(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 5, Number 24
Part 1
[ Page 4427 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to make an introduction -- on your behalf, in fact: a group of 50 grade 5 French immersion students from Harewood Elementary School. There are six adults with them. The teachers are Ms. Anneli Bramley, M. Raynald Mercier and Ms. June Bouchard. Would the House please wish them: bienvenue � Victoria.
The Speaker: Merci, Mme la vice-présidente.
C. Clark: In the galleries today we have a political activist from Burnaby, who is active in federal, provincial and municipal politics: Mr. Ralph Jong. I hope the House will make him welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: I notice in the gallery today a friend of mine, over here visiting from Vancouver: Mr. Sudsy Clark. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This legislation will assist government in making the tobacco industry pay for the health care costs of tobacco-related illness. Our government is working to ensure that tobacco companies are forced to take responsibility for the devastating effects of their harmful products. This legislation, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, gives our government and individuals the legal authority to proceed to courts to collect hospital, medical and other prescribed costs resulting from tobacco-related illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. British Columbia pays half a billion dollars a year to treat health problems caused by tobacco. Last year 5,800 British Columbians died from smoking, and that number is rising. For too long, the tobacco industry has had an unfair advantage in court. This legislation is designed to level the playing field when anyone takes the tobacco industry to court, by ensuring that the court action cannot be halted by a technicality.
As well, for the first time in British Columbia the legislation will allow the court to consider statistical and epidemiological evidence in establishing the causation of disease or death from tobacco.
In addition, we're ensuring that a court can consider that similar tobacco products cause the same harmful effects. This means that for the first time we won't have to waste time proving that each individual cigarette brand caused harm, but that cigarettes, generally, cause harm.
This legislation is part of a series of actions our government is taking, launched in an announcement earlier today, to make the tobacco industry accountable for endangering the health of children, teens and adults, and to provide just compensation to B.C.'s health system for the treatment and prevention of deadly tobacco-related illnesses. It's time for the industry to finally take responsibility for its actions and meet our government's demands. I'm pleased to be able to table this legislation today.
Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1997.Hon. A. Petter: Bill 36 proposes amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act. Some of the amendments are housekeeping measures, designed to enhance the effectiveness of existing enforcement provisions in combatting tobacco smuggling and black market sales of untaxed tobacco.
This bill also includes a more substantive amendment to enable the province to enter into an agreement with a first nations band, under which the province would act as agent for the band in the collection of a band-imposed tobacco tax.
The federal government has enacted legislation that authorizes the Cowichan tribe's band council to impose a provincial-style tobacco tax on sales of tobacco to first nation purchasers from outlets located on their reserves. The band tax will not adversely affect provincial tobacco tax revenues, because it applies only to first nation purchasers who are exempt from provincial tax under the Indian Act. On the other hand, it will help to close off an avenue for black market activity and in that way assist with tobacco enforcement.
The Cowichan tribe's band council has requested assistance from the province, because the band does not have the organizational structure required to implement tax collection procedures. And the province has agreed to act as agent for the band in collecting the tax on its behalf. This will not require any additional expenditure for the province.
This initiative provides the Cowichan tribe's band council with a valuable independent source of revenue to fund band projects. It also provides a unique opportunity for cooperation between first nations and the province in addressing mutual concerns regarding black market activity.
Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
COST OF FAIR-WAGE POLICY
G. Campbell: For some time the opposition has been trying to discover the true costs of the fair-wage policy being imposed on highway contracts in the province of British Columbia. We have in our hands a document prepared by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The first one, which was severely severed, and the second one, which is complete, would suggest that those costs have been significant.The Minister of Highways told one of the bidders on the Pine Pass project on Highway 97: "The ministry sought an
[ Page 4428 ]
interpretation from employment standards to determine that work in the rock quarry would be exempt. TNL" -- the company involved -- "subsequently won the contract, basing their contract prices on the ministry's advice." In July 1994 the contract was issued, and later the Ministry of Employment and Investment tried to impose the fair-wage legislation on the contract.
Can the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell the House how much additional money was required once the fair wage was imposed on the rock quarry's portion of the contract?
Hon. L. Boone: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is in litigation, and therefore I'm unable to comment on it at this time.
G. Campbell: At least one estimate suggests that the taxpayers will be paying an additional million dollars on a $10 million contract. I'd like to read from the ministry's "Issue Alert," hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Member, I am going to accept the question, but I do want to caution that if indeed the matter is sub judice, we mustn't do anything that might compromise
G. Campbell: I'm asking about general government policy, hon. Speaker, and I'm sure that won't compromise anything. It may compromise some of the government's positions. However, in the ministry's own issues document it points out that the Minister of Employment and
[2:15]
Interjections.The Speaker: Order, members, please. Let's hear the question. Members on both sides, please.
G. Campbell: In the minister's own document, they point out that the Minister of Employment and Investment said that this would not cost additional dollars. In fact, the "Issue Alert" points out that "if the Fair Wage Act were to be enforced on this contract, it would result in substantial restitution being required of our ministry."
Can the minister tell me this: is it the ministry's practice in general to change the conditions of a contract subsequent to the contract being awarded?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members!
G. Campbell: Again, I understand that the ministry has actually agreed to the extra costs being required for this contract. However, the ministry directed the contractor to the courts so that the costs would be paid out of the Crown Proceeding Act.
My question to the minister, again: does the minister really think that it makes sense to use our courts to cover up overruns so that they're paid not out of Transportation and Highways but out of the Crown Proceeding Act?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, members.
B. Barisoff: The Minister of Transportation's own document states that "when the Fair Wage Act came into being, the current Premier said that this act "would not increase the cost of doing business." The document goes on to say that it is becoming increasingly evident that imposing the Fair Wage Act on this contract would add substantially to the cost of construction. Since the ministry has now confirmed what we've all known all along about the fixed-wage law, will the minister tell us how much the fixed wage has added to the cost of the Island Highway project?
Hon. L. Boone: The members opposite keep quoting from a document that was done long before the fair-wage policy was actually in place. If the members would remember correctly, a much newer review has been done that in fact shows that the fair-wage policy has not cost anything and has not added any additional cost to any of the projects.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Before I go to Okanagan-Boundary, let me remind members that if one side extends the courtesy of hearing the question, the other ought to extend the courtesy of listening to the answer.
B. Barisoff: Maybe this will shed some light on it. When the NDP announced the Island Highway project, they said that its union-only provisions wouldn't cost one extra penny. According to Dirk Brinkman, who owns a tree-planting company hired to reforest areas along the Island Highway, union-only has cost taxpayers an extra $100,000. On Brinkman's $400,000 contract, this means that B.C. taxpayers paid one-third more than they should have to do the same work. Considering that the union-only rule cost taxpayers an additional $100,000 for silviculture alone, I wonder whether the minister could tell us how much the selling-out to union bosses cost the B.C. taxpayers for the rest of the Island Highway project.
Hon. L. Boone: As the hon. member knows, this policy has in fact been very successful. Ninety percent of the people now being employed are employed locally, are from British Columbia, as compared to the past, when we've had a good portion of the people coming from Alberta to actually work on projects. We are now having the majority of our people
SURGERY WAIT-LISTS IN NORTH
P. Nettleton: We are advised that 2,000 patients now wait a year just to get in the door to see an orthopedic surgeon in Prince George. They then wait again for months before they can have their surgery. The member for Prince George North -- the former Health minister -- is on record as saying he's proud of the record of health care in Prince George. Can this Minister of Health tell us if she is proud of the fact that patients in the north are waiting well over a year to have hip and knee replacement surgery?Hon. J. MacPhail: Our government has recognized over the years, just as physicians in this province have, that there is
[ Page 4429 ]
a problem with recruiting and maintaining physicians in the north. There's no question about that. We actually had a very good discussion in my estimates about the physician supply measures which are part of future legislation that we'll be discussing here, so it's not the appropriate topic for question period.
But I would also advise the member that while that is working very effectively, in full cooperation with the physicians of this province, the waiting time is not that length of time for hip and knee surgery. In fact, the average waiting time is about 12 weeks per patient.
P. Nettleton: Perhaps the Minister of Health could pick up the phone and talk to the physicians in Prince George. In any event, Dr. Christopher Coetzee's patients who are referred to him today will have to wait as long as 20 months -- that's 20 months -- because the operating room in Prince George is only available to him one day a week. Some of those who have to wait are children with cerebral palsy. Will the Minister of Health admit that northern patients continue to suffer on long wait-lists because of her government's mismanagement of our health care system?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, we have four orthopedic surgeons working out of the Prince George hospital. Certainly, as I discussed in my estimates, our ministry is leading to have a protocol established amongst physicians. Where some physician may have an inordinately long wait-last, that physician can offer the patient a choice of moving to another physician where the wait-list may be shorter.
Again, it's always the choice of the patient about which doctor she wishes to have. But indeed, there are varying wait-lists amongst physicians. This protocol will allow for a movement and a referral process amongst doctors, but in the end if a doctor
KAMLOOPS CHILD CARE CENTRE
L. Stephens: The Kamloops Complete Childcare Centre provided 24-hour service for approximately 150 children and employed 20 people. Because of inflexible government bureaucracy, this centre has lost the 24-hour service and is in imminent danger of closing altogether. Because access to child care is vital to the struggle for equality for women, will the Minister for Children and Families tell the working parents in KamloopsHon. P. Priddy: I will answer the question directly, but I want to put a bit of context around the answer first, and then I will answer around the Kamloops child care centre and the action that's been taken.
Until 1992, when this government was elected, there was virtually -- other than a day care subsidy, which is important -- no support for child care in this province. Since 1992 -- including in Kamloops -- there has been a 180 percent increase in young-parent programs, a 100 percent increase in licensed child care spaces in this province, and the day care subsidy available to parents has been increased by 100 percent.
So it's important to say that in the last four years there's been incredible growth in child care. As it relates to the Kamloops child care centre -- a fair question -- we have been working with that child care centre. They are resubmitting their application for a variance to the Ministry of Health, which said that they would hear that variance immediately. We do know that extended-hour child care is important, but it also has to be offered in a way that is safe to children.
This child care centre, by the way, has been operating for some number of years, but over the last four years has received half a million dollars from this government to support it.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND
CORPORATE RELATIONS AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
[2:30]
Hon. A. Petter: Before I begin, I'd like to introduce the staff members with me today. Seated on my left is Deputy Minister Gerry Armstrong, and seated on my right is Brian Mann, director of the financial services and administration branch. Throughout the course of these estimates, given the various and varying activities of a very extensive ministry, other staff, I'm sure, will be joining us. I'll endeavour to introduce them where I can as we go along.The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations performs important functions that contribute to the economic well-being of this province. The ministry is the government's tax collector in terms of the revenue division; banker and money manager, provincial treasury; chief accountant, office of the comptroller general; fiscal and economic policy-maker, budget and expenditure arm, particularly in respect of Treasury Board staff; corporate and personal property registrar, the registries branch; collector of statistical information, B.C. Stats; purchaser of goods and services, Purchasing Commission; central post office, B.C. Mail Plus; and printer, in the form of the Queen's Printer. To fulfil this broad mandate, the ministry has 2,373 FTEs and estimates it will spend $458.9 million this fiscal year.
I'm also the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations, and for: the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, which is government's central human resource and labour relations agency; the Superannuation Commission,
[ Page 4430 ]
the administrator of public pension plans; the B.C. Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities in the province; the Financial Institutions Commission, the regulator of trust companies, credit unions and cooperatives, insurance and real estate; the Provincial Capital Commission, which has a profound impact in terms of protecting the capital region as a provincial capital; and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
Leading by example, my ministry continuously looks for ways to cut spending. As the financial manager for government, the ministry is determined to streamline and cut its own costs. We are also searching for ways to ensure that government receives adequate revenue to support this year's budget objectives, which include creating jobs, protecting health care and education, and providing support for middle-income and working families. My ministry is improving its services to the people of British Columbia by providing more information on the Internet and simplifying the processes involved in paying taxes or registering a company.
Let me provide some examples. In the area of improved services, people owing rural property taxes were able to pay at their bank or automated teller machines for the first time last year. This made it more convenient for taxpayers, reduced lineups at government agent offices and reduced the need to hire part-time staff. The B.C. Stats Internet web site has been expanded to provide faster, cost-effective access to statistical reports and data tables. Approximately 1,300 users per week are accessing the average of 22,000 pages of information.
Any public sector organization in British Columbia is now able to post bid notices directly on the B.C. Bid Internet web site. This gives B.C. suppliers increased accessibility to public sector purchasing opportunities.
Together with the Ministry of Small Business, we developed a one-stop business registration program, so registering partnerships and proprietorships with a number of government agencies is now done through a single application.
The consumer taxation branch has made it easier for businesses and their customers to understand the province's consumption tax statutes. An Internet web site now has 90 percent of the branch's bulletins on line, and the remaining 10 percent are to be added later this year.
Sixty businesses are now involved in a pilot project allowing them to file and remit social service tax electronically, using electronic data interchange technology. At the end of the pilot in 1998, approximately 400 businesses will be able to benefit from this simplified tax remittance system.
The trucking industry is now benefiting from simplified fuel taxation compliance, thanks to B.C.'s participation in the International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Registration Plan.
We achieved a 16.1 percent average rate of return on investments in our pension plans in 1996, exceeding the market benchmark return of 15.5 percent.
The Queen's Printer implemented a print-on-demand publishing system to supply correspondence course materials; 1,000 titles are now available to be printed and shipped to the regional schools within 24 hours of ordering.
