact number of group homes. We'll supply that when it's available. The number of homes determines the number of staff, so one figure would be in equation with the other. I'm not trying to avoid anything here; we don't have the exact number of homes. The number of staff would be determined by the individual needs of the residents as they move into the community living structure. It would be a guess, at best, and I would prefer to deliver accurate information to the hon. member when we have it available.
M. Coell: If the minister is willing to give us that information later in the fall, we would appreciate that, and so would the parents and family members of the people who are moving. There is always anxiety when people move out of institutions into the community. I would suggest to you that it is a very positive move, but it does create anxiety for families and for the individuals. We're endeavouring to make sure that the community-based facilities are there for those individuals.
I wonder if the minister could also tell the House what the training is of the group home parents or staff. I know that it would be of interest to many people in the province. What level of training and qualifications do the group home staff and parents have, compared to the staff who are presently delivering the services in the institutions?
Hon. D. Streifel: The staff there have community service worker certificates through the community college structure. Many of them have in-service training.
D. Symons: I must say that I have something which I think is very relevant to the discussion that has been going on. I'm reading from Hansard, June 17, 1991: "It's evidence again of the kind of incompetence we've seen time and time again over four and a half long years with this administration. It's drifting along
Hon. Chair, we've been here for three weeks. I wonder, then, under those circumstances, if we might ask that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Any further discussion? I recognize the hon. member for Matsqui.
M. de Jong: I believe there was a motion to adjourn.
Interjection.
The Chair: In actual fact, there is a rule about adjournment, or that motion about rising and reporting. It was moved by the official opposition last time. The rule is that if there is no intervening business -- i.e., a vote -- then it can't be done in the same way again. That is the rule, I've been informed. I haven't made it up or anything like that, as useful as that might have been. I remembered it at the right time though, didn't I?
G. Farrell-Collins: With that, I move that the Chair do now leave the chair.
The Chair: That is an acceptable motion. It's a non-debatable motion, I presume.
[10:00]
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 31 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Farrell-Collins | Hurd | Sanders | |
| Plant | Stephens | de Jong | |
| Coell | Anderson | Nebbeling | |
| Whittred | van Dongen | Thorpe | |
| Weisgerber | Neufeld | Barisoff | |
| Krueger | McKinnon | Masi | |
| Nettleton | Coleman | Chong | |
| Weisbeck | Abbott | Symons | |
| Hawkins | C. Clark | Hansen | |
| J. Wilson | |||
|
NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | G. Clark | Dosanjh | |
| MacPhail | Sihota | Randall | |
| Sawicki | Lali | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood | |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen | |
The Chair: We now carry on with the business.
M. Coell: Hon. Chair, is it your wish that we continue with estimates?
The Chair: That's what's on the floor, hon. member. There's been no change in the program.
M. Coell: Possibly you would like a minute for people to vacate the House again.
[ Page 490 ]
The Chair: The estimates continue, and those who wish to leave the chamber may do so -- quietly, please. Order, hon. members. We are now moving into estimates, and I'd like to have order in the chamber before we begin.
M. Coell: Hon. Chair, before the bells rang, we were discussing the group homes that will be developed in the province this year and the staffing for them. I wonder if the minister might tell me a bit about the time frames that he expects those facilities to be developed under and whether or not they will be all completed before the end of the year.
Hon. D. Streifel: When I have that information available, I will make it available to the member.
M. Coell: Earlier this year the Premier said that there would be 2,200 layoffs in the coming year. I just wonder whether the minister can confirm that there will be no layoffs in his ministry due to that announcement by the Premier.
Hon. D. Streifel: The question of the group homes -- as I understand it, the program will be completed within this calendar year.
M. Coell: I know the minister is tired; that's why we were attempting to adjourn for this evening. But he's answered the question I asked him before. I'll restate the question that he didn't answer. Earlier this year the Premier announced that there would be 2,200 layoffs in government this year. I just wish the minister to confirm for us that there will be no layoffs in his ministry as a result of that announcement.
Hon. D. Streifel: To clarify the answer to the first question for the member, I did commit to make the information available as soon as I had it, and I did do that when I had it.
No, there are going to be no layoffs in my ministry.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, in the briefing notes that the ministry graciously offered to us -- and we appreciate it very
Hon. D. Streifel: I remember this question from yesterday. We suggested that there would be very little change this year, and we also committed to supply a breakdown as soon as we possibly could. Yesterday to today, I guess, is just too soon for us. We will supply the information to the member's question from yesterday, which is the same question today.
V. Anderson: Actually, we didn't ask this question in this particular instance before. We might have asked it in a previous area, but not in this one. Am I to understand that the ministry does have a breakdown and that it was inadvertently not included in our briefing notes, or am I to understand that there is no such breakdown and that is why it was not supplied? I'm curious to know why it wasn't here. What was the reason behind it not being available?
[10:15]
Hon. D. Streifel: I apologize to the hon. member if I suggested that it was he who asked the question yesterday; I don't believe it was. It was canvassed, though.
There is going to be very little change. It's not quite finalized. As soon as the information is available, it will be supplied to the member.
V. Anderson: One program I'd like to particularly raise and be updated on is in the area of foster parents and foster homes. How many foster homes do we have at the moment? How many children are in foster care at this particular time?
Hon. D. Streifel: We have about 7,000 children in care in a variety of resources. I understand about 4,000 of those are foster children. I believe we have in the area of 4,000 to 4,500 foster homes. I could supply more specific detail to the member, but those are the approximate figures. If the member nods, we'll get the exact figures as soon as they're available.
R. Coleman: Could the hon. minister please tell me the breakdown of the $332,382,442 for mental handicaps and multiple disabilities? Could he give me the breakdown for multiple disabilities to start with, please?
The Chair: Hon. members, because a division is happening in the other House, we will take a recess until the call of the Chair.
The House recessed from 10:18 p.m. to 10:32 p.m.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.
M. Coell: I would recognize the minister, if he'd like to answer.
Hon. D. Streifel: Fifty-nine percent of the funds, or $194.54 million, is directed toward residential care for approximately 3,650 adults with mental handicaps. This funding provides adults with mental handicaps with places to live in the community, ranging from full personal care to counselling and support for independent living. There is also $76.25 million budgeted to provide training and support programs for these clients. Service for adults with multiple disabilities accounts for another $44.91 million, an allocation of $12.97 million has been included to provide for placements in the community from Woodlands and Glendale, and there is $3.71 million for other service requirements.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for that answer; that was exactly what we were looking for.
I would like to ask a couple of questions on communications within the ministry. How much is budgeted for in the ministry on communications and communications consultants?
Hon. D. Streifel: I hope this information is what the member for Saanich North and the Islands is seeking. At STOB 40 there's a $550,000 advertising budget. Approximately half of the funds -- $250,000 -- will go towards supporting implementation of the new Child, Family and Community Service Act and Adoption Act, and to publicize the Helpline for Children. These are mainly geared towards
[ Page 491 ]
reducing child abuse and neglect. Up to $50,000 goes towards multicultural brochures, and other media materials for those who cannot read, explaining the ministry's programs. The remaining funds go to miscellaneous purposes such as publishing the annual report, research, reports and establishment of an Internet web site.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could indicate what the FTE staff is for communications in the ministry. What number of people would be working in that position?
Hon. D. Streifel: In approximate numbers of FTEs, 12.
M. Coell: Does your ministry have full control over the communications, or is it coordinated through another ministry or body of government?
Hon. D. Streifel: The Ministry of Social Services administers the communications shop themselves.
M. Coell: Could the minister identify for the House the top five advertising communications programs? He's mentioned a couple. Could he give me a little more detail on the advertising communications programs that that $500,000 is spent on?
Hon. D. Streifel: I thought we'd gone halfway back to Johnny Carson with the top five,
R. Coleman: I go back to the question that I was asking when the bells from heaven rang and something stopped us from being able to deal with the question. Under the services for adults -- mentally handicapped and multiple disabilities -- my question was: what was the split between disabilities and mental handicaps?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's unfortunate the member wasn't here when I answered the question, but I did answer it, and I am sure his caucus colleagues will verify that I did answer it -- they said it was what they were looking for. I would refer the member to Hansard.
R. Coleman: Of course, if we didn't have to bounce around -- because we could have dealt with the Gove inquiry tonight, as we planned -- we probably would have all been here to hear the answers of the hon. member. However, seeing as he is not prepared to give me the split, perhaps he could give me the services that they're giving, first of all, to ventilating quadriplegics, out of the disability side of the budget.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's $194.54 million and $44.91 million. I've answered the question twice now; it's on the record.
R. Coleman: Thank you for answering that question, hon. minister. Now, if you could explain to me what technical aids you're providing under that budget -- whether they be computer technical aids, whether they be blow-switches on specialized wheelchairs, whether they be environmental controls for them to have the ability to live in particular types of environments, and what the split-off is for ventilated
Hon. D. Streifel: It's medical equipment and is supplied on an as-needed basis.
R. Coleman: Would the hon. minister please tell me, then, who is designing the technical aids for a ventilated quad into an environmental control in the region of Vancouver?
Hon. D. Streifel: The equipment would be, probably, designed by a medical technician; requests and needs are identified by the physician. The Ministry of Social Services is not a medical ministry. We don't do that.
R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, he is absolutely correct. They wouldn't be doing that. They would probably be designing the format for technical aids at Pearson Hospital in Vancouver, through the medical side of the equation. But my question
Hon. D. Streifel: I would refer the member to the Ministry of Health, as I understand the individuals coming from Pearson Hospital are under the Ministry of Health.
R. Coleman: I realize that the Ministry of Health has some involvement in the lifestyle of ventilated quads and paraplegics and quadriplegics, who are people, I assume, that are being assisted by this line item within the budget. My question isn't what the medical involvement is. My question is: on what services are we spending $312 million specifically? I know you broke it out earlier, and you refused to give me the numbers because you broke it out earlier. I don't care about the split. I'd like to specifically know how much money and what services are being provided by this ministry to ventilated quadriplegics, under disabilities.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this one again. We don't supply medical supplies for individuals in health facilities. On an as-needed basis, for individuals from Woodlands, Tranquille or Glendale, yes, but it's on an as-needed basis, and the equipment is designed under the guidance of the physicians involved. Again, I will repeat for the fourth and last time that we do not cover the individuals in Pearson Hospital or in health facilities. It's not this ministry. I would refer the member to the Minister of Health to seek the answers to his questions.