We have worked closely with the RCMP and Revenue Canada over the past year to curtail tobacco smuggling and to ensure that the province receives the appropriate tax on all tobacco products coming into B.C. By the end of 1996, 237,000 cartons of illicit cigarettes with a provincial tax value of $5.3 million had been seized. We will continue to pursue this source of revenue aggressively. We continue to pursue an assessment of tax on untaxed tobacco purchased through the mail. Over 3,000 tax assessments were issued, totalling in excess of $2.6 million.
The Economic Outlook Conference on February 20 in Vancouver gave 15 economic experts from B.C. and across Canada a chance to exchange their views on B.C.'s economic outlook, following the federal budget and before we finalized our own budget.
The Public Sector Employers Council fostered a positive relationship between labour and management, resulting in British Columbia having one of the lowest rates of public sector labour unrest in Canada in the last ten years. And the cost of public sector collective bargaining settlements in 1996 was well below the private sector and the Canada and British Columbia consumer price index figures.
Of course, the biggest task of the year for the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations is the production of the government's annual budget. I'm very proud of the work that staff performed on this year's provincial budget. It was developed in challenging circumstances and has required difficult choices. I know that some believe we should have cut deeper to balance the budget this year, but we are determined not to sacrifice our commitment to protect health care and education. The budget protects health care and education for the people of B.C.; the budget contains tax cuts and rate freezes for B.C. families. The provincial income tax rate is being reduced by 2 percent this year. That, in addition to the 2 percent cut last year, will save families more than $142 million. The B.C. family bonus will provide about $385 million in support for over 225,000 lower- and modest-income families. ICBC premiums and B.C. Hydro rates remain frozen. The tax cuts and rate freezes combined result in annual savings for the average B.C. family of up to $700.
The budget also includes a financial management plan. We can achieve the targets set and continue with a capital spending program of $1.1 billion annually for the next three years; that will enable us to build schools and hospitals and essential transportation infrastructure for British Columbia. The plan will also encourage investment, jobs and economic growth.
At the same time, through public-private partnerships and other initiatives, we are looking at ways of ensuring that capital investment continues in the province but that the full burden of that capital investment does not fall entirely upon public spending.
This budget is based on prudent economic assumptions. The Ministry of Finance forecast for B.C.'s economic growth this year is 2.2 percent, and many private sector forecasts are slightly higher than that. However, to be prudent, we set revenue forecasts in this budget based on growth of 1.6 percent. This budget shows significant progress in establishing the province's finances on a sound and sustainable path. We are meeting the needs of British Columbians in a fiscally responsible way.
The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations is serious about its responsibilities for sound fiscal management not only in the annual budget process but through our day-to-day activities. My ministry will continue, as we have done in the past, to serve the people of this province. We will seek out every way to ensure that each dollar of taxpayers' money is spent wisely. Like all parts of government, we can improve, and we can continue to do that. I look forward during the
[ Page 4431 ]
course of this debate and exchange to gaining further ideas and insights from opposition members -- and, hopefully, from those on the government side -- as to how we can improve and further protect the taxpayers' interests.
I'd like, however, in closing to particularly thank staff for their hard work and dedication. I don't think staff get enough recognition and appreciation in government generally. When they do get recognition, awfully often it's of the wrong sort. So I think this is an opportunity for all members of the House to give recognition to staff who have -- certainly in the case of this ministry and I believe in most others -- demonstrated their commitment to excellence and their commitment to meet the challenges of the coming year. Thank you, and I look forward to our discussions.
F. Gingell: Well, it is good to be here in not-as-sunny Victoria, when you come from sunny Tsawwassen at the beginning of this week
First of all, this is an important ministry. There's no question about that. It's the ministry which should bring discipline and methodology to the operations of government. But I would suggest that the most important job for this minister to do at this time is to repair the damaged credibility of the Ministry of Finance. They had a difficult year in '95-96 and '96-97 dealing with the issues that became apparent to us all, which were so contrary to the documents and to statements that had been made immediately prior to the election. During the estimates debate last year, we didn't have an opportunity
But, of course, this current year is affected by the actions and the happenings of previous years. What's happening this year, of course, is that the credit rating has been downgraded. The debt management plan, now called the financial management plan
There was a fascinating article in the Vancouver Sun a week ago last Saturday -- and then in the Times Colonist earlier this week -- by an economist named Gideon Rosenbluth. I must admit that I rushed to the NDP membership list to see if Mr. Rosenbluth's name is on there.
Interjection.
[2:45]
F. Gingell: Yes, it was. Then I made some inquiries, and I realized that Mr. Rosenbluth has in fact played quite a major role in giving financial advice to this government in the past.It bothers me when someone of stature and status writes an article that's patently nonsense. The market moves in front of the credit-rating agencies. The market had already established a diminishment of B.C.'s credit rating, as is reflected in our bond rates, before the credit-rating agencies made their pronouncements. They were purely and simply stating what the market had already known.
The issue is in relation to the other provinces. I think it is fair to say that since the financial statements that this province has issued have been brought into question -- and that may be the most generous way of saying it -- in relation to the other provinces and in relation to the government of Canada, money secured has diminished or depreciated by about nine basis points. That's roughly what it is. I was going to say ten, but I thought I was kind of pushing the edge there.
This year the province has a borrowing requirement of $4.4 billion out of the estimates. Nine basis points on $4.4 billion for one year is $4 million for ten years, which is the average term. That's $40 million. What can this province do with that kind of money? For Professor Rosenbluth to suggest that this is not important and is insignificant bothers me, because I hope the Finance minister doesn't read that and believe it. I hope the Finance minister doesn't say: "Oh, that's okay; a nine-basis-point loss is not important to us." This government tends not to recognize the critically important matter of the Minister of Finance speaking in an open and straightforward manner about the finances of this province.
I'm sure you will remember, hon. Chair, that at this time last year we were discussing the warehouse account. I was suggesting at that time that what had happened was that British Columbia had offered about a 1.5 percent greater interest rate than government of Canada savings bonds, and that's what caused the $1.3 billion to come rushing into the provincial treasury when they were only looking for between $350 million and $400 million. "Oh no," said the Minster of Finance, "that's because of B.C.'s wonderful credit rating, and everybody wants to invest." That wasn't the case. The excess funds came in because somebody in the Ministry of Finance -- and I guess the minister is responsible in the end -- set the interest rates too high: 1.5 percent last year, from 5.25 to 6.75 percent.
What would have happened if they'd set the rate lower, and in '95-96 they'd only raised the money that they were looking for? Then they'd have been back into the market more in '96-97. They'd have borrowed additional funds then. Interest rates this year were down to 5.6 percent for three-year fixed rates, and the five-year adjustable provincial redeemable bond was issued at 4 percent for the first year, adjusted on April 15 to 3.75 percent.
I know that's 20-20 vision; I know it's very easy on June 16, 1997, to look back at actions that were taken in October of '95 and in October of '96. My point isn't to question the particular decisions that were made; it's more to question the fact that this government and this minister are always painting this rosy picture about things that aren't quite so rosy. When all the money came in and when the interest rate for the government of Canada bonds was set, they should have recognized that they had boo-booed in a major way.
Interjection.
[ Page 4432 ]
F. Gingell: The previous minister -- your ministry
It's this attitude that everything is painted as being the most rosy picture, whether it's Gideon Rosenbluth's analysis on the costs of our credit-rating drop or the warehouse account. This government is going around talking about how, for the first time in so many years, it has reduced the amount of provincial expenditures year over year. "We're going to spend less money in '97-98 than we did in '96-97," or they're budgeted to do that. The minister knows that that's just a shell game. There is a whole series of expenditures that have been removed from the consolidated revenue fund and put into FRBC, ICBC, Tourism, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Just from '96-97 to '97-98, at the time the budget came out I came up with a list that totalled $285 million. Since then I keep hearing little bits more -- a little bit more with the B.C. Assessment Authority. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is sitting there, managed to get some costs out of his ministry and borne by them.
What bothers me is that somebody thinks it's appropriate to stand up and talk about this when the claim is subject to question. This government's financial matters need to be dealt with in a manner that is absolutely and completely aboveboard. They need to bend over backwards to ensure that their statements with respect to the finances of this province are without question. In fact, it might even be a good thing to be seen in the market by the people that matter -- such as investors, whose money we want to use -- as conservative, with a small "c," in our reporting matters.
When we come back to what we call the BBLI, the "big budget lie issue," we need to find out some issues. One of the issues that has been given very, very little publicity is the issue of the $43 million in transfer payments that was included, which had been withheld by the federal government. I know they've subsequently recovered about half of that. But where did they get the opinion? I'd be most interested, when the minister responds. Did they get an opinion on the appropriateness of including it in revenue when the federal government had said that they were not going to pay it? If so, who gave them that opinion?
We have the issue of the recording of corporate income tax. I haven't been able to get satisfactory answers. I'd really like the minister to advise me, through his staff, if in prior years there had ever been an occasion for corporate income tax when an amount was included in revenue that had not been collected. I would like to know if that had ever happened.
With respect to the issue of forest revenues, I think I had a pretty good discussion with the Minister of Forests last year. But I would like the assurance that in view of the auditor general's recent report on forest revenues, the Minister of Finance considers this to be a high-priority item.
There is one other issue that I would like to bring up. I know that this minister is interested and is keen on making the information in the estimates as complete as it reasonably can be. I would like to suggest to him that there is a series of account balances -- if I can call them that -- which are basically accounts receivable or loans receivable, many of which refer to financing transactions and special accounts that could easily be disclosed in the estimates document. We tend to ask these questions every year. It dawned on me that at this point, perhaps we have a minister who really does want to improve accountability; it's an opportunity. This includes things like the land tax deferment, the amount of money that's in the Columbia Basin Trust, the provincial home acquisition programs and the social services agency's restructuring program.
If one turns to the estimates, to the financing transactions, one sees the industrial incentive fund and Crown land. We see what goes in and what comes out each year, but we don't see how much money the government has invested in Crown land that subsequently is intended to be sold. The provincial home acquisition loans, the low-interest loan assistance for small business -- that program, I believe, has stopped. But it would seem to me to add to the accountability and the information that is in these estimates documents if they were more clearly shown.
I also think there are some issues that this government isn't facing up to or reflecting in the estimates: some of our contingent liabilities around the issues of aboriginal land claims and around the issues of the settlement with Alcan on Kemano. I appreciate that no one wants to show their hand in a poker game, but clearly these are issues that will have financial consequences. I think it's important for the provincial government to at least give some thought to what they might be.
[3:00]
Another issue that I think we need to talk about during these estimates -- perhaps the minister will leave it for a little while, but I'd like to bring it to the minister's attention at this time -- is the effect on the underground economy that is coming from growing commerce on the Internet. The Internet is making capital and commerce much less location-oriented. People are able to operate at the end of a telephone line. I think it's going to have a lot of consequences for tax administration in this province -- in fact, in all of the developed world, as economies and countries throughout the world compete for business. If I may, I will leave it there, if the minister wishes to make any response.The Chair: Thank you, member. While the minister is planning his response, I'd like to make an introduction, if I might. In the gallery today are 30 grade 6 students and adults from Burnwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. They are here with their teacher Mr. Bagnall. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: The member has dealt with such an eclectic grab-bag of issues, dating back
A number of the issues he raises do relate to decisions and activities that certainly took place prior to that period -- for example, the warehousing program -- and there are issues that I had dealt with to the extent that I was able to in last year's estimates. I won't retread that ground; I'll just make a few general observations and comments about some of his remarks.
First of all, on the issues of credibility and the credit rating -- which are two issues that he related to and made observations on -- I want to say that while I don't share his specific insights, I do share his general view that credit ratings are important and that credibility of governments in respect of financial management is important. Indeed, I
[ Page 4433 ]
believe that much of the activity that I've been involved with in the last year is to make sure, particularly leading into this year's budget, that it is a budget that is seen to be and is credible. For example, the use of numbers that ostensibly and really are prudent, and are seen to be prudent, is part of that.
I might also say that I've just recently returned from a few days away, visiting New York and Toronto, specifically to address the financial markets, traders and investors to bring them up to date on British Columbia's situation. I agree with the member that that means sharing both downside and upside risks, as I guess they are referred to in the trade, telling them both the concerns and the positive story.
I do want to say that while the role of the opposition obviously is to criticize, the financial health of this province is one that is well recognized internationally. While last year was certainly disappointing in terms of reduced growth, it nevertheless was the fifteenth year in a row in which we saw positive economic growth. Obviously it was a disappointment that positive economic growth was in the range of 1 percent, as it now appears, and not at a higher level, which I know we had all hoped it would be.
Having said that, though, the overall trend of economic growth over 15 straight years and the trend of this government towards reducing the deficit year over year -- albeit interrupted in last year's budget -- are ones that have stood us in pretty good stead in terms of how we do in the markets, particularly in terms of our own borrowings. So I'm very mindful of the need to maintain credibility and to speak directly to investors. In fact, I returned this morning from speaking to the annual convention of the Investment Dealers Association, which is taking place in this province, happily. It gave me an opportunity to share with them perspectives on the economy, on the fiscal situation of B.C. and on national unity issues.
I will not interfere in the member's criticisms of Dr. Rosenbluth. That's an issue between the member and Dr. Rosenbluth. Funnily enough, I read this story on my way to New York to talk to investors, so it can clearly not be taken as a sign that my reading of it undermined my concern to go out and make sure that our credit is viewed as a good risk internationally. I agree that we have to do so, although obviously we also have to make sure that the decisions we make are ones that respond well to the needs of British Columbians.