R. Coleman: Perhaps the minister misunderstood my reference to Pearson Hospital. I'm familiar with the fact that Pearson Hospital routinely does assessments for technical aids and equipment that may be required by people who need assistance from Social Services. That equipment is then provided either through an equipment loan program, a lease program, a permanent loan program or a purchase program to the individuals through your ministry.
[10:45]
What I wanted to know -- and maybe I could simplify the question even more -- is this. There are paraplegics, there are quadriplegics and there are ventilated quadriplegics.
[ Page 492 ]
These are all disabled people. Could the minister please tell me how much of the budget is being spent on equipment -- on a loan basis, lease basis, purchase basis, buyback basis or on whatever basis you provide it -- exclusive of the Ministry of Health for disabled people?
Hon. D. Streifel: I think the information the hon. member is seeking is in the health services budget. It's not contained in this material or in this budget. It's not in this $332.38 million, but we will supply the information to the member.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move 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. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:48 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 6:46 p.m.
On vote 16: minister's office, $425,473 (continued).
G. Plant: Hon. Chair, I want to follow up on some questions that were asked just before the most recent recess about the estimates in the area of human rights. What I really want to do -- because we've covered some of the detail of this -- is a couple of things. One is to draw to the attention of the minister in a formal sense the fact that the subject of the delays and the backlog that exist in respect of the activity of the Council of Human Rights has been a subject and is still a subject of interest to the ombudsman and is a subject that she has reported on in her most recent annual report, which I think is a strong indication of both the seriousness of the problem and the need for a solution.
Without going back over the details of the budget numbers, it is my understanding that the current estimate -- the allocation within this year's estimates of funding in the area of human rights -- is intended to provide enough funds to not only allow for the transition to the new process and procedure contemplated by the act, which is intended to come into force on October 1, but is also intended to provide enough resources to the council and the commission to make a significant effort and have significant success in clearing up the backlog.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from the ombudsman's report that she is aware of the efforts, as well, that we are making to take care of the backlog. The hon. member is correct: the current funding that's mentioned in the estimates is intended to take care of the transition as well as to begin to address the significant issue of the backlog. To what extent we can address the backlog and eliminate it depends upon the number of complaints that we receive, as we go along, because the number of complaints has been increasing over time.
G. Plant: Well, I'm not sure that I want to let the minister off quite that easily. It would seem to me that to some extent, the growth in complaints is something that one can track as a historical fact and, by virtue of reviewing that history, predict into the future. The process of setting estimates and making a budget is all about making a prediction. So what I want to know
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that I can tell you with some level of confidence that we will make a beginning, a good beginning. In addition to putting the new structures in place, we'll make a good beginning at addressing the backlog. To what extent we can eliminate or reduce it would depend, really, on time. I don't think that one can expect a backlog that has been built up over several years to be eliminated in one year. That would take a huge amount of money that we haven't allocated to this particular part of the budget. We intend to put the new machinery in place and make a beginning of dealing with the backlog as well as addressing the continuing complaints that come in. So the backlog would be eliminated, but if one were to ask me whether that could be done over the next year, I would have to say I think that would be unlikely.
G. Plant: I am grateful for that answer. Let me see if I can test it at the level of detail just a little. The backlog is a complex product of delays that take place at each stage of the procedure between the filing of an initial complaint and its ultimate resolution by the council. I would be grateful for some assistance in knowing what the objective of the ministry is in terms of time lines over the next little while for each of those stages.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we'll answer that after we resume.
The Chair: We'll have a short recess to facilitate a division.
The committee recessed from 6:53 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.
[ Page 493 ]
The Chair: The hon. minister was going to answer the question.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I remember the question, it was with respect to new structures and what we're trying to do within those structures that may alleviate the backlog. Under the new structures, mediation is emphasized much more. In fact, there would be a process for mediation in order to prevent cases from going ahead to adjudication and to resolve them at an earlier stage. In addition to that, a project officer is going to be in place. We are going to try to do some re-engineering in terms of all of the stages of investigation. We will also train the investigators in the art of mediation so that we can reduce the number that eventually end up in adjudication. We can also reduce the time consumed in investigation if we can mediate some of those issues and resolve them at an earlier stage of the investigation. Those are some of the things that we are doing and looking at.
G. Plant: Are any time lines being contemplated? Do you have time line goals? For example, if it's currently taking 365 days, or whatever the figure is, to conduct an investigation, is there in place some kind of written expression of what the planned-for time line for completing investigations will be under the new regime? Are there concrete, specific goals like that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, that's what the re-engineering process is supposed to decide. We will have all of that information in place by October 1.
R. Thorpe: Now we're going to move on to liquor licensing and liquor distribution. Is there any particular order you'd prefer: LDB or liquor licensing?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Whatever you want.
R. Thorpe: What a gentleman!
Why don't we start with the LDB. The reason we should start with the
I'm a little concerned at how the whole process started. We've heard the Premier talk in the House about partnership and working together, and I know the minister is an honourable gentleman. So my first request is: as the critic responsible, I would hope that the minister would endorse an opportunity for me as the critic to receive an in-depth briefing on both the LDB and liquor licensing once the session is out. By that I mean having the opportunity to visit their facilities and meet the management and really understand the operation.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes -- an emphatic yes.
R. Thorpe: The LDB is a $1.5 billion corporation. On July 3, I asked for detailed line information, and I happened to receive the response today just before lunch. For a $1.5 billion corporation, to receive three pieces of paper, for all intents and purposes, and two are the
Let me go back to a question I asked in interim supply about the projected net revenue or net income -- whatever the correct terminology is for these purposes -- of $587 million. Does the minister feel very confident that that number will, in fact, be achieved?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Do you have the same documentation that I do? I am sure you do, somewhere.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
R. Thorpe: The second paragraph after the numbers states that the LDB has developed new initiatives that would enable the achievement of its budgeted net income. I wonder if perhaps the minister could share those initiatives with us, maybe give us the top five initiatives and quantify the net revenue that each one of those initiatives is going to bring back to the LDB.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The business plan for the branch has not been approved by Treasury Board as yet; that process is taking place. The officials of Treasury Board have seen that plan. Therefore I am unable to discuss the details of this, but I am quite confident that what is presented here is achievable.
R. Thorpe: When do you anticipate that Treasury Board will complete its deliberations and that you and your officials will be able to share that information with us?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this material did go to Treasury Board. However, as a result of the House sitting and everybody being busy, it was deferred to the next meeting, whenever that meeting takes place. At this time, I believe, it is every two weeks. It could be less, depending on whether or not the ministers can meet.
R. Thorpe: Would it be fair to set a target of August 15? That should give us sufficient time. My concern here
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think what the member is asking indirectly is something that I can't tell him directly.
R. Thorpe: That doesn't make it an assumption, does it?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. I'm simply telling you that once the documents are with Treasury
R. Thorpe: I guess my concern about this is that the government counts very heavily on the LDB to throw substantial amounts of cash into its general revenue fund. I think the target is $587 million this year. I guess I'm concerned that, if some of these initiatives are time-sensitive, the pressure would still be on management to deliver that profit and -- if I go back to your opening comments -- the people of British Columbia could face a markup increase or a tax increase. Could the minister reconfirm that that will not happen?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: To repeat the answer I gave in the House the other day as part of interim supply, there will be no new taxes.
[ Page 494 ]
R. Thorpe: I believe I also talked about markup. I don't want to assume that a markup is a tax, but if the minister would like to confirm that markup and taxes are lumped together, then could he please do that for me?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Strictly speaking, a markup is not a tax.
R. Thorpe: Then strictly speaking, could the minister confirm that in addition to no tax increases, there will be no markup increases?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I've indicated, the business plan of this enterprise is before Treasury Board. I don't think it's appropriate for me to circumvent that process and tell Treasury Board something that they might want to consider that they can't consider because I've made a promise here to the contrary -- because I don't know what the Treasury Board is considering.
R. Thorpe: Mr. Minister, I don't want to panic anyone in British Columbia, but you are saying, then, that the possibility does exist for markup increases on products sold through the LDB once Treasury Board has completed its review of the process.
[7:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Treasury Board makes those decisions, and they finally come to the cabinet table. Those decisions are eventually either approved, rejected or changed. What the hon. member is asking me to do is to give him an assurance that I'm unable to give at this time.
R. Thorpe: I can only assume, then, that if there is going to be a revenue shortfall, the government is going to put the markups onto the working people of British Columbia. I would trust that this government would walk the talk and, if they are considering doing that, truly listen to what British Columbians are saying. Would I have that reassurance from the minister -- that if such a markup were contemplated after the confidential documentation was returned from Treasury Board, they in fact would listen to the working people of British Columbia before imposing markup increases?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The government, in its endeavours from day to day, has to make very difficult decisions, but I want to assure the member that all those difficult decisions are made with the complete knowledge of the wishes of the people of British Columbia.
R. Thorpe: So from the little discussion we've had here on this process, could I conclude, then, that it's Treasury Board who sets the final budget figure for the LDB?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: At the end of the process, Treasury Board approves the budget plan either with or without modifications, and then that plan goes to cabinet as well, I suppose. At the end of the day, Treasury Board is the body that has that control, yes.
R. Thorpe: Moving down my extensive briefing document, the fourth paragraph talks about a warehouse distribution program that was started in February of '95 and completed early in '96-97. I have several questions on this, and I just wondered if someone would like to take notes so I don't have to get up and say "hon. Chair" and "hon. minister" a few times.
First of all, is this an owned warehouse or a leased warehouse? What was the total investment in this warehouse expansion? What is the return on investment and the payback period?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This facility is owned outright, through an investment to the tune of $5.6 million. Because it's owned and utilized by the branch, it's difficult to work out a specific return on the building itself, but there is a 701 percent return to British Columbia on the total investment that the branch has.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps you should have the general manager of the LDB running the investments for the province.
Interjections.
R. Thorpe: Mr. Chair, sorry for joking, but we should try to have a little bit of fun.
Mr. Minister, I just want to attempt to understand your answer: the capital investment was just under $6 million and the return on that investment was 700 percent?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: You misunderstood.
R. Thorpe: I thought I did.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was the fear I had. On the total capital investment that the branch has -- all the capital assets that the branch has -- there is a 701 percent return.
R. Thorpe: That wasn't my question. Let me phrase it another way. When the branch is contemplating investments in capital, does it go through a detailed, measurable process for each one of those capital investments? That's question No. 1. Secondly, does it have a return cutoff rate for yea-or-nay investment?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I think we should deal with one question at a time, because I don't want to mislead the member with answers that I may give due to faulty memory. For instance, if there is an old store which could either be renovated or simply given up, and then you buy or build a new store, I understand the policy of the branch is to determine the availability of equal or better return before they decide on either of those two things.