It's very interesting that in the last year the business community in B.C. has talked about the need for public investment infrastructure. In fact, the Business Council of B.C. suggested that the limits set on debt to GDP could be as high as 25 percent of debt to GDP -- a higher level than the one we set in our financial management plan. That's because, I assume, they understand that government in this province has historically, through governments of all stripes, played a role in investing in infrastructure, particularly to provide essential transportation and social infrastructure; and that government, in partnership with the private sector, is an important player in maintaining the health of the economy through the programs it carries out and the investments it makes. So I think that has to be balanced against the very legitimate concerns that I share concerning our international creditworthiness.
The member also raised some issues. Again, they tend to go back prior to my tenure as minister. But one that he raised with respect to the corporate income tax accounting in last year's budget
On a more forward-thinking note, the member refers to the estimates process and to suggestions as to how estimates might be improved. Certainly I am very interested in those suggestions. We are already undertaking some innovations in our estimates process in this province to look at ways in which we can debate issues from a point of view of looking at objectives of ministries or programs and measuring those objectives against productivity. I think those are useful steps, and I know the member shares that view -- indeed, has advocated that view for some time.
If there are other areas in which the member feels that the reporting in estimates could be improved, as I take it
In this day of freedom of information, I thought that such information was available regardless. But if we can do it in a more formal and satisfactory way, and the member wishes -- if not in the House, then through discussion outside the House or communication in writing -- to provide me with some suggestions, I would be very happy to consider those, with a mind to how we can better prepare estimates for next year.
As to the suggestions on the Internet and the underground economy, perhaps we should explore them later on when I have staff here who can inform me more on some of these issues. But I am aware that we have been trying to work with the federal government around a more cooperative approach to protecting provincial tax revenues through having agreements around tax collection, and there has been discussion of the creation of a national revenue collection agency. I had hoped that agency might also assist in getting the federal government more interested in protecting provincial revenue sources at the border and outside of the province with respect to transactions that result in goods coming into this province.
Unfortunately, the federal government has not been as helpful as I had hoped. They seem to hold this issue hostage to the issue of whether or not a province will harmonize the GST, which I think is an unfortunate relationship. Surely a province should be able to determine its own policy with respect to direct taxation within the province, which is its own constitutional responsibility, and not be held hostage, through its choices in that area, to federal lack of cooperation in respect of dealing with underground economy leakage of revenues through transactions on the Internet or through mail that is transprovincial or outside of the province.
Those are a few eclectic responses to the eclectic opening remarks of the member. I look forward to further discussion on these and other matters.
F. Gingell: I would like to make two responses in response to the response. The first is that I try and avoid the use of freedom of information. I think it's the most expensive exercise. In past years I have asked various ministries what their estimate of the cost of freedom of information and protection of privacy has been, and I got the feeling that it is extensive.
[ Page 4434 ]
It was interesting. We just recently got a nice thick package of stuff from your ministry that dealt with briefings that you as minister received in the last little while. The only document which wasn't substantially whited out
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Severed. The only document that wasn't substantially severed was the one that had been slipped to us in a brown envelope. And that document, which was the one that dealt with your internal evaluations of the issue of bond spreads, we got in full. But everything else is just great chunks of blank paper.
With respect to the issue of the corporate income tax, yes, I thank the minister. I did receive a phone call and had a couple of discussions with an official from the Ministry of Finance. It wasn't a satisfactory discussion as far as I was concerned. I decided that I would proceed from there to try and find out some information from the federal government. I discovered the same thing, Mr. Minister, that you just said: the federal government is not as helpful as it should be, particularly during election time -- which is when it was.
So if we may move on, you'll note that the first item on this list is one that I got from your office after our discussion with your officials on Friday. The first item on the agenda, as it were, is the revenue division. I see you have the appropriate people here.
In 1997-98 there is a substantial increase in staffing in the revenue operations. Is that for auditors in consumer tax? And if it is, can you advise the committee of what measurement -- criteria -- have been set up for subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of this staff increase?
Hon. A. Petter: On the question of the revenue division, the member is correct. The addition of 42 positions is for auditors. I think it was last year -- or perhaps since last year's debate -- that the auditor general's report came out, confirming that there were revenues that were not being collected. As a result, this was an area in which we could, by increasing the FTE complement, actually make a savings to the taxpayer, by ensuring that auditing was done in a way that would recover revenues due to government and take some of the pressure off other potential revenue initiatives.
[3:15]
In terms of effectiveness, I understand that in the past the average collected per auditor has been about $630,000, which is an increase of $80,000 per auditor over last year. These new positions have not yet been filled. There's a training component, and they are in the process of being filled. We anticipate that in this fiscal year each position will garner an additional $250,000 per auditor. Again, this is acting on some of the excellent work done by the auditor general.Just on two other points left over from the previous question, I want to try to provide the member with as much information as I can, not in the hope of encouraging further questions from him, but just to be complete. First of all, Greg Reimer, who is executive director of the consumer tax branch, has joined us -- he's sitting behind me -- for the benefit of the House. I'm informed that Mr. Reimer is sitting on a federal-provincial committee on electronic transactions to provide advice to the Minister of National Revenue on the problem of revenue collection and electronic transactions, which would include the underground economy. Perhaps now that we have a Minister of National Revenue from B.C., we can resolve some of those other difficulties I referred to.
Also, there is a letter which I did receive -- I don't know if I was more successful than the member or not -- from the federal government with respect to the refunds of the U.S. countervail duty on Canadian softwood lumber exports. If the member hasn't seen that letter, I'd be happy to share a copy with him. It explains in short form the federal government's involvement in this matter.
F. Gingell: The one letter I did see indicated that they had gone back and done a review of the terms to see if they were able to discover amounts that had been included. They also referred to the issue of their treatment of the original payments as payments of a contingent liability. Neither of those issues really solves the issue in my mind, which comes down to: if it's Treasury Board's policy that corporate income taxes are recorded on a cash basis, what does that mean? What accruals could ever be set up under any circumstances? If the minister wants to follow that discussion, I'd be happy to do it. Or if you want to leave it
I would just take this opportunity in case I forget to do it some other time. There's an article in -- guess what? -- the Economist, dated May 31, called "The Disappearing Taxpayer," which maybe Mr. Reimer has seen. It deals specifically with the issue of commerce over the Internet.
The auditor general's report talked at some length about the need for the provincial government in the revenue division to try and measure the size of the uncollected taxes. I understood from the public hearings that the committee held that the provincial government has started to do work on some modelling in relation to that issue. I wonder if the committee could be advised as to where we have got to.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, hon. Chair, I always welcome these opportunities, because I learn so much in the process.
In fact, I understand that a model has been developed. It's one that tracks the social service tax revenue against certain key economic indicators; two which have been drawn to my attention are the GDP and retail sales. That way, one can track whether or not the relationship between the two is widening or closing over time, and that would, in turn, indicate whether or not you have a problem in terms of collection. Apparently the information to date is that, if anything, the lines are narrowing a little bit right now. While we are obviously keen and will try to close what gap exists through the additional auditors, it doesn't appear that the problem is getting dramatically worse. In fact, if anything, it may be getting marginally better. Perhaps that's because of some of the attention that's been drawn to this issue. The indication is that governments are going to be more seriously monitoring this and taking action -- I don't know. But that is the model, and I take it that this model will continue to be used to see how well we perform and whether there's a problem that emerges from time to time.
F. Gingell: Does the minister have any feel for when or at what point the position will reverse, where adding more auditors won't add up to any more revenues? I'm most impressed by the figure of $710,000 per auditor. As a collection item in this current status, it's one that is fully tremendous. Those numbers are higher than the numbers I remember from before.
[ Page 4435 ]
Hon. A. Petter: First of all on the numbers, let me just correct any misinterpretation that may have occurred. The $80,000 improvement was up to $630,000 per auditor over the last year; it was not on top of the $630,000. So by my rough calculation, it went from $550,000 to $630,000 over the last year. [Applause.] The member is very generous in his accolades.
There is obviously sensitivity to, I guess, what economists call marginal utility, but what I would call the law of diminishing returns. I understand that the ministry is monitoring this as we add auditors. The general feeling, and my recollection, is that this issue wasn't directly or scientifically addressed by the auditor general, but I think his report tended to bear out what I am about to say -- that is, there's still a fair way to go before the law of diminishing returns overtakes one. We'll certainly be monitoring what reduction, if any, occurs in the per auditor return through the addition of the 42. Obviously we don't want to reach the point where that reduction outweighs the benefit, but we're far from that point, I understand.
F. Gingell: I will, if I may, make an exception to what I normally do in estimates, and that is ask about a specific item that is pending, seeing that you have the executive director of consumer taxation here. I was pleased to see that some common sense had been brought to the issue of polyurethane spray. For the future, I wonder whether the minister has made a decision about dealing with the issue of the past. I think that the consumer
Hon. A. Petter: The briefing note may not be as immediately helpful as the member would like, but I think we're close to being helpful. As I understand it, there have been discussions with the taxpayer who is most directly concerned with this. The issue is obviously no longer one of prospective application but of the retrospective period. I understand that there is some further final legal opinion being sought. The answer should be forthcoming in a matter of weeks, and the taxpayer concerned is pleased with that progress.
I guess what I'd undertake to the member is that this is obviously a matter of public interest as well as of private interest. Once a decision has been made, I'd be happy to ask staff to make sure that the member, who has had an ongoing and insistent interest in this issue, be informed of how the matter is resolved as soon as we can make him aware. I would hope that's within a matter of a few weeks.
F. Gingell: The revenue division, in my mind, is an administrative and service division, so when one deals with the issues of accountability, benchmarks and measures, we look more to the issues of measuring the quality of service. Those types of issues tend to be paramount. How well is the communications exercise working? There is nothing worse than taxpayers believing they are filing things properly and acting in the required manner, then subsequently discovering they aren't.
There have been some issues around coloured fuel, and there have been issues around small infrastructure construction in greenhouses and in similar operations. Has the revenue division developed a series of benchmarks or criteria against which you will measure your success in serving your clientele -- such things as how quickly you respond to correspondence, how up to date you are with audits and those kind of issues?
Hon. A. Petter: Just to give the member some indication of the volume of material that's provided to taxpayers and the like by the revenue division, I'm informed that something like 750,000 bulletins are sent out every year, 150,000 telephone calls are received every year, and countless letters are responded to every year.
In respect to performance criteria, the division has, as I understand it, generated performance criteria with respect to its response times and the like, in an effort to both monitor and improve its performance and to ensure consistency in response. Of course, that's consistent, I think, with the general move throughout government to try to generate performance criteria. But I understand that in the case of this division, performance criteria have been generated with respect to at least certain key indicators in relation to the service to the public.
[3:30]
[J. Doyle in the chair.]F. Gingell: The Chair recognizes that what we have at the moment is a 1995-96 annual report -- which is doing a lot better than many other ministries, I might add -- but it is still one year old. I would suggest that getting the report out earlier is really helpful and would save a lot of time in the estimates debate, even though one may recognize the need to cut off some of the information a little earlier than one would otherwise do. Could the minister advise as to the current status of the 1996-97 report and whether we're likely to receive it this week?
Hon. A. Petter: I regret to tell the member that it will not be ready in the next week or two. I appreciate his optimism, but it is still being worked on and will be forthcoming in due course. I don't have a specific date that I'm in a position to provide at this time, but we have registered the member's concern.
F. Gingell: One other item. Included in the financing transactions under the international fuel agreement, I notice that this year, in your second year, you're going to take in more money than you pay out. That would be about page 275, I would imagine. It's a financing
A. Petter: Page 155.
F. Gingell: Yes, okay. I wonder why you would pay out only half the amount taken in and whether that represents an account payable.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll try to explain this. If I'm not clear, I'm sure the member will tell me that I'm not clear. As I understand it, this relates to an agreement amongst various jurisdictions in which there are exchanges of revenues amongst various jurisdictions based upon the agreement. Information I have is that at the end of the day, it's expected that the money coming in will offset the money going out in terms of the exchanges that take place.
F. Gingell: Well, if it's expected to offset, why doesn't this show that? We don't keep our books on a cash basis; we keep
[ Page 4436 ]
them on an accrual basis. So if there's an account payable at March 31 in the amount of $2.5 million, surely it would have been included in the disbursements.
Hon. A. Petter: The member makes an interesting point. The receipts on this page represent the money that we expect to receive under the agreement; the disbursement is the money we expect to pay. But if the member's point -- and I think it is -- is that at some point, if we're operating on accrual basis, we should accrue in the accounts an amount that represents the difference, then I think that's a point that's well taken. I've asked staff just now to take it. I think it's an interesting point to bring these accounts more fully into conformity with accrual accounting.
R. Thorpe: Looking at the detailed page I have on revenue operations, I note an 11 percent increase in revenue information systems. I just wonder if the minister could give the highlights of those increases.
Hon. A. Petter: The four systems that are contributing, as I understand it, are the International Fuel Tax Agreement -- the one we just discussed; the system relating to the family bonus; the system related to seniors; and one related to bus transportation. So those are the four new systems that are adding to the system costs.
I should probably take this opportunity to introduce -- seated behind me and to my left -- Lloyd Munro, who's the ADM of the revenue division. He can help me with any follow-up questions if you have any, hon. members.
R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister for that answer.
Without getting into all the details of that, I just wonder if the minister could commit to provide the detailed program systems cost to me -- that total, that number -- through staff, outside of the process we're in now.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I'm happy to ensure that that information is provided to the member; staff have made a note and will ensure that we do provide that information.