R. Thorpe: Well, it's obvious I'm not going to get an answer to that question, so why don't we move along? I thought it was fairly important and that you wanted to talk about it, because it was highlighted in this briefing document. Anyhow, let's move to something completely different, because we are not going to get an answer to that question.
Let's talk a little bit about the retail operations. It says that the LDB administers 518 retail operations. How many duty-free stores are there in the province of British Columbia that are administered by the LDB?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from the documents that the member has, that there are only nine duty-free stores.
R. Thorpe: There are no figures on my document. Oh, I see -- excuse me. It's on the other page -- accept my humble apologies.
[ Page 495 ]
On duty-free stores, are those open licences? Can people apply for those by meeting criteria, or are the applications and the issuing of those licences frozen?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe, with respect to the duty-free stores, there haven't been any applications for such stores in the last five years. One would assume that there would be a limited number of duty-free stores at border locations and the like.
R. Thorpe: I can assume that if opportunities did exist out there, the branch responsible would then respond to them. In fact, there is no freeze on those licences. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that there has been a recent evaluation done on whether or not there is need for more duty-free stores in British Columbia. One can say that there is no freeze on the number of duty-free stores. At the same time, one might add that there may not be any need to add more stores, that the current number of stores is serving the need that exists -- because, essentially, nobody has approached the branch to set up new duty-free stores in the last five years.
R. Thorpe: Since the minister stated that there is no freeze, then, I guess that if someone came forward with their private capital and what they thought was their sound business plan, it would then be reviewed and judged on its merits.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: To my earlier comments about no applications, I understand
I have forgotten the actual question.
R. Thorpe: I'll try to remember it. Since the minister in his earlier comments said that there is not a freeze, one would assume that if someone came forward with private capital, it would receive a fair and open review based on its economic plan.
[7:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, they would receive a fair review.
R. Thorpe: This indicates that there are 74 industry agency stores throughout the province operated by local breweries, distilleries and wineries. Is it fair for me to assume that as new locations are built in British Columbia as our industries grow, they too would not find their licence opportunities frozen -- they too would grow with economic benefit in British Columbia and have that same opportunity?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, they would not be frozen out.
R. Thorpe: The branch itself, according to the documentation, has 220 stores now. We wouldn't want to speculate what was before Treasury Board, but it indicates that it may be 222. Without getting into the details that are before Treasury Board, but looking at a vision of the future, is it anticipated that the LDB will also look at opportunities throughout British Columbia to grow its business on an economic basis?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, those opportunities are always evaluated on a business-case basis as they arise.
R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise whether the licences for licensee retail stores, also known in British Columbia as beer and wine stores, are frozen or open to application by the public?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, the government policy is interested in establishing a balance between private and public retailing in this particular matter, and at the time when it set the upper limit the government felt that the balance had been achieved. There are some applications from that time that are still in the pipeline and, without going into the technicalities, I understand that there might be some people who are still eligible to apply.
R. Thorpe: I'm not sure I understood your answer, so let me simply ask again. Is it government policy to have LRS -- the beer and wine stores -- licences frozen? Yes or no.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that is the policy.
R. Thorpe: I've only been here a few short weeks, but I keep hearing about all the people who are moving to British Columbia and that that's one of the reasons a lot of our expenses are going up, etc. I'm wondering if the minister would undertake, with input from the opposition and industry representatives, a review of a historical model, if it's still applicable today -- because I'm sure we all want to serve the working people of British Columbia equally. Would the minister undertake such a study to review that policy decision so that all British Columbians can be served fairly and equitably?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Needless to say, any government is always interested in better ways of accomplishing the goals of serving the people. In that sense, I always have an open mind.
R. Thorpe: My question will flip back to some financial items now, but since the documents are before Treasury Board, does that mean the minister is not going to talk about any financial questions that I may have because the documents are confidential?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I shall wait for the question.
R. Thorpe: The gross sales, I suppose, are projected to increase by 2.8 percent, based on the documentation I have. The sales volumes appear to be reasonably flat. Could you perhaps explain how you're going to get those additional gross sales revenues?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that in the first quarter of this year, sales have been higher than in the year before. We expect that trend to continue; hence the figure.
R. Thorpe: Since the minister is able to confirm that sales are so robust in the first quarter, could he also confirm that the net profit and net revenue to British Columbia is on target, based on the annualized plan of $587 million? Or is it above or below the plan?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without disclosing any of the figures that might be before Treasury Board, the profits are up from last year as a result of the sales being up.
R. Thorpe: I believe my question, or the intent of my question, was: are the profits of the branch tracking on the projected annualized profits of $587 million?
[ Page 496 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The profits are ahead of the plan.
R. Thorpe: Mr. Minister, there's quite a large increase -- I believe it's about 94 percent -- in other income recorded in the numbers I have: some $6 million. That is a substantial increase over the actuals of last year and the budget of the same period. Could you please share some of those details with us?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Before I share any details that I might have,
R. Thorpe: Yes, I realize that it was an increase of $3 million. I was just wondering if you could share the details on why it's growing by $3 million. It's a 94 percent increase, a substantial increase, over the budget of last year.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That other income, of course, would be part of some of the initiatives that may be with Treasury Board at this time.
R. Thorpe: Mr. Minister, I'm sorry to have to ask you what I believe are some reasonably elementary questions, because of the briefing material I requested but did not receive. I would just like some of these answers.
I assume that the LDB works on FTEs. I'm just wondering if they will achieve their FTE targets for '96-97.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise, from the senior level of management -- the general manager -- through to the store manager level, how many levels of management there are within the LDB system?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Five.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise if the LDB operates on receiving monthly actual financial results against a monthly budget?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how frequently throughout the year the LDB revises its annual forecast and advises Treasury Board?
[7:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there are monthly reports forwarded to Treasury Board and also a quarterly revision if need be.
R. Thorpe: So it's fair for me to assume that Treasury Board is fully aware at all times of what's going on in the LDB, with probably the longest gap being 30 to 45 days?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. When I'm referring to Treasury Board in this matter, it's Treasury Board staff. I can't tell you whether Treasury Board has that for it.
R. Thorpe: I accept that it's Treasury Board staff that would be aware of that.
One of things we've heard in the House in the last week or so is that all programs will be under review. One would assume all process is under review. Can the minister confirm that the LDB and its staff will also be participating in such a program and process review?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The LDB is constantly reviewing itself. I'm not certain at this time whether or not it's part of the larger review process underway within government. I think all major programs are under review. To a certain extent, LDB is an arm's-length operation and is constantly under review.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise me of how many FTEs are dedicated to communications within the LDB?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Three to four, approximately.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise us -- I don't believe it's in the materials that I received -- of the actual spending charged against all the communications budgets within the LDB?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, that information can be supplied to the hon. member at a later date. We will not be able to provide him with that at this time.
R. Thorpe: I would just like to close on the LDB, if I could. The minister did confirm, after my opening comments, that he would welcome -- my take was that he would encourage -- a complete briefing session with the LDB staff. I would like to do it at their facilities. Can I conclude here, as I wrap up this small review on the LDB, that that door will be open as soon as the LDB receives approval from Treasury Board to move forward on its business plan?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Thank you very much. Geoff, I thought you wanted
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Do you want to talk about the liquor licensing branch?
R. Thorpe: I'm just a lineman; I have to talk to the quarterback.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought we'd just finish this, sort of.
R. Thorpe: Maybe the minister could advise me, before we get too far into this one, if all their documents are also before Treasury Board and that I would be wasting my time by asking a lot of questions.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Yes, they're before Treasury Board, or don't ask the questions?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes to the first question; maybe yes to the next.
R. Thorpe: You are still a fine gentleman in my books.
Then I'm sure that the minister -- well, I shouldn't be too sure, but I'm fairly sure -- would also give me the opportunity to have the same open-door policy with the liquor licensing branch as with the LDB. Before you answer that
[ Page 497 ]
question, I just would ask you if you are aware that the financials I have -- one page of them -- show that year over year, the operational expenses of the liquor licensing branch show an increase of some 46 percent.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The central part of that is the increase in staff -- six staff. Five of those would be related to the ability of the branch to enforce the provisions of the act, and the terms and conditions of the various licences. I think that the hon. member is probably more aware of these issues than I am, since he's familiar with this industry. This branch is completely at arm's length from the ministry and functions based on the fees that it collects from its functions.
R. Thorpe: As I understand it, it's a self-funded organization. In looking at the funding they are projecting for '96-97 versus the funding for '95-96, I believe that shows a 23.3 percent increase. I'm just wondering where that increased funding is going to come from.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Last year all of the receipts that this branch had were not expended. This year the increase is necessitated by the need to have stricter enforcement of the provisions of the legislation -- for instance, in the areas of minors, intoxicated persons and problems caused by cheap drinks, and more importantly, in dealing with illicit liquor, which is a significant problem in British Columbia. That's why it needs more resources to deal with these issues.
Let me add, I'm told that there are no fee increases proposed by the branch.
R. Thorpe: There are no fee increases whatsoever?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told there are no fee increases proposed in their plan.
R. Thorpe: Could you advise, then, if there are any new fees anticipated?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are none anticipated at this time.
R. Thorpe: As we speak.
Not wanting to know the full details of what's before Treasury Board -- because I know I'm not privy to those -- could the minister advise if there is a major systems redevelopment or an upgrading anticipated at the liquor licensing branch?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that represents all of the equipment -- such as hardware, software and the like -- that we need to have six people working.
R. Thorpe: The figures I'm looking at indicate an increase of over $100,000 year over year. Is that the same figure that you and the staff were looking at?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is in fact almost exactly $100,000. Yes, that's the figure we are looking at, and there is also a communications component to that.
R. Thorpe: On professional services, STOB 20, there is an increase of some $156,000. Is the minister able to share what that substantial increase is?
[8:00]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member may get a better view if he looked at the 1995-96 base. There the base was about $62,000. Some money wasn't spent, because we were trying to save some money. As well, in terms of the systems development, the base budget was about $98,000, and only $44,000 was spent. Yes, there is going to be an increase at this time with respect to professional services to do a policy manual, licensing efficiency and accountability project, culinary wine policy, advertising policy, business process review, special occasion licence policy and responsible beverage service program review. Perhaps the member knows what they are.
R. Thorpe: I do look forward, in the more comprehensive briefing, to understanding the numbers, the plans and the objectives. As your staff are well aware, I have an interest in this part of the business.
I have had it reported to me by members of the industry that we have the most regulated industry in Canada. Would the minister care to comment on that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't know whether I agree with the adjective used by my friend. However, there's no question that in an industry such as this, one needs regulation. I can tell you that if the hon. member can come up with a plan to deregulate that deals with the promotion of responsible use of these substances in public, reduces costs and increases the revenue return to the people of British Columbia, I would be all ears.
R. Thorpe: Thank you for that opportunity. Based on that, I would conclude that we would in fact have the minister's endorsement to assemble a group of industry representatives to work hand in hand with the staff at the branch to see if such regulations could be streamlined, so that efficiencies could be achieved by the branch and also by the industry while at the same time safeguarding the interests of social policy.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I meet from time to time with representatives of various aspects of this industry. Like any industry, of course, there is little agreement sometimes in how one should proceed, except on the issue of markups. I am always interested in meeting with experts from the industry. If they can advise us, and we can agree that certain regulations can be streamlined and that there can be cost savings as well as benefits to the public, I'd be interested in hearing from them. I have also heard from other parts of the industry that in fact want me to regulate them, such as U-brews. The member would gain from a thorough briefing from both parts of this branch, the LCLB and the LDB.
R. Thorpe: Yes, I would look
I was just wondering if the minister could update me on how many J licences have been issued in British Columbia and the average length of the process time to put those in place.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that three J licences have been issued to date.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what the average processing time that it took to put those in place was, please?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the first one took almost a year to complete. Others may take a bit shorter and
[ Page 498 ]
may have taken a shorter time than that. This process doesn't depend on us alone. It depends on the ALR as well as the local government, in terms of the various aspects of the J licence. Therefore we don't completely control the process or the time it takes.
R. Thorpe: I wasn't going to bring up the subject, but since you did bring it up, I should pursue it: U-brews. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. I note in the '94-95 annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch that the branch indicates that "illicit liquor can result in lost government revenue" -- I believe it does result in lost government revenue -- "which can in turn result in less funding for social programs." I think it does result in less funding for social programs.
But more importantly -- and I understood, Mr. Minister, why it was very difficult for you and your staff to deal with this prior to May 28 -- when do your government and the liquor licensing branch anticipate that it is going to deal with this real issue in British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These kinds of issues are always under review. Illicit liquor is of great concern to us, and that's why we're increasing the staff by five or six individuals and giving them appropriate training to deal with those issues. However, I would be very cautious in not linking U-brews to illicit liquor. I don't know whether the member intended that or indicated that that was part of the problem. U-brews are used by thousands of people in British Columbia to satisfy their urge to drink home-brewed stuff, and I'm certain that that process ought to be allowed to continue.
R. Thorpe: The minister is quite correct; no, I did not intend any linkage. I was reading from the report here, and it mentions illicit, stolen, smuggled, home-made and U-brew liquors. It's in the LCB's own report; there are four or five categories.
Is the minister suggesting to this House that there are no commercial U-brew operations in British Columbia that the government, the liquor distribution branch and/or the liquor control and licensing branch are concerned about?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously concerns have been raised, and we are concerned. The matter is being reviewed. In fact, I did have a meeting with a group of U-brew representatives on some of these issues after the matter was raised in the press. But beyond that, if there is any illegality in terms of the U-brew substance being utilized in an illicit fashion, then that becomes the responsibility of the police to investigate, as they do in all other cases.
R. Thorpe: I just want to make sure that I understand what the minister is saying. From what the minister is saying about this situation, I take it that his ministry and/or liquor licensing and/or liquor distribution are not contemplating
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't know what the member means by commercialization. Obviously illicit liquor and any illegalities are a problem to be investigated by the police. But to the extent that any illicit liquor, whether it comes from U-brews or
R. Thorpe: I really didn't want to have to carry on with this. I'm going to conclude, but I'd like to make a statement, if I could.
First of all, I want it clearly understood for the record that I personally have no problem with people who U-brew beer or wine for their own personal consumption in their homes. It's a fast-growing activity, and in fact, there are some very good beers and wines being made by British Columbians. But I believe, Mr. Minister, with great respect, that you should consult very aggressively with your senior staff from the liquor licensing branch and the liquor distribution branch, because I would be quite surprised if they have not received representations from a number of significant industries and associations in British Columbia saying that there is a real problem with the commercialization of U-brew beer and wine. For someone to say that we only deal with it in licensed
[8:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's unfair to blame the liquor control and licensing branch personnel for not doing what they don't have the power to do. They do not license U-brews; they don't have the power or the obligation to inspect them. I understand what the member means by commercialization: when U-brew liquor is made, it is sold to individuals who ought not to drink it or else it's given to individuals.
I have met with representatives of the U-brew industry and others, as well, on the opposing side, and I have been given a briefing by them. I was aware of some of the issues before they were raised in the press. I'm concerned, but I don't want to be dictatorial and simply shut down an industry that's enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every week and every day. So if the member has some suggestions as to how we can deal with this issue while allowing British Columbians to enjoy what they do in U-brew establishments, I'd be happy to hear from the member and possibly incorporate his ideas into what we might be doing, if anything at all can be done.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure it was not the minister's intent to suggest that I had the intention of shutting down business establishments for British Columbians who enjoy making beer and wine for their own consumption. In fact, it is not my intent. We have no problem regulating a number of establishments that have invested hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. If the government is serious about its social programs and about protecting the young people of this province, I believe it's irresponsible for all of us to pretend that there's not a problem and a situation that has to be addressed. So I look forward to being briefed by the minister's staff on what he's been advised about the problems to date and on how we move forward collectively to attempt to solve them for all British Columbians.
In closing, I would like to thank the staff for being here to assist you in answering the questions. I would like to wish both them and their staff well in achieving their goals, once they know what they are, when they get them back from Treasury Board.
L. Stephens: I am pleased to be here this evening to participate in the Attorney General's estimates, as I try to do each year. I know that the Attorney General shares some of the same concerns I do, particularly around family issues, and I want to confine my questions to the community justice branch and the programs that fall under that branch.
I'd like to start with family maintenance enforcement, and I had a number of questions that I wanted to ask the Attorney General until I received the annual report. There are
[ Page 499 ]
some statements in here that go some way to answering some of the questions I had around how effective the program is. I understand that they have represented a 13 percent increase in enforcement activity over the previous year and have a collection of $52 million or 73 cents on every dollar owed.
So I wonder if the Attorney General would share with this committee what measures are being undertaken to improve the collection procedures and what is represented in the ministry's budget for the coming year that would take those initiatives into consideration.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member may know that the estimated program cost for this year, '96-97, is lower by $0.5 million, and the estimated collection is up by about $15 million. We are hoping that, while we reduce costs, we achieve a higher collection than last year. We are encouraged by some of the measures that Minister Rock has been taking. We were instrumental in asking him to allow us to use the Revenue Canada information to access defaulters' information. As well, he is bringing in measures to deal with disallowing passports for those who may owe money or who may be delinquent in terms of their payments. We are hoping to utilize some of those measures in order to reduce the costs and achieve a higher return for less cost.
L. Stephens: Would the minister just elaborate on the initiatives of the federal government around the income tax? Is this a proposal to make some amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow other jurisdictions to access information from Revenue Canada around names and addresses of individuals, so that they in fact can be found in other parts of Canada in order to help provincial programs such as this access those individuals and enforce whatever orders may be outstanding?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those measures are part of a larger package of things that the federal government was persuaded by all provinces to do so that across the country it becomes easier for provinces to follow those who ought to be responsible for paying maintenance. That information -- for instance, the revenue information -- would then be accessible to the officials running this program.
L. Stephens: I just have one further question on this issue. There are groups that feel that using the income tax in a way that was not meant to be used, in that there is now the opportunity for information to be accessed from Revenue
Hon. U. Dosanjh: A national committee has been established to look at those kinds of issues, including privacy issues. We are also participating in that committee, and we are cognizant that the member raises an important issue. I'm sure the member is also cognizant of the need to force some of these individuals to pay. When you are delinquent in your fundamental responsibilities that you owe to your family and to society, you lose some of those fundamental rights that you may have had -- to privacy and the like.
L. Stephens: I do share the minister's concerns around the ability to, in fact, force individuals to live up to commitments. I don't disagree with the concept of providing that kind of information through Revenue Canada. I would just like to have some comfort that there is a very strict guideline around what can be accessed and what cannot be accessed. I don't think anyone has disagreement that individuals should be a name and an address. I would think that would be sufficient to help the ministries access the kind of information to find individuals in other jurisdictions that need to be made to abide by their obligations.
One of the other issues around family maintenance that I see is that this jurisdiction charges interest on overdue maintenance payments. How long has that been in effect? Has it made a difference in the amount of money that has been collected and the timeliness of payments? Has that particular initiative made a difference?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's my understanding that the legislation to charge interest on outstanding maintenance has not been proclaimed. We are in the planning stages of preparing for the implementation of that legislation, and it will be proclaimed. So we will be charging. I don't believe that we have been charging interest to date. I could be wrong.
L. Stephens: The report here talks about the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act of the 1994 session which expands the powers to enforce child support orders and increase the consequences. It talks about the ability to charge interest. This has not been proclaimed?
Interjection.
L. Stephens: Thank you. But it certainly will be? Could the minister indicate when it would be proclaimed?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Definitely by the end of this year.
L. Stephens: Thank you.
Aside from the issues that we've already talked about around the reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions and their access to the Income Tax Act, are there any other agreements with other jurisdictions to trace individuals or to make some kind of payment arrangement?
[8:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I'm advised there is a protocol among provinces that has been entered into to share certain types of information for certain purposes.
L. Stephens: Would it be possible to get an overview of what that memorandum of understanding or protocol would be?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I don't know whether it would be possible to do that now; I don't believe anybody would have a copy. But there are 57 jurisdictions, including all provinces and 22 U.S. states, participating in that agreement. So it's fairly wide-ranging in terms of the area that it covers.
I'd be happy to ask my officials to brief the hon. member at the earliest possible time.
L. Stephens: I would appreciate that.
I'd like to talk a bit about custody and access orders. As the minister knows, there has been a fair amount of controversy around custody and access with regard to whether an
[ Page 500 ]
individual does or does not make their maintenance or child support payments. What kinds of initiatives is the ministry contemplating, if any, around the concerns of a number of individuals who are saying they won't pay their maintenance or child support unless they get custody?