R. Thorpe: The next line I have is administration. I note that FTEs have gone down, only by three, yet overall costs have gone up 11.2 percent. I'm just wondering if the minister could give us some highlights of that rather large cost increase.
Hon. A. Petter: It's my understanding that the increased costs in administration relate to the service support for the new auditors in terms of the kinds of human resource support and systems support that are required for that additional personnel. So it's directly related not to the increase in administrative staff but to an increase in the audit staff, which we referred to earlier in this debate.
R. Thorpe: Again, I don't want to get into finite details, but I'm wondering, just as a little follow-up, if it would be possible
Hon. A. Petter: It shall be done.
R. Thorpe: Thank you -- and pardon me, I'm a rookie, as one of the members on the other side has pointed out.
As I understand it here, the revenue operations -- $35 million in cost
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the numbers are
R. Thorpe: So just for my own clarification, that's outside your departments here, then. When you look here at the total tax revenue of $12 billion, you're really only monitoring part of that. For argument's sake, the line underneath that, the natural resource revenue
Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, the natural resource revenue would be the responsibility of other ministries. Obviously the Ministry of Forests would be primarily responsible for the forest revenue.
In respect of the taxation revenue, that is not the direct responsibility of the province. Treasury Board staff monitor collection of that by the federal government on our behalf, as they also monitor and work with the Ministry of Forests and other ministries in respect of the revenues collected by other ministries on our behalf.
[3:45]
F. Gingell: We don't have any further questions on the revenue division. Isn't that a surprise?On the list your assistant gave me this morning, the next item is the office of the comptroller general. Perhaps that's something we can deal with conveniently at this time.
In the office of the comptroller general, we're anticipating a reduction of $1 million in this year's budget as part of the efforts of government to reduce costs. About $800,000 of that is in salaries. I wonder if the minister could advise which areas the government plans on reducing within the OCG's office.
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the reductions relate to a reduction in the size of the financial management branch in respect to policy work, and there has been a reduction of five positions. In terms of the audit work done for Crown corporations, that is now being done on a user-pay-type basis. That has also resulted in some savings.
F. Gingell: Will the current practice of internal audit carried out by the internal audit department within the office of the comptroller general continue to be billed out when it is done at the request of the ministries?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, we continue to bill ministries for audits they request us to do. The audits that will be paid for through the comptroller general's office would be audits that are not initiated at the request of ministries.
F. Gingell: There is a fairly substantial amount included in the ministry in the office of the comptroller general's budget for legal, etc., which I presume are opinions that give the comptroller general some ability to seek opinions on various accounting and legal matters. I'm wondering if you have any
[ Page 4437 ]
information on what items may have been looked at by external experts for you in 1996-97 and what issues you think might come up in 1997-98 that would cause you to expend funds.
Hon. A. Petter: If the member is referring to funds expended through STOB 20, I take it that the bulk of those funds will be going for outside auditors. There are some, as I understand it, for which legal costs are incurred. The ones that would be the most noticeable in the last year would be legal advice concerning responses to FOI requests from the comptroller general -- confirming the member's earlier assertion that FOI is an expensive undertaking. But that would not be done from outside counsel, as I understand it. It's a matter of bill-back through the Attorney General ministry, because counsel is provided in-house, not out of house, for that kind of advice that's provided.
F. Gingell: When the minister refers to external auditors, is this to do audit work or work to express opinions on various accounting matters?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, last year it would have been for contracted work for auditors to conduct internal audits -- external in the sense that they're not from within government; internal in the sense that the work they're conducting is within government. So it would be for that kind of internal work by auditors who are outside of government -- under contract, serving government.
F. Gingell: So these may well be costs that were subsequently recovered from, billed to, charged to some other vote, some other ministry.
What is the test of when you would use external auditors? Is it when there's something that needs to be done in Prince Rupert and it's easier to get someone in Prince Rupert to do this work? Or is it just done on a more general basis?
Hon. A. Petter: The information I have is that there is generally not a geographic element to this. It's a matter of looking for auditors who have specialized skills, or alternatively, it is simply a function of the demands that are placed upon the comptroller general's office, the need to meet those demands and not being able to do so without assistance from time to time, as the workload ebbs and flows, from those outside.
F. Gingell: The office of the comptroller general, we all appreciate, plays a very important role as the accountant or, as an earlier Minister of Finance called it, the bean counter for government. I didn't approve of that description. But clearly there is a series of quality measures that are appropriate for the office of the comptroller general -- how efficiently and effectively they're able to look after their responsibilities as the paymaster.
I'm wondering if the minister could pick out some of the more significant criteria that he uses to measure the efficiency of the office and tell us how well the office is performing.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to provide the member with three such indicators. We could probably go on with a lot more. Perhaps the member would like to inquire about that outside the House. I'd be happy to arrange a fuller briefing.
In terms of payments, as I understand it the comptroller general's office has a benchmark of turning around payments within three days of requests being received and, in most cases, either meets or exceeds that. In respect of audits, there is a client satisfaction report done on each audit to measure the satisfaction of the client that requested the audit. In terms of internal audits, there is a performance report process followed by the audit board, and within that process a range of indicators are used. I'd be happy to provide the member with some of the detail concerning that if he's interested in the kinds of indicators that are built within that performance report.
F. Gingell: The report from your office and other documents indicate recognition by the government of the need to deal with updating the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act, amongst other important legislation. The office of the comptroller general obviously plays some role in that exercise.
Recognizing that you will shortly be having a vacancy in the position of comptroller general, is there any intention by the government to get those two pieces of legislation dealt with whilst the knowledge and experience of the comptroller general is still available on this issue?
[4:00]
Hon. A. Petter: I take it the member is inquiring about changes beyond those to the Financial Administration Act in this year's session. I accept the suggestion that there are pieces of legislation that require further review. I guess all I can say at this stage is that we're aware of that and aware of the resources that we are blessed with in the comptroller general's office in the form of the comptroller general himself -- who is seated behind me, trying not to blush, I'm sure. He is well recognized and recently has been accorded public recognition for his skills and talents. So I'm aware of both the resources we have available to us and the need for reviewing these two acts the member speaks of. I guess all I can say at this stage is that I'll be proceeding with both of those in mind.F. Gingell: I wonder -- also in view of the position becoming vacant -- if as a public policy matter, the minister in his office has considered whether or not that particular position should be more independent from government and set up in a more independent fashion, as it is in some other democracies.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised that in this country, in fact, the degree of independence that's afforded our comptroller general is as great as or greater than that of other provinces. That advice comes from the comptroller general, who is the most independent of all comptrollers general, therefore. I'm not quite sure what the member is suggesting or what jurisdictions he's thinking of, unless he's thinking of jurisdictions in which the auditor general function and comptroller general function are merged in some way. But as the member knows, of course, in this province we have an auditor general who is quite independent of government and directly accountable to the Legislature, and a comptroller general who under legislation enjoys a measure of independence which is as great as or greater than that of comptrollers general in other provincial jurisdictions, as I understand it.
F. Gingell: It is with regard to the amount of independence that the comptroller general's office has, that it's required to have under legislation
[ Page 4438 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I guess all I'd say is that I understand the member has raised some of these concerns with my deputy minister, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion. There are some functions of the comptroller general for which it seems that the question of independence is really not relevant, and others that it may be. If the member has particular suggestions, I'd be happy to follow up directly, or my deputy minister would be happy to follow up and continue the discussion concerning those.
F. Gingell: In the annual report of the Minister of Finance, he speaks of special activities. This gives a list of activities that were carried out in the year '95-96 -- bottom of page 4. I was wondering what the comptroller general has been doing with his time in '96-97 and what's planned, if anything is on the burner, for '97-98.
Hon. A. Petter: In terms of new activities, I understand the one new activity that is being undertaken is an initiative to rationalize operations to fit the new accounting and pay systems. Beyond that, all of the activities which are listed in the annual report under the special activities of the comptroller general are ongoing. I won't enumerate them, because the member's familiar with them, but they all continue to be activities which are proceeding and will be the subject of continuing activity by the comptroller general's office.
F. Gingell: If one refers to the budget for '97-98, one sees a substantial increase in the amount that has been budgeted for corporate financial accounting. I presume that deals with accounting functions that were previously the ministry's which are now being moved into the central system. I wonder if the minister could give us an update on how centralizing the accounting function is proceeding -- where they started in 1996-97, the new ministries and functions they brought in in the year that has just ended and what functions they're hoping to bring on in this current year.
Hon. A. Petter: This in respect of the agency responsible for producing the public accounts. It does not in fact involve a centralization of function, as the member's question presumed. Rather, it reflects some of the additional costs associated with some of the accounting changes undertaken in response to the auditor general. Five temporary staff, who continue to deal with the tracking of the physical assets under the capitalization policy, were added.
There has been a lift of two staff to deal with issues concerning the question of a broader entity in some of the reporting requirements concerning that. In fact, the pressures and costs that are reflected here have more to do with accounting changes and practices, which the member is, of course, familiar with, than
F. Gingell: I'm most interested in that. It puts a little wrapping around the outside of a subject that
Do I take it, then, that as our ministries move on to the centralized corporate accounting system -- and when I come back, I'd like you to answer that question, if you would -- the cost of operating the system is borne by the ministry rather than by the OCG?
Hon. A. Petter: We're talking here about two different votes. The member's questions have related to vote 32, but the concern he is now raising is in fact under vote 62, the corporate accounting system initiative.
No? I misunderstand the member, then.
If the member is talking about the costs relating to the corporate accounting system initiative, then I'll let the member further elucidate his question. But those are covered, as I understand it, under vote 62, not under vote 32.
F. Gingell: Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick.
I understood that the corporate accounting system vote that we are going to deal with in a moment deals only with the development of the system, setting it up. Once it is set up and you bring ministries on stream, as you have been doing, I didn't appreciate that the costs of doing their day-to-day accounting functions would be included in the CAS vote. I thought that they would be somewhere else. If they're in CAS, then that's all I need to understand.
Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the description for vote 62 includes "the development, implementation, operation and maintenance of a corporate accounting system for government." It's all contained within vote 62. Having said that, it will result in a reduction of cost to ministries, but the question is one that pertains to vote 62.
[4:15]
F. Gingell: We will, if we may, move on to vote 60. Surely we don't want to come back to it later.First of all, we should maybe just briefly touch on the year 2000 question, recognizing that although the Minister of Forests believes that government can do anything it wants, it still hasn't learned how to stop the clock. We have to deal with that issue, and time passes on. Perhaps the minister could update the committee on his ministry's evaluation of where we currently stand, what it's going to cost to deal with the issue and whether we're going to make it or not.
Hon. A. Petter: I know this has been a matter of concern for some time. The member is probably aware that last spring the management of the corporate accounting system was changed. A short-term corrective action plan was instituted with a mind to implementing successfully, in February of this year, a new millennium-compliant core system, which some would say is a system that re-establishes CAS's original focus on accounts payable, commitment management, general ledger and financial reporting. To put it in a nutshell, the business plan we now have, which is based on the recommendations of an independent review of the CAS initiative, ensures that the year 2000 problem is a priority. We are now on track in dealing with what to a layperson like myself seems like an extraordinary problem but is, in the other sense of the word, an extraordinary problem and one that other governments and agencies are having to face. The good news is that we are now well positioned to meet that challenge through this initiative.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how many government ministries in total are on the corporate accounting system at this point in time?
[ Page 4439 ]
Hon. A. Petter: Since 1989 the following have migrated to the corporate accounting system: the Ministries of Attorney General and Finance, the Forest Practices Board, the information and privacy commissioner and the office of the comptroller general. Women's Equality, Health, and Children and Families have been added recently. That accounts for all of the ministries and offices that are currently on board.
R. Thorpe: It's fair to conclude, then, that there are a fair number of ministries that are not on the system. My questions are: is there a detailed plan, and if so, when will everyone be on the system? When will the system be completed? And is there a list of ministries, in order of priority, that are awaiting their migration? Are they being actively pursued to migrate to the new corporate accounting system?
Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to answer the second half of the member's question first. The next ministries that are in the process of joining are Forests and Human Resources, which have initiated project plans to convert to CAS in fiscal 1998. Transportation and Highways is also expected to commit to conversion within the same time frame. That schedule will result in excess of 70 percent of the government's financial system volume being processed through CAS by the end of 1997-98. Beyond that, obviously the hope is to proceed to bring on additional ministries and agencies that are not captured within that 70 percent over a process of hopefully not beyond the next five years, anyway.
R. Thorpe: I know my question was fairly long, and I just wonder
Hon. A. Petter: Well, beyond Forests, I did mention Human Resources and Transportation and Highways. I understand that one of the reasons to encourage that conversion is that they do not currently have the capacity to deal with the year 2000 problem. Beyond that, I think the effort would then be geared at trying to target agencies in accordance with their size and financial capacity to convert. The Ministry of Education might be an obvious one because of the size of their corporate accounting system, with a mind to trying to get as much of government converted as quickly as can be achieved within the fiscal limitations that present themselves.