I have a couple of other questions around that issue, but could the minister just comment on it or any new initiatives going forward on that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are taking steps to bring mediation into the picture. Part of the family pilot projects also allows for supervised access to facilitate some of these arrangements. But we feel very strongly -- and I do
L. Stephens: I want to talk further about that particular program when we get to it, so we'll discuss it a bit later.
Grandparents' rights are another issue that people are concerned about. I have had a number of grandparents talk to me about being able to get custody of their children's children and, in many cases, to have the ability to provide a safe home for them. I met about six months ago with a grandparent's group, and their grandchildren are their big concern. Many of their children are on the street or in jail, and most are drug addicts. There didn't seem to be any kind of mechanism for the grandparents to achieve custody of those children without going through the courts. It was a huge expense. Is this something that the ministry is considering? If so, are there any studies or policy around coming to grips with this problem?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is a problem that's rather complex. You have two sets of grandparents for any child, and you may have competing claims for care of the children. The grandparents have the right to seek standing with the court to make those applications, and they do in many cases.
I've heard about the concerns that the hon. member raises, and I've watched some grandparents on television express the views that the hon. member is expressing on their behalf. I'm perfectly prepared and happy to entertain any reasonable proposals the member might have that might fit into the system that we have, or even may change it a little and make it easier for the grandparents to seek that standing and be able to apply to court.
Even parents have to apply to court. If we can make it easier for the grandparents to apply to the court to make these applications, I'd be happy to look at that -- as long as we don't undermine other interests that ought to be legitimately at the table.
L. Stephens: I think this subject is really dealing with children as well, and it spills over into child prostitution and some of the difficulties around children generally: children who are living on the street, children who are into prostitution, children of addicts, children from abusive homes, and all of these kinds of things. Is part of the minister's mandate going to be around protection of children in that sense -- sort of the legal sense?
Is the ministry contemplating bringing forward child prostitution legislation, for instance, or some other initiatives that will deal with this serious problem? Even in Victoria here there are a lot of street children, and certainly in Vancouver it's a serious problem, particularly on the east side. It's reaching out into the suburbs of Vancouver as well. So I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about what he sees needs to be done in that area.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure all hon. members are aware of all of the legislation in the area of child protection that we brought forth in the last term, and of the office of the child advocate that's helping us in that regard. Sexual exploitation of children is child abuse. I don't see it as prostitution per se.
The government has been very active in dealing with that. One of the initiatives that we took was the Vancouver action plan that educated the children, the parents and the potential johns or customers. We also did the provincial prostitution action plan. We made announcements early this year. Prosecutors, police and social workers would vigorously pursue sexual exploitation of youth and bring culprits to justice in those situations.
So we are actively working on those issues. We have, of course, a community coordinator working on the provincial plan that we announced, and we're going to be holding community consultation across the province on the implementation of that plan. I would be happy to hear any suggestions the hon. member might have, and whether she requires a briefing in that regard as to what exactly we are doing. Perhaps at that time she may have some suggestions, and I'll be happy to hear from her.
L. Stephens: Yes, I would like to receive a briefing on that particular initiative.
In today's clips there is an item -- from the Province, as a matter of fact -- about an Aldergrove woman who was awarded an amount of money, $650,000, by the courts, by a jury. It was appealed and reduced to half. It's about a child abuse situation. The individual was seven years old at the time -- it was the stepfather -- and it stopped at 14. The judge that heard the appeal -- it's in the paper, so I'm going to quote it; it is public -- said: "We are just beginning to understand the horrendous impact of sexual abuse. To assess damages for the psychological impact of the sexual abuse on a particular person is like trying to estimate the depth of the ocean by looking at the surface of the water."
I wonder if the minister would talk a little bit about training programs, sensitivity programs, whatever you want to call them, for the judiciary. This is something that we've discussed before in this House and during these estimates. I wonder if any of those programs are moving forward -- if in fact there is anything being done in that area at all.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These kinds of cases are always difficult for the Attorney General to comment on. This is a case where there might be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
With respect to the judiciary, the judiciary has training programs for themselves. I don't believe the Attorney General is able to mandate any training programs, ongoing training programs, for the judiciary. Individuals and groups always have the opportunity to write to the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal or to the Judicial Council federally about any of these issues. If they were Provincial Court judges -- which
[ Page 501 ]
they aren't in this particular case -- of course, you could write to the Judicial Council or to the Chief Judge provincially. I think the judiciary nowadays is more aware than ever before of these kinds of issues, and I would hope that the hon. member would bring that to the attention of the judiciary, if she so chooses.
L. Stephens: I intend to. I also intend to involve a number of groups as well, and perhaps with a combined effort something along this line can be done. There has been instance after instance after instance -- this isn't the only one; this happens time after time after time -- where comments by members of the bench seem to be extremely inappropriate in this day and age, when you would think that people would have much more awareness of the issues involved, particularly around these issues where's there has been study after study after study done. It certainly highlights the fact that far-reaching health and psychological concerns are very real and very valid.
One of the other issues is the child witness preparation program. I haven't had an opportunity to talk about it before, but I understand it was launched in 1994. Could the minister talk a little bit about this child witness preparation program, whether it's in a pilot stage or implemented throughout the system?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that program is primarily part of the criminal justice branch. I am unable to shed much light on it, other than the fact that I have been able to read somewhere that it involves interviewing the children under appropriate circumstances, escorting them, providing them safe passage and the like.
[8:45]
I now have Ernie Quantz, Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal justice branch, behind me.
I understand that there has been an extensive program of training both for the Crown and for the police officers in terms of interview techniques and appropriate measures that ought to be used when dealing with children, and there is ongoing work in developing policy and guidelines in that regard.
L. Stephens: Another notation here in the report is that the ministry is developing a new sexual assault policy, and I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that. All it says here is that there's extensive consultation with ministry branches in the community to develop a new sexual assault policy. I'd like to know if that is in fact completed, and whether or not there is a policy in place. If not, is there a time line for a new policy to be in place?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That new policy is being worked on. It is nearing the final stages, and when it is complete, we can share that with the member as well and provide a briefing to her.
L. Stephens: On the violence-against-women-in-relationships policy, I have the February '93 policy. I understand there is an update.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That update is in the final stages as I speak, but it hasn't been finalized. When we have that in hand, we will provide a copy of it to the member as well.
L. Stephens: I would appreciate that, but I would like to ask a few questions on this particular policy. Perhaps you may want to share what the new policy is, or I can wait.
One of the things that has been of real concern is the
I wonder if that in fact is the case around the province. I see here that the policy says that police officers, when there are grounds to believe an offence has occurred, should always arrest when it is in the public interest. I wonder if the minister could comment on any policies that will strengthen the police arrest procedures.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The new policy would be strengthened in many areas, but I can't share that with the member as it has not been finalized. We encourage, of
L. Stephens: I think the minister is aware of the Saskatchewan legislation around domestic violence. If he isn't, I can provide him with a copy of that legislation. What they've done there essentially is develop teams made up of members of -- the RCMP, in that case, because that's the police force in that
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there are some police forces in the province that follow the Saskatchewan model, in any event. I'm interested, and the ministry is interested, in looking at the results in Saskatchewan, and I understand that they're evaluating the results. It is of interest to us that Saskatchewan follows a particular policy and they may be successful. Obviously it is better to have the personnel available to deal with the victims at the time the police attend. We would be looking into that.
L. Stephens: One of the other things that the Saskatchewan legislation deals with is the ability for the judge to impose treatment on the perpetrator and tie a lot of conditions around that individual receiving treatment and completing a treatment program. Is there any appetite for this ministry to adopt similar programs? I'm sure the ministry is aware that the underlying reason for an awful lot of family and domestic abuse is drug and alcohol abuse, so the cost to the justice system around those two abuses is quite large. I wonder if the
[ Page 502 ]
minister would comment on whether or not this ministry is looking at mandatory treatments for drug and alcohol abuse offenders.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't want to be legalistic in this regard. It would be wonderful if the judges could mandate certain treatments as part of the sentencing provisions or as part of the probation, but it is my understanding that that is not yet the case. The judges are not able to mandate treatment unless the convict consents. I understand, however, that there are going to be more tools available to judges to provide sentencing as part of the new sentencing provisions that have been passed federally. Mandatory treatment may be one of those tools that may now be available to the judges once those provisions become effective.
L. Stephens: Does the ministry have a monitoring system to monitor and evaluate some of these programs in order to see whether in fact they are effective and their outcomes are positive? Is there any quantitative way of measuring them? Does the ministry think that is necessary?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We do a monitoring evaluation, and that's partly why we're now reviewing the policy on violence against women. Also, in terms of the assaultive husbands programs, we are currently doing evaluations in order to determine whether those programs are effective and whether those husbands who have been through those programs reoffend. Those evaluations are ongoing.
L. Stephens: Are there any public documents or information that the ministry has that it could make public around those evaluations, in order to see whether in fact these kinds of programs are effective? Is the ministry about to release any of that information on program review outcomes? What kinds of results is the ministry getting from its programs?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Most of the data is quite preliminary, but once those reports are done they are a matter of public record and are available to the public. As soon as we have any definitive report, I would be happy to forward the same to the hon. member.
Let me stand corrected on the other issue that I was talking about. I was actually talking about Bill C41, the new sentencing provisions from the federal government. Those are changes to the Criminal Code. Even in the most recent amendments, the mandatory treatment is only available if the offender consents. That has been our problem in the past with respect to these kinds of programs.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
L. Stephens: On the issue of the breach of court orders and peace bonds, I know that the ministry has implemented central registration. I'd like the minister to comment on how many other initiatives are being contemplated around making these kinds of orders worth more than the paper they're written on; often that is not the case. I'd like to know what initiatives the ministry is taking to ensure that women are safe and that these breaches of court orders and peace bonds are limited as much as possible. What can be done to make sure that individuals are not coming back to assault or, as the minister knows, in many cases to do far worse than that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Just for interest, the member might be eager to know that over the first six months of the operation, 3,100 orders have been entered into the process. To date, there have been over 3,000 queries of the system. Of these, 1,450 were related to firearms issues and 450 were related to domestic disputes. So that central registry is being utilized to a large extent.
[9:00]
We are always on the lookout for possible additions to our arsenal of measures against offenders, particularly in the case of violence against women. I thought out loud when I first became the Attorney General in terms of whether EMP, electronic monitoring, could be utilized. There is a pilot program in Surrey which is a variant of that. I believe it's being evaluated. I don't know what stage it's at, but I know that that program does exist. Once the evaluation is in from that program, we will see if we want to expand it or change it in some ways to make it more useful.
If the member has any suggestions in that regard, or any other regard, I'd be happy to hear them. It is difficult. I was told, after I wondered out loud about the EMP issue, that that process is being used in the States. The information that I received was that it was not very secure -- and it was not necessarily cost-effective, either.