F. Gingell: It has always appeared to us on this side of the House as though this project is sort of being sold on a voluntary basis, looking for ministries to volunteer to come onto CAS, recognizing that in earlier years -- perhaps prior to this government's administration -- there was much more freedom given to ministers to make their own decisions about what accounting systems they should use. So the next question is: when is someone going to lay down the law and say: "That's it, you're coming on"?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm shocked that the member suggests heavy-handed tactics. But I'm informed that in terms of government's objective, which is to try and bring some of the critical ministries and agencies on board sooner rather than later, that is being met. I've indicated which ministries are going to be converting in the next short while. The government's objective clearly is to ensure that all ministries and agencies are brought on thereafter. But to this point, it frankly hasn't been necessary to be quite as categorical as the member suggests. And hopefully, it won't be, because this is a clear government policy, and within government one hopes ministries will work hard to achieve the objectives that are set down by cabinet and by government. I hope that's the case here. It is a clear objective, and we'll make sure that it is carried out in an orderly and effective way.
F. Gingell: Is the Ministry of Health on the program at the moment?
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the Ministry of Health is partly on and that it will be fully on in terms of its general ledger function this year, and the remainder the year thereafter.
F. Gingell: Something I read in the business plan of the South Fraser regional health area, which is the one that deals with my home constituency, indicated that the chief executive officer of the regional health board and the chief financial officer were going to make decisions about what accounting systems they were going to have, which surprised me. So I wrote a letter to the Minister of Health late last week, wondering if the issues of regionalization that have perhaps moved many accounting functions away from the central government to a regionalized arrangement have been taken into account, and if they are ensuring that they don't start another problem by not dealing with it from the beginning.
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention. I will take that matter up with the Ministry of Health, because I think it's a legitimate concern that we not invent a whole bunch of little wheels when we have one larger one that seems to be working here.
F. Gingell: One final question on CAS, unless someone else has any questions on CAS. Every year we hear about how it is moving along and how much it is going to cost to complete it. That number seems to
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is no. This is not to do with cost recovery for the ministries; this has to do mostly with recovery from Crowns in respect to software licensing fees. It does not reflect the value of the system in respect to the service it provides to ministries in any way, shape or form.
[4:30]
F. Gingell: So there isn't any recovery recorded for the work that's done for other divisions within the consolidated revenue fund. Can the minister, then, give us some feeling for what portion of this $11 million that they anticipate spending in '97-98, and perhaps go back to '96-97? How much would be for the regular accounting function, different from the development and working out all the bugs and all the other problems they've been having?Hon. A. Petter: The numbers, as I have them, are that about $6 million of the $11 million is for base operations, and roughly $5 million is for further development -- a review of ministry business requirements and replacement of the central batching system. So I guess the short answer is that $6 million is for base operations.
[ Page 4440 ]
F. Gingell: I'm not going to continue on questions about the office of the comptroller general. I think we've come to the end of that, and I thank you.
I would, if I may, just go back to revenue operations
C. Hansen: I want to raise the issue of the property tax deferment program. Certainly it's a program that I think has met the needs of a great number of people in the province, particularly in my riding, where property values have escalated significantly. I think that when people look at the rising tax burden on those properties in that part of Vancouver, other parts of the province don't always have a lot of sympathy, because there is that book value of a house, where the house has appreciated by X percent over a period of time. For many people in my riding, it presents a very real hardship because they are on fixed incomes. While their property value has been rising, their income hasn't been rising, and their ability to meet property tax payments just isn't there.
There are two issues. One is the issue of individuals who are too young to qualify. I hear stories of individuals in my constituency who have gone through some tremendous hardship in trying to meet property tax burdens. I know of one family in particular that has actually been forced to sell their house and move because of the fact that they couldn't afford the property tax -- they'd been on fixed incomes with minimal increases over the last ten years. So one family in particular has actually had to sell their home, and certainly there are other stories, as I say, of great hardship. There are other people around the province who don't qualify for this program, yet are faced with that hardship.
If you go back and look at the intent of the tax deferral act as it was brought in, it was certainly brought in to meet these needs. I think that the way the act is currently worded -- the way the program is set up -- it meets the needs of a great number of British Columbians. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on what kind of answers government can give to individuals who are facing these hardships, yet who don't meet the terms of those acts. Is there any way that individuals can be accommodated in those needs?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure I have a particularly satisfactory answer. It's like any program in which one seeks, as a matter of public policy -- as previous governments have done and as this government has continued to do -- to provide relief to those who may have the taxable value within their property but don't have the ability to pay it, and for whom it might seem a bit harsh to say: "Go to the market and raise money against the value of the asset." Whenever one draws categories of this kind, of course someone -- particularly MLAs on behalf of constituents -- can stand up and say: "Well, you should have drawn the category a bit more broadly or taken into account other circumstances." The program is a fairly expensive one, from government's point of view, because the interest rate provided is not greater than 2 percent below the prime rate.
I guess what I'd say -- not to prolong the discussion, but simply to be open to suggestions, because I, quite frankly, have not given this a lot of consideration, although I suspect there are people in my constituency who would like to see it more broadly based as well -- is that if the member has suggestions as to how one might improve the program in a way that is not unduly costly and that is manageable, I'd certainly be prepared to consider that as we approach another budget year.
But I think the simple answer is that this was an attempt to provide relief, and to do it by way of certain categories of people who likely would be in a position of potential hardship. Whenever one creates those categories, there may be others who fall outside it, and it is ever thus. But if the member has specific suggestions as to how we can remedy that or improve it, I'm certainly open to this.
C. Hansen: Certainly, as I say, there is a small number of people that I think get into great difficulty because of the limitations of the act.
The other area under the tax deferment program that I was quite surprised to learn the history on is the individuals who had qualified for the program and were on the program. They are on leasehold property on the Musqueam Indian lands. When the federal government gave those bands power for direct taxation, these individuals who were on those leaseholds were actually kicked off the tax deferment program. That has resulted in great hardship to them.
I know the minister has asked for suggestions. I think that if you look at the philosophy of the act -- and that is to provide for a means for individuals to defer their property taxation until such time as the residence is sold -- certainly that principle could be applied in a broad definition, in a broader application. I understand it may require a change in the legislation, but it would seem to me to be a fairly minor change that could be handled by miscellaneous statutes.
I understand that these individuals have been told that because it is not the provincial government or a municipality that is the taxing agent, they therefore can't defer somebody else's taxes. I was surprised to read that, because my understanding of the program is that it is really not so much to defer a tax that the provincial government is responsible for, but rather a program that allows individuals to defer the payment of those taxes until such time as the property is disposed of. They can't go to the market -- they can't go to the bank -- if they don't have an income stream to support the loan on a mortgage or a second mortgage on the property.
So whether we're talking about individuals who are under the age of 60 and can't qualify for the program, or whether we're talking about individuals who have leasehold properties on aboriginal lands, either way they don't fall under the act. My question to the minister is whether or not it may be possible to accommodate changes that will meet the needs of some of these individuals.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I very much appreciate the other specific example the member raises. I am familiar -- or I used to be, when I was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- with the program which was instituted by federal and provincial legislation some years ago, I guess -- prior, certainly, to this government coming to office. I'm not sure exactly what the problem is; whether it's because of the change in taxing authority or the difficulty in securing a charge against a property, or whatever.
But if there is some way, through legislative change or the like, that the benefit of the deferment program can be provided to those who hold leasehold property on-reserve, then I'm certainly prepared to follow up and get staff to give me a status report on it. It would be interesting to know whether that legislation would have to be provincial or federal.
There are provisions in that legislative package that was enacted some years to ensure that tax rates have some equivalency. In just thinking out loud -- a dangerous thing to do in
[ Page 4441 ]
this House, I know -- it may be possible to insist on some equivalency of tax treatment in respect of deferment so that there's a level playing field in that respect, as well. Just from a personal point of view, I'd be interested to know what legislative changes would be necessary and what might be done to remedy that situation. I'll try to follow up on that for the member and get back to the member both on what's at the root of the problem and then, if and when we can solve it, on how we proceed to do so.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
F. Gingell: Moving on, then, to provincial treasury
One of the major roles of provincial treasury is looking after the issues of slow-paying receivables -- or bad debts or defaulted amounts that are owing to the province. I understand that the province is paying much more attention to that issue nowadays than it used to, and I was wondering if perhaps as a starting point the minister might like to speak about it in general terms. Then we can get into some of the specifics of the particular accounts that provincial treasury administers.
Hon. A. Petter: It's not necessary, I think, for the member opposite, but for the benefit of other members in the House I introduce Chris Trumpy, who is the ADM for provincial treasury and is seated behind me.
Indeed, the member is correct that we have been paying increased attention in recent years to collections. The member will be pleased to know there are performance criteria. The progress under those criteria has been set out, as I understand it, in the annual report and shows that we are -- in areas like B.C. student loans, for example -- showing considerable progress in collections in current years over recent years or over past years. The member is correct that loans administration is very much focused on ensuring that we do receive repayment on all manner of loans that fall under the ambit of provincial treasury.
F. Gingell: In reference to the accountability issue, I presume that the disclosure the minister refers to is the little graph on page 5 that shows the collections. That document is indeed helpful, shows dramatic improvement from 1991-92 through to 1995-96 and in fact shows improvement as the year has progressed. I would suggest to you that the real measure isn't how much money you've collected but what percentage of defaulted loans you've collected. You may be collecting more money because you've been loaning more money out foolishly. That would certainly allow you to make that graph look good.
[4:45]
So I'm most interested in any statistics you might have that indicate what percentage of the loans in a default status at the end of 1995-96 were collected by the end of '96-97 -- or the previous year or that kind ofHon. A. Petter: Well, I agree with the member that it would be useful to have that kind of tracking. We don't have it, as I understand right now, and I understand that it's something provincial treasury would like to get numbers on, on sort of a percentage basis.
On an impressionistic basis, the feeling is that the improvement in collections is not just in the nominal amounts, but in fact in the percentage of outstanding indebtedness. But that's simply an impression, and I think it would be useful, as the member suggests, to be able to track that year over year as a measure of performance. I think that suggestion has been well received over on this side of the aisle.
F. Gingell: The minister will note that that little spiel in the report refers to there being $95 million in overdue student loans. If we knew what the defaulted student loans were at the beginning of the year -- because we know that $8.5 million was collected -- that might give us a feel for it.
So I wonder if in your briefing papers you happen to have the total amount of student loans in default at March 31, 1995. I think Brian has it.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll give the number, and then I'll try to explain it.
The number at the beginning, at March 31, 1995, would have been about $77.8 million, but the amount of additional indebtedness that came in, in that following year is about $24.6 million, which would bring the total to in excess of $100 million. In fact, we ended up with $95.5 million. So when you add the increment of new indebtedness that we don't control, which is added to the program, in fact the amount relative to that has come down. The nominal amount has gone up. The member can understand why I wanted to add the further explanation.
F. Gingell: That's exactly the kind of information that I think would be worthwhile to have throughout the whole of the estimates documents. You know, the story is that $24 million of previously made loans were defaulted. We collected $8.5 million; we got a further $16 million loss to the citizens of British Columbia. Is that $8.5 million only the cash collected, or does it include accounts which you've managed to reorganize and get back on a sound basis so that payments have started and they've really moved from being defaulted loans back to the status of being loans within conditions laid down?
Hon. A. Petter: It's just cash collected, so more are brought into good standing than that number alone would indicate.
F. Gingell: Does the minister have any notation in his briefing documents as to the size of the contingent liability the province has for student loans that are presently in a satisfactory state and are in the hands of financial institutions?
Hon. A. Petter: No, I don't have that number at hand. But, again, it's a number that we can try to track down, if I understand what it is the member's seeking. I take it he's seeking a number that approximates the liability in the non-defaulted portion of the portfolio, assuming that those loans do not continue to be paid off. We do not have that number here, but I'd be happy to try to provide an approximation of it as soon as we can lay our hands on it.
F. Gingell: I really don't need to know the amount; I just would like to have a feel for how much it is. It's a number that you should be aware of in your ministry, because it is a contingent liability. These are loans which the province has given a guarantee for, as I understand it, and they may well be in the public accounts. But you're welcome to let me know the size of that number at a later date.
[ Page 4442 ]
There has been a certain amount of talk about new arrangements for student loans -- changing the way they are handled. I understand from earlier discussions, not in the Legislature but outside it, that there's a much larger percentage of student loans these days proceeding with financial institutions without government guarantees. Is there any initiative by the ministry to try and remove guarantees from student loans? What is the current status in that regard?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the way it works is this. The Ministry of Finance is charged with the responsibility only with respect to the bad loans, the defaulted loans. The loans in good standing remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. In direct response to the member's question -- and I don't want to tread on the toes of my colleague the Minister of Education, Skills and Training -- my understanding is that with respect to new loans, those no longer represent a contingent liability of the province; they are not a guarantee by the province. They are in fact carried by the financial institutions themselves. So there is some measure of existing loans in good standing that do not fall under that policy that would represent a potential liability for which the province holds a guarantee. But in terms of looking forward, that will no longer be the case with respect to future loans.
F. Gingell: So the amount of this contingent liability is just coming down. It is only being reduced; nothing is being added to it.
Hon. A. Petter: The answer to the member's question is yes, it is starting to come down now, because we're not taking on additional contingent liabilities. If the member were to look at the tables in Public Accounts, volume 2, 1995-96, page B35, I think he would find that in 1995 the net outstanding guarantees authorized pursuant to section 56 of the Financial Administration Act
F. Gingell: Basically, as I understand it, the status at the end of 1996 was that there was a total of $270 million in these loans, $94 million of which had been paid out to the bank -- they are now receivables and are under the auspices of provincial treasury to collect -- and $174 million that are good and on which the payments are being made.
Hon. A. Petter: That's my understanding, too.
F. Gingell: Moving on from the issue of student loans, I'd like to read from the minister's report:
"Actively managed government daily cash balances to minimize overdraft payments and maximize returns on any bank balances. Given the size and scope of government and the uncertainty of timing of some cash flows, this is a challenging task. The target for forecasts is to be within an acceptable range 70 percent of the time. In 1995-96 this target was achieved and has been met for the past three fiscal years."So I went back to think about what it meant by "achieved." The forecasting of daily receipts and disbursements will affect, of course
[5:00]
[R. Kasper in the chair.]Hon. A. Petter: I think the member has misconstrued what is being targeted. What's being targeted is to try, on a daily basis, to have zero balances in all of the bank accounts that are at issue here. That's the goal: to try to make sure that we meet that target within the ranges that are set. I think the member is engaging in a diversionary tactic here. It may be intentional, or it may not; I don't know. But that's the answer.
F. Gingell: No, I wasn't engaged in a diversionary tactic. I know this government has no problem making sure they don't have any money in the bank all the time. That's the way they seem to run this business.
I thought that what this indicated was the ability of provincial treasury to estimate and forecast the receipts on a day-by-day basis so that they would be able to advise the debt management branch as to borrowing requirements, as well as to ensure that the funds are available to pay off and enough money comes in from the debt management branch. So when I looked at this, I thought, well, that means that provincial treasury has good communications with people who are in the business of forecasting and producing estimated financial statements. I mean, I still deal with the issue of how you could, at one point in April, believe you have a $16 million surplus and a month later decide you've got a $300 million deficit. Surely the cash forecasting is going to tell you: "We're getting behind; the money's not coming in."
Where is it not coming in from? Well, it's not coming in from corporate income taxes. It's not coming in from forest revenues. Even the minister said, when he was Minister of Forests
But I would have thought there was a relationship between provincial treasury -- and not just ensuring that daily balances are able to be handled, but in relationship to what the original plan was
Hon. A. Petter: Again, I guess I'd say that, first of all, what provincial treasury is trying to do is manage the cash flow and debt requirements of government on a day-to-day kind of basis. Remember, they're doing it on a cash basis. whereas, as the member knows well, the budgeting and forecasting is done on an accrual accounting basis. Provincial treasury is very much focused on the cash requirements and on a shorter-term perspective in terms of ensuring that the accounts are kept, as I say, at a zero balance to the greatest extent possible. And meeting those targets
I was going to say some other things that were, perhaps, going to set the record straight, but I think I'll resist doing so.
F. Gingell: I would in no way wish to discourage the minister from setting the record straight. I'm sure we both have a
[ Page 4443 ]
The description in the annual report of the provincial treasury department speaks of risk management. I presume that this special account for risk management
There is a substantial increase, roughly $4.5 million, in program management costs. This is just a supplementary document that I have. I'm wondering where that comes from. Is that from anticipated additional claim costs in '97-98?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is yes. It's purely claims. The administrative costs have been split out separately. This is not an increase in administration but an increase in expenditures due to an anticipated increase in claims.
F. Gingell: So if we look back to the year '96-97, you actually incurred or had to accept and meet roughly $4 million more than you had originally budgeted. Was that caused by some unusual factor?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to take the House's time any longer. We are trying to provide the member with the information orally, but in fact we don't have it to hand. If the member would allow me, I'd be happy to provide him with the information on that: what accounts for that number and how it's broken down -- in writing, if that's satisfactory.
F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could identify for members of the committee the kinds of risks that are involved in the administration of this fund, and whether the provincial government carries any external insurance coverage.
Hon. A. Petter: The account acts as a funding source for self-insurance initiatives of government in a number of different regards, including schools, universities, colleges and institutes, hospital programs, the directors indemnity program and a master insurance program for service providers to the social program ministries. I could again provide the member with a more detailed breakdown. Essentially, this is a self-insurance program that covers a range of different clients -- all ministries, and everything from the Islands Trust to the B.C. Securities Commission to various Crown corporations and the like.
F. Gingell: I would presume that it covers issues that deal more with fire insurance -- the insurance of tangibles -- rather than holding universities harmless from actions they may take in respect to suits for wrongful dismissal.
Hon. A. Petter: The kinds of risks that the fund is designed to insure against are things like property liability, crime coverage, etc. -- all of those. It would not include wrongful dismissal. But the fund itself only becomes
F. Gingell: Then basically what the government is doing here is acting as an insurance underwriter. You had originally anticipated making a profit of $2.6 million in '96-97. The evaluation of that at the end of the year is that there turned out to be a loss of $1.5 million. When we look at '97-98, we're facing a loss of roughly $4.4 million. Has the provincial treasury department re-evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of continuing this service or investigated outside insurance carriers?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the short answer is that yes, these issues have been looked at on an ongoing basis. The programs have proven to be an effective method of funding losses and, for example, have been estimated to have saved the government in excess of $100 million since 1986. I think the estimate is $112 million.
[5:15]
F. Gingell: I take it that this accumulated surplus at the beginning of '96, which I presume that it is, of some almost $17 millionHon. A. Petter: I guess it sort of begs the question of what a market value is. I think the answer is this. This is set up on sort of a cost recovery-type basis, so there's no margin for profit to that extent. And given that within the insurance business there is a margin for profit, yes, it's less than market value.
F. Gingell: Well, the minister made the claim that since 1986 it saved the province in excess of $100 million. I was wondering if the minister could tell us how we've arrived at that number.
Hon. A. Petter: It's the ministry's best calculation of the difference between what it has had to pay out versus what it would have had to pay out had it purchased insurance and then made the pay-out in the form of premiums rather than through benefits under this fund.
F. Gingell: Coming back to my original question, which was, "Is the billing done for assuming the risk to the ministries and others at a discount from market rates?" I guess the answer is yes. You have accumulated in this account some $17 million at the beginning of the period, anticipated to be down to $11 million at the end of this year because of the $6 million you anticipate losing -- I don't like that term -- but excess of expenditures over revenues will bring it down to $10 million. So the assumption is that the amount of the revenue is at a substantial discount to market.
In looking at the accountability issues and improved evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of government in the insurance and risk management special account, is there an effort made every so often to find what the cost would be to have this risk insured by outside underwriters, to ensure that in fact you are doing the most efficient and effective job in this area?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there have been efforts made. The savings number I gave earlier was an attempt to compare the cost versus private underwriters. But I guess it becomes difficult to get quotes that are comparable from private underwriters who don't think you're going to insure with them. What the ministry is now doing to try to ensure that there is a basis for evaluation that is useful is looking to comparators in other jurisdictions, to compare administration costs -- compare the costs incurred in administering this program and in its effectiveness against other similar public jurisdictions and their experience -- which I am told is providing a useful measure in the absence of good private sector information that is comparable.
[ Page 4444 ]
F. Gingell: In addition, I note in the report that provincial treasury extended the province's $1 billion line of credit for two years. Was that line of credit with a chartered bank, or was it with a funding group for short-term borrowing?
Hon. A. Petter: It's a consortium of international banks, co-led by Royal Bank and Swiss Bank.
F. Gingell: Then there is a final interest rate negotiation; i.e., whatever moneys are borrowed on that short term -- and I presume it is a short-term line -- are at some calculated interest rate that refers to prime or some European dollar arrangement or whatever. Can the minister advise us, roughly, of what that interest rate is in relation to prime?
Hon. A. Petter: This is an area where I'd be happy to get the information for the member, but we just don't have the specifics concerning the rate on hand.
F. Gingell: It's not necessary for the purposes of these estimates, but I would be interested in it subsequently.
The '95-96 report indicates that it was extended for two years. It doesn't say what time of year in '95-96. In fact, that two-year extension could have expired by now. I was wondering what the current status is. Has it been subsequently extended, is it currently under negotiation, or is not until the end of the year?
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that it was extended last year for a period of five years.
F. Gingell: I won't continue on that subject for the moment. I'd like to continue
There were notations in here of potential contracting out of collection practices. I know that you had collection agents here in the summer of '95 and '94, because they came to see us as well as government. Can the minister advise the committee, first of all, if private collection agents are being used for any collections? Secondly, if they are, in what field of accounts receivable? I presume provincial treasury is also concerned with issues to do with fines and debts that may arise through the Ministry of Attorney General. Thirdly, what has your experience been in relation to cost-efficiency?
Hon. A. Petter: Indeed, the services of private collection agencies are being used primarily in the area of student loans but, I'm also told, in other areas by other ministries -- for example, Medical Services Plan premiums and the like. I take it that agencies are used -- as one would expect -- in areas where collections have proven difficult, and the experience has been that they have succeeded in collecting substantial revenues. Therefore I guess the experience has been, by and large, positive.
Let me give you an example: 2,390 student loan accounts totalling $12.7 million were referred to collection agencies. Since May of 1995, combined revenue collected by the two agencies during this time was $780,363, less a commission of $154,026, so the net recovery to government in respect of that activity is $626,337. We continue to monitor the situation, but there has been some success with the use of collection agencies.
F. Gingell: Just to refer back, that was on $26 million worth of accounts transferred?
Hon. A. Petter: The amount was $12.7 million that had been referred to collection agencies.
While I'm on my feet, I'd like to cover off a matter we just raised a few minutes ago, and that's the line of credit and what the rate is. It's a floating rate, a slight premium over LIBOR, which is the London Interbank Offer Rate. I'd appreciate it if the member doesn't ask me what the rate is of LIBOR.
F. Gingell: While we're on this issue of collection agencies, if one turns to page 240 of Estimates, there is a new sheet which refers to commissions on collection of public funds. Is this the area that deals with the use of outside collection agents?
Hon. A. Petter: Let's see if I can get this right. The answer is no. The matters on the page referred to by the member are in respect of accounts receivable. Students loans, when they come on the Ministry of Finance books, are in default, and therefore there is not an account receivable against which they are charged.
[5:30]
F. Gingell: Now I know why I'm an accountant and the minister is a lawyer.The amount owing by the student, when it's transferred from the bank to the ministry when you pay it out, is an account receivable. Now, it may be an account receivable in default. If you look down under vote description (c) on this page, it says: "Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Yes. I'm sorry. Under (a): "Ministry of Education, Skills and Training
I wonder if all the fees were external. Some of them may well be recoveries or payments to the provincial treasury branch.
Hon. A. Petter: Given that this refers to the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, we're trying to ponder what exactly it does refer to. Again, I'll speculate. It may be the arrangement with respect to the banks under the new student loan program. It's a very small amount. To the best of our knowledge, it would not include the commissions. But I'll check on that, and if that's an error, we'll make sure the member is apprised of it.
F. Gingell: But this is the place in which you're showing the ability to pay by a deduction from remittance or by a separate cheque back to the collector. The commission is on the collection of debts on behalf of government. Is it all external? Or is it partly external and partly internal?
Hon. A. Petter: In respect of page 240, which the member is referring to, it would all be external, not internal.
[ Page 4445 ]
R. Thorpe: I guess now we're going to move along to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. I'll just give the minister time to get staff there. I'll just give them a few minutes to get organized.
With respect to this area, it appears that the FTEs have moved from 51 to 58. Could the minister please explain this increase in FTEs?
It appears that perhaps staff hasn't been able to get here, and given the hour, does it serve a meaningful purpose? I'd like to suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Then we can be organized at 6:35.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[5:45]
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:48 p.m.
The committee met at 2:34 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY
(continued)
Hon. S. Hammell: Just for the benefit of the members here, I'd like to introduce my staff. I have with me Valerie Mitchell; she's my co-deputy minister. I have Linda Martin, behind me; she's my assistant deputy minister. Anne Kirkaldy, the executive director of management services, is on this side. My staff will be assisting me throughout this.
L. Stephens: I'm happy to be back at the Women's Equality estimates again. Hopefully, we can get them wrapped up today.
I just want to make a comment about no-fault insurance, which we ended the Women's Equality estimates on in the last session. In light of the announcement that the Premier has made about the changes to ICBC and the fact that at this point in time no-fault is not on the agenda, I would say that I am very pleased that this is the decision that has been taken by the government. I would hope that some of the debate around Women's Equality and the no-fault issue and its effects on women would have had some impact on the government. I would hope that the minister argued around the cabinet table for women and about the serious consequences of a no-fault system to women -- notwithstanding the report that the minister had commissioned. I think we had ample time to go through that report and look at the arguments that were made on behalf of the particular individual who wrote it and at his position on women and no-fault. I think that with careful reading it was clear that he was not making the point that no-fault benefited women in any way, shape or form. I think his main point was that it could not be shown to disadvantage women, and that in fact the tort system disadvantaged women as well as the no-fault system.
So I think there were a lot of issues in that particular study that, in my view and in our view, were not valid. It would have been very advantageous for the opposition to point out those inadequacies in that particular study. So I'm pleased that the government has seen fit not to bring in no-fault, particularly in view of what all of the evidence seems to suggest, which is that it has extreme liabilities for women.
Moving on, I want to talk a little bit about transition houses. There are a couple of transition houses that have not been able to receive funding. I understand that there are four of them. The Saltspring Island Transition House is one. Could the minister talk about the funding for transition houses -- those four in particular -- and about whether or not Saltspring is able to carry on in some manner? Has there been any money at all found to enable Saltspring to continue on -- bearing in mind, again, that this particular transition house is on an island, and that the women on that island have very little choice in where they may find safety?
Hon. S. Hammell: There are a number of transition houses that have been deferred in terms of funding. But one of the recent transition houses that we have funded is one on Haida Gwaii. Hearing your concern for island transition houses, I understand the added considerations that have to be made because people are on an island. In fact, I met with some of the people from the Saltspring Island Transition House, and we discussed some of these very issues. My ministry is working with Saltspring and exploring funding from other ministry areas as well as other sources of funds.