L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister could perhaps think out loud again and give me his thoughts on what he sees being able to accomplish in trying to make society in general, and assaultive men in particular, aware that zero tolerance is in fact what we're all striving for. I wonder if the minister has some ideas on how that message can get out there. My own thoughts are that there has to be some strengthening of the justice system penalties for people who insist on this kind of behaviour. So I wonder if the minister would like to philosophize about his thoughts around how we can make this very important problem go away, or certainly diminish.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, any changes to sentencing provisions is a federal issue, and I'm always happy to talk about those issues as well.
In terms of some of the things I am aware of being done, the hon. member will remember that funds were provided for a domestic violence and criminal harassment unit within Vancouver -- a police department to respond to violence against women in relationships and criminal harassment. I mentioned earlier on today that I was present at a conference of victims' service workers, Crown counsel, police officers and personnel from the justice system who were dealing with strategies on how to effectively deal with stalking. So I think everyone in the justice system, at least most of us, are acutely aware of the need to do this.
Of course, it is a cross-ministry issue as well. The Ministry of Women's Equality is involved and spends
I believe that you have to deal with early intervention, and that's what we're trying to do with the youth. I was talking about the Nights Alive program and those kinds of programs, which prevent children and youth from falling into the life of crime, and programs such as All Together Now. So you start early on and raise the consciousness rather than having to contend with the violence once it's happened in family relationships.
[ Page 503 ]
L. Stephens: I agree with the minister that we do need to have more preventive programs with children around to help them deal with anger management, and also to find some way of intervening in families to deal with either the drug and alcohol abuse of the adults involved or whatever the problems seem to be. That's one way, and that's an important way.
But also there has to be a stronger focus and stronger initiatives around the sentencing, around charging and around putting out very clearly that message that this isn't acceptable. That's not what I'm hearing. I'm not hearing that message going out to the general public, that this behaviour isn't acceptable. When you look at some of the sentencing that has come forward, that simply reinforces in people's minds -- certainly in women's minds -- that the courts and, by extension, the Ministry of Attorney General do not take this particular issue seriously. So I really would like to know whether the ministry and the minister can put forward very publicly the position that this behaviour isn't acceptable. I would like to hear how he thinks he may do that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a difficult if not impossible task. On the issue of being tough with offenders, when I first became the Attorney
While it's important to show our resolve, as a society, to the offenders and to make them realize that they can't continue to do this, and to ask for tough and longer sentences and also rehabilitation where that is possible, it's equally important for the public to know that in British Columbia we've had this charge approval policy with respect to violence against women. Essentially, it is almost always in the public interest to charge offenders who offend against women in terms of violence against women, which is essentially the same policy that I talked about in terms of child sexual exploitation. It is always in the public interest to charge those offenders if we can -- if there is some evidence to proceed to charges. While the charge approval standards are different in other cases, there is the substantial likelihood of conviction and there is determination of the public interest. Those are the two elements. In these issues around child abuse and violence against women, it's always in the public interest to proceed with the charges if we can.
There are also difficulties and concerns on the part of women. Sometimes, once women want to press the charge, they may have a change of mind. Sometimes there are circumstances that are extenuating. All of us have to take those into account.
What's important is that, at the other end of the spectrum, we deal with women's issues -- with the wage gap, gender equality issues, the equality of opportunity for women, so that they earn as much as men do and have the same, if not better, opportunities across society -- so that when they are faced with these violent situations, they can more aggressively pursue the issues in the courts while the Crown and the police are strong. I am not talking about all women. But there are, of course, some women in some circumstances that are unable to follow through with some of the difficulties of having to be even a witness in court, despite all the help that we may be able to provide them. We have to work at the other end in order to provide that assistance to women in terms of creating jobs and providing equal wages and opportunities. It's a comprehensive process. I don't think the Attorney General alone can resolve the issue -- just being in the courts.
L. Stephens: I agree with the Attorney General when he talks about economic opportunities for women; that is absolutely true. But we're talking about the ramifications of violence against women and the sentencing. There have been numerous occasions. The one that immediately pops into my mind is the Simpson case in White Rock, where the individual murdered his wife and got six years. I wonder if there is a sort of range -- and I'm sure there is -- for murder. I wonder if there is a difference in degree. I know there's first and second degree, manslaughter and all of that, but what I want to know is whether there are different sentencing provisions in the criminal justice system and in domestic violence cases where the individual who has been murdered is a spouse.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Murder is murder, but we have asked Ottawa to reclassify those murders which occur during the course of stalking as first-degree murder so that there would be tougher sentences available. I can tell the hon. member that the Attorney General, if and when he does become aware of issues where the sentences may not be viewed as appropriate and the case may be appealed to the higher court, has the right to direct the prosecutors in writing to launch an appeal. I have utilized that right of directive twice in my short tenure as Attorney General, and once I do that, that's appropriately gazetted publicly.
I want the hon. member to know that I'm aware of these issues. In fact, if there is a concern, I want to make sure that the range of sentences is tested in the highest court of the land. I say so without referring to any particular case; that is just the general approach that I have.
L. Stephens: I'm very pleased to hear the Attorney General's remarks in that regard.
There are a couple of other things. I just wanted to talk briefly about gender bias in the justice system. I know there were a couple of studies done a few years ago. I wonder what kind of headway has been made in that area and whether this is still an outstanding problem, as it has been in the past. Does the Attorney General's ministry have any active, specific programs around addressing that issue of gender bias in the justice system?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have a gender equity adviser that's functioning within the ministry. There is, of course, the annual report Towards Justice for Women, that in fact documents the advances that we have made in that regard. As soon as we have the latest report available to us, we will forward a copy to the hon. member. If the hon. member doesn't have the earlier reports, we'd be happy to provide those to her.
[9:15]
On another front, approximately 50 percent of the judicial appointments that we have made in British Columbia since October have been women. We are trying to advance the issue of gender equality on all fronts possible.
L. Stephens: My last bit of questioning here is around the family justice reform project. I understand -- is that the new one? -- that there's been an evaluation of the family justice reform project, the four pilot projects in various locations around the province. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what he knows about the program and how successful it has been -- particularly in the areas of mediation and arbitration, keeping families out of court as much as possible. I wonder if the minister has any updated information on how that is progressing.
[ Page 504 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The family justice centres that the member talks about have been a tremendous success. The evaluation is complete. We are going to be releasing that evaluation shortly, and we will forward a copy to the hon. member. I also understand that we are going to be making some savings from that program. The program has been generally very successful in trying to keep people out of the courts and in dealing with some of the fundamental issues in an amicable fashion. But one aspect of the program has been very, very successful, and that is the parent education program, which assists us in dealing with all of the issues around children -- custody, access and maintenance -- out of and away from the court. With the savings that we would make from the total program, we would spread the parent education aspect of the program across the province so that we can begin to make a dent in all of the difficulties that we have with this process.
L. Stephens: Hon. minister, would that be the family advocate program? This one is operated by the legal services branch to enhance child advocacy. Is this part of the parent education that you're talking about, or is this something separate? If it is, could you expand a bit on what the family advocate program is all about?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, it is not the family advocate program that I'm talking about. That is a distinct program where the court appoints a child advocate in some proceedings.
This is a program which consists of a six-to-eight-week course for parents when they decide to separate or are thinking of separating. This is an education program which educates the parents and tries to persuade them that if they were litigious and actually went to court to deal with the issues around custody, access and maintenance, they would be, in fact, far better off if they dealt with these issues amicably through conciliation or mediation. That program has been very, very successful in persuading parents to stay away from courts with respect to those issues. That's the program that we're thinking of spreading across the province.
L. Stephens: That concludes my questions. I would just like thank the minister and his staff, and I look forward to the briefings that we've discussed and the information that the minister will be passing along.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: You already have one of the reports.
L. Stephens: I look forward to the rest.
J. Weisgerber: I wanted to pick up on a number of different questions, but I thought it would probably be appropriate to cover some of the issues raised by the member for Langley. With respect to maintenance enforcement, first let me say I believe government has an obligation to go after people who have maintenance obligations and to do that with some enthusiasm and some vigour.
The area that causes me concern is the placing of liens on real property in order to provide leverage for collectors, whether they be contractors or staff members. I'm wondering if the minister has looked at all at the practice of placing liens. What I'd like to
The difficulty arose where there was a bureaucratic mistake in believing that maintenance was due. I had a constituent who, because of some very legitimate misunderstandings between him and his spouse, was believed to be in arrears. Liens were placed on his property. Then there was just an unwillingness to take the lien off. It provided a very handy lever for people in case the individual ever fell into arrears. I was called again just very recently by a constituent in very much the same situation, where the enforcement branch said simply: "It's too convenient for us, having this lien, to let it go. In any event, we require the okay of the spouse before we can take the lien off."
Again, if someone's a chronic problem with maintenance payments, use all of the levers that are available. But for someone who through a one-time or some unique circumstance winds up with a lien on the property, there has to be a process whereby that lien can be removed or an appeal process that allows for some debate around the appropriateness of the lien. I wonder if the minister can tell me: is there any review? Is there any thought of providing some process that is equitable from the perspective of the person who has a lien placed against their property?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member refers to a provision in the Family Relations Act, and I don't have the act here. I do remember from my own practice that that provision has existed for years in the legislation, where if a spouse has a maintenance order -- I don't recall whether it's for the spouse, but definitely for the children -- the spouse can file that order in the land titles office and that becomes a continuing charge against the property, whether or not the paying spouse is in arrears or delinquent in that regard. That is a way for the government to say that there is this continuing obligation. That property is then simply being used as a guarantee to make sure that those payments are made. I know that in some instances -- where the paying spouses never fail to pay, are always on time -- that is seen to be a hardship, but this particular provision obviously exists for those where there is some reason to believe they would not pay. The family maintenance enforcement director can now assign those certificates with respect to the orders and can file on behalf of the spouses.
I agree with the hon. member that there ought to be a non-bureaucratic way of dealing with those issues, if at all possible, and I'm now talking about personal experience in terms of the practice. If you go to court to have those entries cleared off at the land titles office, the court is going to seek an assurance from the paying spouse in one form or another -- maybe by way of a deposit or some other guarantee -- that there's going to be some guarantee that if the money is not paid, there would be a source where the money could be taken from.
I don't know how to resolve the issue for the member. It's a difficult issue for those who always pay, but it is not necessarily meant for them.
J. Weisgerber: It's for those that I have a concern. For those who are chronic abusers, or people who chronically fail to pay, I have no sympathy.