L. Stephens: The other three transition houses that are awaiting funding
Hon. S. Hammell: I'll just provide you with some background first. The number of transition houses that we are now funding -- transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing -- is 84. We can see where we could easily fund another number of them, because we have demands from Victoria, from Nanaimo, from New Westminster and from a variety of communities that have made requests or have indicated interest in transition houses, as well as from Saltspring Island. So there's a number of transition houses open, and I'm sure that if we put a call out to the community, to British Columbia at large, we'd probably get even others who are interested.
[ Page 4446 ]
L. Stephens: There's a list, I presume, of individuals who are requesting funding money from the ministry for transition houses. Is it the case that there is a list? How many are on that list?
Hon. S. Hammell: What we have done is defer four transition houses that were in the process; they had indicated interest and were considering getting into a queue for funding. So those four plus Saltspring are currently in a queue.
L. Stephens: Again I'll ask the minister: what are the names of the four transition houses? How much money is involved? I presume that in the budget for this year there are some funds made available for funding the transition houses. When the minister says that funding has been deferred, I'm assuming that funding has been deferred until some point in the future. I would like to know if in fact she has money set aside in her budget that could be spent on these transition houses should the decision be taken to do so. Could the minister say if that is in fact the case? Is there contingency money there for these transition houses? How much are they looking for? When the time comes that the money is available, how much money will be given to these transition houses?
Hon. S. Hammell: Let me see if I can be very, very clear. There are not transition houses
We have deferred this decision. We would like to do more, but we, like other ministries, have had to balance what we need to do with the fiscal realities. In order to protect the existing services
The estimates that we are in today defer any future transition house programs. I cannot guarantee you anything beyond these particular estimates.
[2:45]
L. Stephens: Could the minister tell me how many societies have applied for funding for transition houses?Hon. S. Hammell: We have had interest from the communities of Nanaimo, Victoria and New Westminster. There was money put aside to begin a transition house or to look at the funding of transition houses in those three communities. Those three projects have been deferred.
L. Stephens: That's exactly what I was asking in the first place.
The contract reform that is currently taking place -- has that been completed?
Hon. S. Hammell: No. It's a governmentwide initiative, and this ministry is part of that initiative. The process is not yet complete.
L. Stephens: When does the minister anticipate the contract reform being complete?
Hon. S. Hammell: Our ministry is part of an interministry committee led by the Ministry for Children and Families, which is overseeing that contract reform. We are in the middle of completing a continuous contract, which means, if I recall correctly -- and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I don't -- that it's a contract that does not have to be renewed, and that as long as you are meeting the objectives of the contract, it can be rolled over. That is expected to be finished by the end of this year and be ready for implementation next year.
L. Stephens: I believe the minister is describing a rolling contract, and I presume that the level of funding with that contract would be guaranteed as well. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Hammell: The funding will be available, given the restraints with whatever money you have with any particular budget and any particular contract. What is more pertinent here is that the process is continuous. The money can change. For instance, if the service changed, then clearly the money would change. If we were comparing apples and apples, I would assume the money would be constant.
L. Stephens: Usually in business arrangements such as this -- which appears to be the path the ministry and the government are going down, to conduct the affairs of government in a much more businesslike fashion
With a rolling contract one of the biggest issues for non-profit societies is stability and continuity of funding. This is one of the reasons why they find themselves scrambling every year, not knowing whether they're going to get the money they have been getting or whether they're going to be offering new services that they will be funded for. It has got to the point where lobbying for funding is continual. They get one contract signed, and then they turn around and start negotiating for other contracts. An awful lot of time and effort is wasted in trying to move these kinds of programs forward.
My question is: given that with a rolling contract there will be services that individual societies will be adding or subtracting and from that there will be an addition or a subtraction in funding that goes with them, is the government looking at providing a percentage -- or a cost of living, if you like -- to those contracts each year provided that the level of service stays the same?
Hon. S. Hammell: In the estimates this year there is no increase for cost of living, but there is an increase for what I have termed -- and we talked about this earlier -- "low-wage redress" for assisting those people who are below what are standard wages for the type of service they supply. Each year I would assume that consideration would be made around priorities and how best money can be delivered to the service agencies.
I do share your concern around contract fishing or contract gathering. Many of the societies are so involved -- at least at the executive director level -- in completing a contract and ensuring their funding that they become totally absorbed by that aspect of their work, rather than the service, or they don't have as much time to focus on the service they are actually providing. Contract reform will benefit not only the service giver, but it will also be of benefit to the province as it
[ Page 4447 ]
tightens up. It standardizes language and expectations, and it provides a broad brush over a number of services that different ministries provide.
L. Stephens: Right now each individual society contracts separately with the Ministry of Women's Equality, with Human Resources or Health or whatever -- there are all kinds of contracts out there. The idea is to amalgamate and integrate these contracts. Is the ministry looking at one contract -- a master contract, if you like -- in a region? This is just hypothetical, but what I'd like to know is: is the minister thinking of
Hon. S. Hammell: What we're talking about is the difference between restructuring and actual contract reform, which is the essence of the contract itself.
The Ministry for Children and Families is, as I understand it, looking at contract restructuring. We are engaged more in contract reform, if you take those two differences. Our contracts are with very specialized service providers and don't blend as easily into the type of description that you're talking about.
L. Stephens: The Ministry of Women's Equality services for transition houses are indeed specialized and fall under rather narrow guidelines, and the townhouses, as such, do not contract with other community services to provide services through the transition houses at this point. However, that's something that could change down the road.
The annual general meeting of the transition house society that I, the minister and a number of her staff attended, I found extremely interesting. I was struck by the comment in a conversation that individuals working in transition houses are struggling with the new services that are required, the kinds of difficulties that are coming into their transition houses, the funding -- of course, it's always a problem -- services to children, and now the pressure to become more businesslike, if you will. It's moving out of the grass-roots area. Transition houses kind of sprang up as grass-roots organizations because there was a need for them, and now it's getting to the point where there need to be some organization and some standards in place. One of the workshops that I attended was on standards, and I thought it was very good.
I wonder if the minister would talk a little bit about the drive for standards. I certainly acknowledge the need for them, and I know other provinces have standards in place for their transition houses. But the one thing that kind of struck me when I was listening to the remarks of the participants was that many of them felt that if standards were in fact developed -- I was going to say imposed, but we're not going to be looking at imposing it; it's getting people to agree and come to consensus around what's needed -- a lot of people felt that the grass-roots feminist perspective would be lost.
I wonder if the minister would talk a bit about, first of all, what her ministry is going to be doing to try to bring about the much-needed standards for transition houses in the province for everyone's benefit. And this is for everyone's benefit; I don't think anybody, and certainly not I, would suggest that standards are in any way taking away or imposing anything on individuals or groups that is detrimental. So how is the minister going to forward her view -- and I think the view of a lot of people -- that there do need to be standards for transition houses and consensus built around that?
[3:00]
Hon. S. Hammell: There are two things that I just want to say before we start. If you want a very detailed and thorough briefing in this area, we would be very happy to give it to you. It is fairly complex, and it has objectives that are based on accountability and standards and all that kind of stuff, which is pretty straightforward but dry.When we spoke in estimates, I sort of went through the whole process of how transition houses came into being and how they were very much grass-roots at first. Obviously, coming from Langley
The critical factor in all this has to be the building of trust. Everybody has some power, and you have to in fact put those powers together in a way that is responsible to the community that funds them, as well as to the people actually providing the service. Other than to emphasize very clearly that this is being gently massaged and moved on the foundation of trust
Other provinces that have these standards are, as I'm sure you know, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. So again, we lean on the kind of advice and experience that has gone before us.
We will also be doing program evaluations which focus on client outcomes. Within the accountability framework, there are content guidelines for program standards. These guidelines identify subject areas for program standards, such as organizational quality, leadership, human resource management, health and safety, intake access, individual planning, etc. This is more the nuts and bolts of these standards that are slowly being rolled out from our ministry.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
L. Stephens: I do want to talk about program evaluation, but I'd like to talk about standards for a few minutes yet. Has there been money set aside in this year's budget for this process, for this initiative, to develop standards for the transition houses? If so, how much and what is the time line?
Hon. S. Hammell: The money for the development of standards is built into the contract with B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses, because they take on much of the work. They provide the leadership on the transition house side. We work within our ministry through the staffing that we have in
[ Page 4448 ]
our ministry. The time line we hope to have, given the fact that we are working with a group of people who are spread around the province and that we have to work with them over a period of time
L. Stephens: How much of your budget goes to the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses?
Hon. S. Hammell: I'll get that information for you.
L. Stephens: It would also be helpful if, along with that information, you could provide me with the roles and responsibilities of the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses for that money -- what you are giving the money for; what they are contracting to do.
Program evaluation is another issue that has come up, and it has generated a significant amount of discussion, as well. Could the minister tell me how much is set aside in her budget for this initiative? What is the time line on it, as well?
Hon. S. Hammell: If you recall our last conversation around this about a year ago, we talked about the management information system that we were putting up. That is the first piece that goes in for contract reform, because through that you gather your data back from your community. So there is money for MIS and some program evaluation once it's complete. We have in-house staff that are working on that project in Stopping the Violence.
L. Stephens: Does the ministry have sort of a mission statement or goals and objectives about standards? What vision does the ministry have for transition houses because of the movement to some very significant changes around service delivery, accountability, funding, regionalization, standards -- all of these issues now around transition houses? Does the ministry have a set of values and principles that they will be using to develop these changes to the way transition house services are delivered?
Hon. S. Hammell: Right now we are just finalizing the programs and policies around the Stopping the Violence and transition house operations. When we've completed them, which will be very shortly, we will get them to you.
L. Stephens: If I understand the minister correctly, this is just around the one program, the Stopping the Violence initiative. What I am asking is: does the ministry have a vision statement -- for want of a better word, and I think we all understand what a vision statement is -- for transition houses? Within that vision statement comes the view that women must be protected and children must be protected and that they must have the services in their communities -- commitments to those kinds of values and principles that you will then base your service on. The kind of service that you're going to be providing or encouraging is going to be provided for those transition houses. So is there a context around which you're making decisions on programs, program delivery, standards, core services, all of these kinds of things?
Hon. S. Hammell: There are two obvious places where this would be found, if I understand your question correctly. One is in the mission statement and the purpose of the transition house, to begin with. So you would look at that and understand what their goals and objectives are. The second part is in the contract. The contract you sign assumes a certain delivery of service. Through those two pieces, I think you would find much of what you need. If you're asking me if we specifically have a mission statement for transition houses, I'm not sure that we do, but I will double-check.
L. Stephens: Perhaps we're getting confused here and off the track. I'm not asking about the contracts that the ministry signs with the individual societies and about what the individual societies' goals and objectives are. That's what they base their principles and their services and programs on. I'm talking about the ministry. What I want to know is: does the ministry itself have a framework around core services that you as a ministry expect the transition houses to achieve?
I'll just quote from Alberta's here -- I have Alberta's core standards -- just so maybe this might help: "Core standards were based on two assumptions: that only those standards essential to ensure the safe and effective operation of service were necessary and that standards should not dictate in detail how services should be structured and delivered."
Those core standards covered three primary areas. They were client legal rights and physical safety; service planning, which includes a process for identifying and meeting individual client needs and monitoring plans developed; and administrative requirements concerning financial management, staffing and accountability, as well as facility equipment. Those were the core standards that applied to all of the women's shelters. So I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about whether in fact the ministry has that framework around which they are going to be developing the standards and the program evaluations.
Hon. S. Hammell: Standards have been developed through contract reform. They consider such things as identifying the organization's objectives, establishing human resource policies and practices consistent with the organization's objectives, defining authority, responsibility, accountability and ensuring people have the necessary knowledge, skills and tools to support their work. Within that accountability framework, there are content guidelines for program standards. And I alluded to them.
Let me be specific in terms of how that, then, reflects what I think we're both talking about. They may be described differently, but we're looking at
[3:15]
But I think that yours may be cut[ Page 4449 ]
L. Stephens: I will take advantage of a briefing about some of the changes in the ministry, as well.
We talked about standards and benchmarking. And I'd like to ask about compliance review or monitoring or whatever you want to call it. Will there be a yearly inspection or an 18-month period -- or whatever number you want to choose -- when there will be monitoring and inspection and compliance reviews of the facilities to make sure that in fact the physical plant is adequate, that the services are being delivered and that everything in the contract has been, and is being, dealt with?
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.
L. Stephens: Could the minister explain more fully what that compliance review will look like? Will it be once a year? Who will be doing the monitoring?
Hon. S. Hammell: We have field staff. Our regional coordinators currently do that monitoring and will continue to do it. They do regular monitoring and a yearly review.
L. Stephens: The services that are provided through the transition houses
Hon. S. Hammell: As you mentioned earlier, the transition houses are very concerned about continuity and stability. You were talking, actually, in the larger perspective of the services that are out in the community. The transition houses, as well as other programs, are worried about that, also. We have no intention of disrupting it, but we'll follow through on contract reform and accountability. So within the application of those guidelines, as long as guidelines are met, I see no reason for any difficulty around those issues.
L. Stephens: The concern I heard was that there would be competition for services in a town, in a city or in an area. The question that was asked was: is everyone going to have to come forward and bid on that service again under this new contract? A couple of people said no; their understanding was that the existing services would remain where they were. Existing services that are presently being delivered by the organizations that are delivering them would remain the same. But any new services that were developed would be open to competition, and groups would be bidding on new services. Is that in fact what is happening?