The minister made the observation that the spouse applies to have a lien and then enjoys that lien as some extra protection or some extra guarantee. My experience has been, in the various cases that have come before me as the MLA, that it's never been the spouse who has been the instigator of the lien. It's always been a staff person with the enforcement branch, or a contractor working on behalf of the branch. The response is: "Yes, we agree we made a mistake. Yes, it was a bureaucratic error. The payment was misfiled. It was misunderstood."
[ Page 505 ]
But now the act requires that we get the consent of the spouse before we take the lien off. So the person who puts the lien on isn't, according to their argument, able to take the lien off. I guess what I'm asking the minister is: if he hasn't reviewed the legislation, would he review it from the point of view that if someone can put a lien on, then that person should have the authority to agree that the lien should be withdrawn?
Because of the tensions that often exist between people in those circumstances, it doesn't work to suggest that someone acting on behalf of the Crown can put the lien on, but then you have to go to the spouse in order to get a consent to take it off. Whether it be for reasons vindictive or otherwise, even though there is a fairly broad understanding that the lien should never have been put on, there's no mechanism to take it off, short of the spouse's agreement.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would be happy to actually hear from the hon. member -- maybe in the quiet of my office -- so that I can look into his concerns and see if there's anything we can do. When staff file these charges against the property in the land titles office, I would assume there is an implied consent, because that case has been taken by the spouse to the staff to deal with. So there is the implied consent for them to take the appropriate steps, and this step is one of the appropriate steps. So you are giving some rights based on those implicit instructions to the spouse. When you want to take that protection away, you need specific instructions. I'm simply thinking out loud here, so I could be wrong. But I would be happy to respond to that fully when I can get a fuller briefing from my ministry on all the implications, and I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. member.
[9:30]
J. Weisgerber: I would undertake to have some discussions outside this forum, because I'm sure we're not going to resolve it tonight -- although I must say that I can't follow the logic of saying that because someone acts on your behalf, there is this implied understanding, but not the implied authority to withdraw the action. That doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps it's the legal mind that works in such strange ways.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll try and make it understandable if I can. A certain right is granted to everyone in British Columbia in the position of a spouse or a person who has a maintenance order against another individual with respect to a child or a spouse -- I'm not certain about the spouse, but we're talking about children here, generally speaking. So you go to the office of the director of enforcement of maintenance programs and you say: "I want you to collect this money for me and thereby protect my rights." The director then takes that as an instruction to do everything possible and utilize all the rights granted to that person to make sure that that money is paid now and for all the time it needs to be paid. The director files that material in the land titles office.
Now, when you approach the director, you ask the director to eliminate that charge from the property without getting the consent of the actual person who is entitled to that charge on the property. The director can't do that -- ought not to do that. That charge was placed on the property because the person asked that everything be done to make sure that the payments are forthcoming. So if the director did not have the right to file that charge in the land titles office without that implied authority, without the person asking the director to do everything within his or her power to collect the money, how could the director then say: "I can now withdraw the charge without getting the consent"?
J. Weisgerber: I guess an example might
But if I can't make that argument with the Attorney General, then the chances of the ministry deciding to examine the legislation seem remote at best. I guess perhaps I'd be happy to have a briefing. But I have the feeling that I would be simply exposed to more of the same line of thought, and I'm not sure that it would be what I would be looking for.
In any event, let me ask the minister to perhaps reflect on it on the way home, think about it and perhaps reconsider. It's not legislation that the minister brought in. I think it's not even legislation that the government he represents brought in, so there's no ownership.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Exactly, it's the previous government.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, so there's no risk here. There's absolutely no risk in having a look at it.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could move on to one or two other issues that are important to my constituents. I've spent a fair amount of time working with a group called the South Peace Community Resources Society and a group within that, the Violence Against Women in Relationships committee. They've written to the minister. And the minister's written back, so I'm sure he'll remember the group -- I'm being facetious, obviously.
The group is concerned about the difficulty in getting restraining orders. We're concerned, in getting restraining orders -- particularly in the Dawson Creek, Chetwynd and South Peace areas -- based on a Supreme Court decision that had caused provincial judges to hesitate and in fact for some period of time to refuse to give restraining orders where there weren't children involved -- the interpretation being that a restraining order could only be granted in order to protect the family, and the family being interpreted as having children. A case -- the reference is Levassier v. Taylor -- was the original basis on which the provincial magistrates weren't giving restraining orders. That, I understand, has changed as a result of a Supreme Court decision, Abe v. Abe. I take it that the minister is reasonably familiar with the problem.
The concern in the community is that the Supreme Court rarely sits in the area. So if restraining orders aren't available through the Provincial Court, then for all intents and purposes they are not available. The society believes, although they are somewhat comforted by the most recent decision, that it is just as likely that the next time this issue is challenged a judge may rule in the other direction, and they would find themselves back in the situation where restraining orders aren't available.
They have written to the minister and made recommendations around relocating section 36(1) of the Family Relations
[ Page 506 ]
Act in order to clarify that women in abusive situations, whether they are young women who don't yet have families or women whose families have grown up and left, be afforded the same kind of protection under restraining orders that women with children would have. They've given three recommendations around that, and I wonder if the minister would be willing to reconsider the response that he gave to the group, which was essentially that the problem is solved and the Abe v. Abe decision has resolved the issue.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member raises a very important issue. The ministry is looking at all of the various ways that it can deal with this, including amending the legislation -- perhaps at the next sitting if we have to do that. I share the concern that the member raises.
J. Weisgerber: I think I'll leave it at that. That's really what the group has been looking for, but let me just reinforce this, because the group is deeply concerned. Should another decision reverse Abe v. Abe by way of precedent, then they would find themselves in a situation, perhaps for months or years, where restraining orders are not available. You know this, so I don't have to go through all the reasons why restraining orders are preferable to some other remedy for people in that situation.
I hope members and the minister will be comfortable with moving to some different topics, because it is difficult to get back here and deal with things. I am going to move in a fairly dramatically different direction. I'm concerned, again from a constituency perspective, with the issue of organized crime, and particularly with bike gangs as they relate to the interior. I'm aware of activity in the Peace River region by a group called the Rockers, and some apparent understandings between them and the Hell's Angels around turf. I find it alarming that we accept the fact that areas of the province are being kind of parcelled out to groups like the Rockers and the Hell's Angels -- the Rockers being a group who are very active in Montreal and in some of the bombings and violence happening there -- and I'm wondering what plan the government and the ministry have to deal with organized crime and, in particular, provincewide bike crime. I'm worried about it specifically from the perspective of Peace River South.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that any British Columbian would accept the fact that the bikers can divide the province into two or three regions and establish dominions. I would be happy to have someone from the coordinated law enforcement unit, or CLEU, which works on the issues around gangs, bikes and organized crime across British Columbia, sit down with the hon. member and myself so that we can have a thorough briefing on the state of the situation and what they're doing with respect to that matter.
J. Weisgerber: I appreciate the offer, and I expect I will take the minister up. But also the fact that this kind of information is
I think the less confidence individuals have, the greater confidence the people on the organized side of it have. It wouldn't have been that long ago that bikers would have thought twice about moving into the Peace River region. They might well have found themselves facing some cowboy justice that would have been fairly effective. Maybe it's a tragedy that we don't have more of that, but folks are intimidated. Folks understand that the easiest way to deal with these problems is to try and ignore them, pretend that they don't exist, make sure they don't get involved and act in a passive way when they are faced with the activities of some of these groups. While I will take the minister up on the offer, I think we've very much got to be seen to be addressing the problem.
[9:45]
Just before the minister responds, I spent some time with Vancouver city police constables on a walkaround in Vancouver. As part of the exercise, which was a fascinating night on East Hastings Street, we went into the neighbourhood of the Hell's Angels' clubhouse. I found it appalling that police would be in a position to point out that this is where this gang lives and where they do business -- there seemed to be an acceptance of this. I guess I am looking for the minister, preferably publicly, to make some indication that the police forces are going to get serious about dealing with this kind of crime and that kind of activity.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously police function independently in terms of the investigations that they carry out in British Columbia. But I can advise the hon. member that as he's been describing the seriousness of the situation in his region to me, I am convinced that what I am going to do is actually have a thorough briefing from CLEU myself and ask them what they are doing in terms of situations like the one in his region. I'll perhaps then try and raise the public profile of this issue so that there is some comfort for the public that we are dealing with the issue -- if, in fact, we are dealing with it. And if we aren't dealing with it, we should be dealing with it.
J. Weisgerber: I have a number of other issues, but I think there will probably be points during the estimates process for me to come back. One of the things I have in my constituency file is a letter from a dentist addressed to the Attorney General asking for some changes with respect to legislation on health care records. As I looked at this, I was unsure whether that's an appropriate area for the Ministry of Attorney General or whether it's something I should be talking to the Minister of Health about.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That, I believe, is an area which would appropriately fall under Ministry of Health responsibilities, but I will take that information and, if the hon. member can't get the answer to that, I'll try and get that answer for the hon. member and pass it on to him.
J. Weisgerber: Having consulted with some of the other members, perhaps I'll just move into these other areas, and trust that other members may come into the debate as well.
As part of this walkaround that I did, one of the things that was pointed out to me rather dramatically was the effect of the lack of coordination between various police agencies in Vancouver: the fact that crimes may well be being committed in Burnaby or Surrey or Richmond about which the city of Vancouver police had very little knowledge or information. As we were out looking at the Hell's Angels' clubhouse, which was pretty close to the boundary, it was pointed out again that people could be committing crimes on either side of the boundary with neither police agency aware of what was happening in the other jurisdiction. I know that there have been some activities lately with police agencies around a
[ Page 507 ]
central information bank, and I understand that there's a great deal of hesitation by forces other than the RCMP to participate, and a reluctance by the Attorney General to require other municipal forces to file information.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no reluctance on the part of the Attorney General to require by policy all of the municipal forces to participate in the VICLAS system that the hon. member may be referring to, but I would hope that they participate in that voluntarily, because it is the appropriate and an important thing to do. I did send a letter yesterday to the chiefs of police and to the police boards of all of the municipal police forces urging them to voluntarily begin participating in that process, and I indicated that if they didn't do so and I didn't get that indication, I would make sure that I issue a policy directive to that effect. Also, the member should know that there is a regional communications centre being established in Vancouver to regionalize communications, at least within the police forces.
On a larger issue, if we could, I would love to proceed with the regionalization of the police forces in the greater Vancouver region and in the greater Victoria region, but what I want to do is allow that process to develop from the grassroots and from the police forces themselves. I have been privately urging everyone that I speak to to begin talking about that process. If they don't, I will start talking about it publicly, because we need to do that.
J. Weisgerber: I agree. I somehow have the feeling that the inherent interests, the self-interests, of the various police agencies, even though at the active-member level there may well be an understanding of the need and the benefits for some
Along the line of information pooling, particularly in the Vancouver area, I was under the impression that there was a lack of compatibility between some of the various computer systems being used by the Vancouver police and the RCMP.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There may well be incompatibility in the computer systems that various forces use, and those are some of the issues that we need to deal with. I agree with the hon. member that regionalization in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria would take care of some of those difficulties. Yes, I do intend to be proactive in that regard, because I believe Mr. Justice Oppal's recommendations on that issue have been there for some time, and they have had enough time to think about them. Give them a few more weeks and months; otherwise, we'll start talking about it.
J. Weisgerber: A recent issue is this whole initiative with respect to forbidding criminals from benefiting by way of movie rights and book royalties, etc. I'm not often one to look to Ontario for a model. As a matter of fact, until recently at least, they haven't been a model for much of anything. But I was surprised to see that so far, Ontario is the only province to have passed legislation and I'm encouraged to at least get a sense that British Columbia was considering that.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Well, no, it was
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not this session, but I can tell the hon. member that I am actively looking at that issue and I hope to persuade my colleagues in the cabinet, in the caucus, to proceed with that because I believe that's the appropriate thing to do. I don't believe those criminals ought to be able to benefit from their own crimes.
J. Weisgerber: Well, given the nod from one rather influential member of the caucus, I expect you'll probably be able to succeed with that.
Thank you for the undertakings. I intend to follow up with them.
G. Plant: I want to turn now to the topic of victims of crime and the recently proclaimed Victims of Crime Act. The act, as I understand it, was proclaimed on July 1, and something in the order of $5 million is being allocated, or is intended to be allocated, in this fiscal year for program spending pursuant to the act. Is that right?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I also understand that the government is currently advertising for some 35 victim support workers. If that is so, could the Attorney General inform us what these people are going to be doing?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These persons would provide information, in accordance with the Victims of Crime Act, from the moment of the apprehension of the individual -- from the moment of the crime when the individual becomes a victim to the time when the offender has served out his or her term, parole and any subsequent probation. From that, from one end to the other, there's a whole host of activities that those individuals would be involved in: keeping in touch with the victims from time to time as to the status of the offender, where the offender is serving the sentence, when the offender is about to be released and under what conditions. All of that information would be available to the victims and the families, as I understand.
G. Plant: I have a specific question in the context, I suppose, of a broader one. The broader one is: how will the delivery of this service be organized within the ministry? The more specific question is a question that arises out of what I just heard. It sounds to me like this is going to be administered in a sense somewhat analogous to social workers administering caseload files. That is, these people who are being hired as victim support workers will, in the fullness of time, acquire clients, if you will, who are victims of crime. They will have ongoing responsibilities for and relationships with these victims throughout the entire experience they have with the criminal justice system.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These workers would not have their own caseloads. They would be working under the direction of the Crown counsel as they deal with the cases.
G. Plant: One of the publications that accompanies
[ Page 508 ]
allocated towards this program, I take it, is intended to support the salaries and benefits and so on for the 35 victim support workers. Is there anything else that the money is going to?
[10:00]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In addition to the salaries and benefits for these 35 individuals, there might be other programs that might be enhanced or supported, such as victim services programs that already exist in the communities that would fulfil some of the obligations under the legislation or be helpful in assisting us with fulfilling our obligations under the legislation.
G. Plant: I heard, in the answer to the question, the statement that there might be some other programs or there are some other programs that might be enhanced. Since we are here dealing with estimates, which I assume are based on some planning with respect to how the money will be spent, can the minister say whether these other programs will be enhanced? Or is this just a sort of basket of options which is available for consideration as time goes on?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are some other initiatives as part of this. Of course, there is the expansion of the 1-800 line contract. Then you have the multilingual phone line as well as the long-distance billing, and there might be other information services required under the act.
The act has a whole host of obligations that it places on the government in terms of dealing with victims. One of the most onerous is going to be trying to enter into the system all the cases currently before the courts, in addition to the new cases as they come on line. It is actually quite an onerous undertaking altogether. So the estimates might be off at this point.
G. Plant: The people who will be hired as victim support workers will, as I understand the Attorney General to have
The Chair: We will take a recess to facilitate the division in the House.
The committee recessed from 10:02 p.m. to 10:13 p.m.
G. Plant: A question that I had in mind a few minutes ago, before I discovered that the appropriate time in our democratic society to debate the expenditure of $840 million is 10:15 in the evening, concerns the Victims of Crime Act. In fact, the more I thought about this over the last minute or so, the more questions I have about this act.
The particular question I want to start with is on the issue that arises in relation to questions I asked earlier about the fact that one increasingly hears concerns from Crown counsel about the volume of work they already have. It appears that an additional burden will be added to that existing volume of work, which is the burden to be responsible for, in a general sense, the work of 35 victim support workers under this act. What arrangements have been made to assist Crown counsel or to ensure that they have the necessary resources and time available to discharge what fundamentally, to some extent, becomes an additional burden for them as a result of this legislation?
[10:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think many Crown counsel throughout B.C. have been doing some of what has been mandated by the Victims of Crime Act -- not all of them, but many. This would now provide them with 35 new persons who would do some of that work and assist them with some of what they've already been doing, and they will also do more. There will be continuing monitoring and evaluation of how we perform, and if we need to provide more resources at the disposal of the Crown, we shall do so.
G. Plant: I understand that there is no current plan to provide those additional resources, and that the resources which are being funded under this act are the victim support workers themselves. It sounds like the expectation of the ministry is that the addition of these support workers will have the effect of lightening the burden upon Crown counsel in some respects, rather than adding to it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there would be a significant increase in the workload of Crown counsel with respect to these functions. They would be delegated functions performed by the 35 individuals -- or more, if need be, at the end of the day. Of course, there would have to be some provision made to deal with what comes through the 1-800 line and how some of that information is disseminated. Some of that may be centralized, and therefore Crown counsel may not have to contend with that at all.
D. Symons: I have a quote here that I think is worthy of reading into the record at this particular time of the evening. It was made by the previous member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head on June 18, 1991:
I think those words of wisdom spoken by that previous member of this Legislature bear relevancy to what's going on this evening. With that, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Members, a division is about to be taken, and before putting the question to the committee, I wish to remind all hon. members that it's understood, pursuant to the sessional order establishing Section A, that members who are voting and who are not permanent members of Section A have received the permission of their Whip to substitute for a permanent member for the purpose of this division. Independent members receive permission from the permanent independent member assigned to Section A to substitute for them for the purpose of this division.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 7 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Plant | Jarvis | van Dongen |
| Krueger | Symons | Dalton |
| Masi | ||
[ Page 509 ]
|
NAYS -- 11 | ||
|---|---|---|
| McGregor | Dosanjh | Kwan |
| Farnworth | Robertson | Lali |
| Sawicki | Giesbrecht | Gillespie |
| Calendino | Weisgerber | |
G. Plant: I have some questions about the Victims of Crime Act. I'm going to be asking questions based on the brochure which is one of the publications made available by the ministry in respect of this act. I'm interested in the general topic of how this act is working, and how and in what respect the rights granted under the act to victims are different from what they were before the act was enacted. The inside front cover of this brochure says, in part, this:
In terms of the operation of this statute, am I right that the operation of this act and the work of those who will be serving as victim support workers does not alter anybody's rights under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act?
[10:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Plant: I think because of the form of the question, I am unclear on the answer. I probably asked the question the wrong way. I probably said something like: am I right that it doesn't
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Plant: Referring to the last bullet in the list of bullets, which speaks of rights of privacy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the question then is: do the provisions of the Victims of Crime Act alter rights to privacy already existing under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Plant: It seems that the general themes of this act are to ensure that victims of crime have some entitlement at law to be treated with courtesy and respect, which I think I understand, and the right to receive information which might not otherwise be a right currently under the law. Is that a relatively fair summary of the gist of the act?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Prior to this act, persons charged with functions in relation to the administration of justice would
The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could I just ask you to take your seat for a moment?
Just for clarification for all members -- and some members are new -- only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
G. Plant: I am grateful for the Chair's assistance, and am entirely aware of the provision that was just referred to. The general context of my questions is: what are the victim support workers going to be doing under this act? That involves some sense of what the ambit of the act is. That is the general thrust of my question, and if there is a problem with that, I am sure you will remind me of it from time to time as necessary.
In terms of administering the act, within the criminal justice system there are people who have existing responsibilities -- including, for example, Crown counsel. Am I right that the intention is that some of these people now have additional burdens in relation to the discharge of their duties that relate to their dealings with victims of crime? That's been added to the burden, if you will, of people who are already actors in the criminal justice system. If that's right, I would then ask what the role of the victim support workers would be.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As previously answered during the earlier questions, it doesn't add significant burden to the existing actors in the system, to their work. As the hon. member is going to ask the next question about the victims' support services workers, most of these functions would be delegated to and performed by them.
G. Plant: What are these support workers going to be doing, and what kind of training are we talking about as being generally required for this type of work?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: First, with respect to the training of the victims' support services workers, there is a program within the criminal justice branch that is established to deal with the training that's required. Without going into detail, the Victims Services workers would be performing the functions of providing the information as and when required under the legislation.
G. Plant: There is a difference between being in a position where you're essentially communicating information to individuals about how government works and what people's rights are under it, on the one hand, and on the other hand acting as a counsellor in relation to what people as victims experience. My last question was intended to find out where on the spectrum these people are, in terms of the kind of work they're going to be doing.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member could have access to the guidelines for training and the training manual, if the hon. member so wishes. The criminal justice branch would be happy to provide a copy of that.
I believe it would be inappropriate to characterize these individuals as counsellors. They would be support workers -- for instance, accompanying victims to and from the visits with respect to these matters.
G. Plant: So it's not intended, for example, to hire 35 psychologists to fill these positions.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
[ Page 510 ]
G. Plant: As I understand the operation of this act, it involves delivery of services at quite a number of locations around the province. I don't just now recall the number, but I think it's more than 35. I may be wrong about that. But I also understand -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that to some extent the delivery of service, the kind of service which is contemplated by this act, is going to depend on community-based worker-volunteers. Perhaps I could leave it at that and ask the minister to let me know if my understanding is right, and if it's not, how it's wrong.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we use volunteers, and there is training for volunteers that we provide through the criminal justice branch, as well.
Having said that, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:41 p.m.