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, that would be the case, in general.
L. Stephens: There was a task force on program standards development that was to be completed, I guess, shortly. It should be done in the next few days or so. Is the report complete?
Hon. S. Hammell: What I will do is find out where it is in its process and get back to you.
L. Stephens: One of the other concerns I heard is that with the restructuring of the Ministry for Children and Families, there's a lot of uncertainty and a lot of services not being delivered. I'm hearing it in a lot of places in the community, but also in the transition house area. Because of all the upheaval that's going on with Children and Families, and so much of what Children and Families impacts on is women, particularly women with children
Hon. S. Hammell: You cannot go out into the community without hearing about the changes that are involved in the Ministry for Children and Families. Clearly, if you have that kind of enormous change going on -- the blending of programs, the move to a more holistic approach -- then you find concern. And yes, I've heard it. I have passed what information I have on to the minister, and my ministry is at a variety of tables, working through some of these changes with Children and Families.
You may realize -- I don't know if you do realize -- that the Children Who Witness Abuse program moved to Children and Families, though we still administer the program. It makes sense in terms of the delivery of that service, as they're often attached to the transition house or the sexual assault centre.
But yes, I hear it. I have spoken with the minister. The people in my ministry are working not only in the field but here with some of the issues in assisting where possible.
L. Stephens: Also at the annual general meeting, in the minister's remarks on the Friday evening, I must admit that I was surprised when she talked about domestic violence legislation. I will paraphrase what I thought I heard her say so that we make sure that it is in fact what she said.
She was looking at conducting some consultation -- with various groups and interested parties and transition houses and those around the province that are familiar with violence against women -- through the summer, the fall and the early spring with a view to drafting government legislation to deal with domestic violence, the plan being at this point in time to introduce it in the spring session of '98. I wonder if the minister could confirm that that is in fact what she said and meant. Perhaps she could tell the committee what has been done so far and what is involved in this year's budget to meet that objective.
Hon. S. Hammell: Let me go back again to the estimates of last year, when you raised the issue of the legislation from Saskatchewan. I understand you have tabled it at least twice, and maybe three times -- the legislation from Saskatchewan. I made a commitment -- in the estimates, I think -- that I would look very seriously at that legislation -- which we have done.
We are in the process of consultation with the women-serving agencies around legislation that would be crafted particularly to fit the situation here in British Columbia -- tailored to our particular situation. What we are looking at is
[ Page 4450 ]
consulting to see whether there is a need to bring in legislation to fill certain gaps where we can intervene on behalf of women in abusive relationships.
Primary consultations have taken place with the police, Crown counsel, the Law Society and some women-serving agencies. These consultations have told us a couple of things that we really need to stop and listen to. We must not do anything that decriminalizes violence against women, and there is a grave concern around that issue. We must continue to enforce our Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. We must be mindful of the safety of women and not introduce measures without thinking of long-term outreach and safety concerns.
We've heard these from the initial reaction, and we feel that before making any change, we must work through those changes so there's a broad level of support not only with the enforcing agencies but with the women who serve this particular community. Those consultations will start sometime in the summer or early fall, and we hope to finish them by December of '97, so that if there is legislation to be crafted, it could be ready for next year's session. That depends on the working through of the issues with the community.
L. Stephens: I'd like the minister to explain "decriminalize." I've heard this before, and I don't understand. I'm very unclear on what people mean when they say decriminalize. Could the minister explain that, please?
[3:30]
Hon. S. Hammell: Under the VAWIR policy, if you go to a house, you charge. If the evidence is there, you charge the person. That removes the person from the house. It is looked at as a criminal charge. The fear is that you will remove this person without charging, by moving through some other system and going around the VAWIR policy. It is a very, very significant and, I think, real concern that we have to be absolutely sure that any move we make does not decriminalize.L. Stephens: That's absolutely bizarre.
Hon. S. Hammell: The legislation is a civil remedy; it is not a criminal remedy. That is where the concern lies. It goes to a civil court, not a criminal court. The Saskatchewan legislation is a civil proceeding.
L. Stephens: Under the Saskatchewan legislation, the justices of the peace that are empowered to grant emergency intervention orders have the full force and effect of the criminal law. The justices of the peace do not charge; the police charge. The perpetrators are taken to the specially trained justices of the peace, and the justices of the peace make the emergency intervention orders that have the full force and effect of criminal law. Not only does it have the full force and effect of criminal law, but if the individual who has an emergency intervention order against them transgresses that order, they go straight to jail, with no warrant having to be issued. They go right to jail.
That is not what happens today. If the minister looks at the legislation much more closely, I think she'll find that it has a lot more teeth in it than anything that has been contemplated here. It does anything but decriminalize; it does exactly the opposite. It's also a tool that allows
Right now there are lots of people that abuse their ex-partner or their partner and walk away, and nothing is done. They can remove them from the house, but what do they do with them? Nothing. That sometimes makes them angrier, and they come back. There is nothing done until someone gets hurt. Then they decide to issue a restraining order. We all know that restraining orders and peace bonds aren't worth the paper they're written on. They're just useless.
In my mind, if you've got somebody
[J. Kwan in the chair.]
Under the Saskatchewan legislation, they are charged. They are taken to a court that is available to women all across the province. Because they use justices of the peace, these abusers know that the justice system and the government mean business. "If you do this, this is what happens to you right now -- not six months from now, not 18 months from now, not two years from now, but right now. And if you transgress, you go straight to jail." Now, in my mind, that is not decriminalizing the process. It does exactly the opposite.
What I find extremely frustrating, as members can probably tell, is that in this province there isn't that very strong message to these abusers that it is not acceptable -- that this is not acceptable behaviour, period. The only way they're going to get that message is if somebody stands up and says: "This isn't allowed, folks. This isn't allowed; we won't tolerate it." Until we do that, we're going to have more and more and more transition houses and more and more abused children and women. It's just going to go on until somebody stands up and says, "This isn't acceptable, and this is what will happen to you if you persist in this kind of behaviour," because the more they get away with, the more they're going to do. I mean, that's a fact, and it's proven.
So I would suggest
As far as the RCMP is concerned, I know the Attorney General likes to talk about how the government can't force the RCMP to do whatever they would like them to do. Well, I don't buy that, either, because the RCMP is under contract in this province. They contract for certain services, and they will provide those services. For the RCMP, particularly, to take this long to release a report into their investigative procedures from the Gakhal and the Velisek investigations in Vernon is absolutely shameful. I would hope that the government is trying to find out what went on there as quickly as possible to make sure that that doesn't happen again, either.
There are all of these issues around family violence and making sure that the police and the prosecutors understand what the dynamics are and what needs to be done. I'd like to hear what the minister's views are on making sure that we deal with these issues in a very upfront, timely and straightforward way. People who abuse women and children don't understand subtleties; they only understand that when they're not allowed to do a deed such as this, they're simply not allowed to -- and that if they do, they go jail.
[ Page 4451 ]
Hon. S. Hammell: You and I share the same values around trying to ensure that women who have experienced family violence don't experience it again, or become victims. So we share the same perspective. I guaranteed you last year that I would take a very serious look at the Saskatchewan legislation. I thank you for bringing it forward the number of times that you have. I'm going to take that piece of legislation, as well as other concepts, and look at our policies and our procedures to see, through a consultative process, where and what we should do to strengthen them. I am as vigorous and as committed to this as I know you are, and if there are gaps we can identify, we'll bring forward whatever we can to ensure that women are safe in British Columbia.
L. Stephens: Now that I have that out of my system
On the other side, there are some who, I think, need to be
We were talking about the Gakhal and the Velisek cases in Vernon. I know the Vernon Women's Centre received a grant of about $15,000 from the ministry to do a violence study, and I understand it was to involve the lawyers, the Crown, RCMP, probation services, transition workers, victim assistance and hospitals -- the whole social services community. Has that in fact happened? Has it been completed? If not, when is it expected?
Hon. S. Hammell: The report is not in to us yet. But just on that same issue, we also worked and met with Josiah Wood, as he was doing his review, and went over the issues with him in preparation for his report, which should be due any time.
L. Stephens: I understand that Josiah Wood's report has been completed around the Gakhal and the Velisek cases, that it has gone to the RCMP, and that there is a copy of it floating around somewhere in the Attorney General's ministry.
Hon. S. Hammell: It's not public.
L. Stephens: No, it is not public, but it is there, and it's in the Attorney General's ministry.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: The minister has just said that she knows more than I do. Well, I was just going to ask her
Interjection.
L. Stephens: Oh, that I know more than the minister does!
Well, I was just going to ask the minister what she knew that I didn't know, so
Hon. S. Hammell: Nothing. [Laughter.]
L. Stephens: I guess what I'd like to do is really encourage the minister to press forward on this and be very aggressive with her colleagues in dealing with this, because that story is absolutely horrendous -- both of those stories. The Mooney one is another terrible story. There are a whole bunch of them. There are five that I can think of right off the top of my head -- women that were extremely poorly served by the police officers and the justice system itself. Those things have to stop, and the only way they're going to stop is by bringing forward these issues and making sure that the organizations realize what they have to change and how they have to change.
With this particular report, I very much look forward to it being made public. As far as the jury's recommendations are concerned, they are public. One of the recommendations that the coroner's jury made in regard to Women's Equality was the maintaining of client records containing assessment, intervention, programs and other relevant notes. Could the minister talk a little about that and whether or not that has in fact happened -- whether her ministry has been able to look at
[3:45]
Hon. S. Hammell: Prior to the coroner's recommendations coming out, we had provided our agencies with record management guidelines. Once the coroner's report came out, we reviewed those record management guidelines with our agencies.L. Stephens: What are the results of that?
Hon. S. Hammell: The result is that you
L. Stephens: Is that in fact happening? Is the ministry conducting compliance investigations, or whatever you want to call them, around that kind of an issue? Is the ministry trying to determine whether in fact that's being carried out in all the transition houses?
Hon. S. Hammell: That is part of the review of contract management and will be part of the process of getting a contract with the ministry -- to adhere to the guidelines.
L. Stephens: We'll move on a little bit. I want to talk about the Attorney General's Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. It is under the Attorney General, but it does, of course, impact women. That's why it's there.
What I'm hearing is that it's too discretionary -- that there are areas around the province where it is not being followed at all, other places where it's being followed very well and others that are just kind of hit-and-miss. It depends on this member, on that member, on who's on duty, on a lot of things.
From my reading of the policy, it doesn't appear to be discretionary. It's something that the police forces must follow.
[ Page 4452 ]
I spoke with the Attorney General on this issue during his estimates and tried to impress upon him the fact that there needs to be more training around the dynamics of domestic violence and what it is, so that police officers understand that this isn't just a tiff or whatever they may think it is -- that there are some serious underlying issues around domestic violence and some serious consequences of domestic violence.
I wonder if the minister could talk about what her ministry is doing to encourage the Attorney General to strengthen this policy or to make some changes to it.
Hon. S. Hammell: This question goes directly back to the consultation around any changes that we can make to increase the tools, to find ways to make more effective decisions around domestic violence or family violence. This is part and parcel of the consultation process that we hope to be finished by December. The Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, any possible changes or new legislation -- all that is part of the consultation that we hope to complete.
L. Stephens: Part of that new consultation and part of the services -- or, possibly, new services -- around and in transition houses could be educating the women who come there on what their rights are, what services are available to them and some of the dangers of the justice system, because I'm sure there's a lot of women who think that the justice system is there to protect them and that they're going to get justice, when, in fact, we know that that is not always the case and that sometimes accessing the justice system is more harmful to them than some other areas.
So I wonder
Hon. S. Hammell: When we assign our transition house services, part of the services include the provision of resource information to enable women to explore their options and define their goals
L. Stephens: The term "advocacy and support" is very broad. So I wonder if the minister is looking at perhaps spelling out what some of those advocacy and support systems may be -- if it's going to court, attending court with an individual, helping them find suitable housing or those kinds of issues. But I wondered if there was something more definitive than simply advocacy and support -- advocacy and support for what?
Hon. S. Hammell: I think the need to keep it broad allows for variations within communities. Sometimes there are other service agencies that pick up some of the responsibility around this area. Sometimes the transition house does it in particular.
Your focus, if I'm hearing you correctly, is on the legal aspect -- to help women through the legal system. You have victim services; you have special services; you have the police services that assist women in these areas. So if you keep the definition broad, it doesn't exclude and does include a variety of supports for what women might need.
They might not need any legal support. They may need another type of support more. They may need help finding housing, which you mentioned. But I think it's very difficult to prescribe in detail exactly what kind of support the people are obliged to give, given the variety of circumstances around the province.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
L. Stephens: I was using the legal as an example -- just an example as to what kind of advocacy and support could be provided. I think there can be some tighter parameters drawn around simply advocacy and support. You know, there can be some definitive statements made about the kinds of advocacy and support that women can expect at a transition house.
One of the issues, too, is around a lack of coordinated victim services around domestic violence. That's something else that comes into play in the transition houses -- the victim assistance services.
There are all kinds of ways to integrate transition houses with community services that would serve women better, I think. Those are some of the things we have to look at -- to almost bring the transition houses out from behind the shadows, which is where they have been for a very long time, while still keeping women and children safe. It seems to me that a lot of the transition house services are just very tight in a little group.
The women go to the transition houses and to the services, and it's like they disappear from society. Then all of a sudden, they're off someplace else, or they go back because they're not able to access the services from the transition house in a meaningful way to make the determination whether to go back and what they can expect if they do go back. I think there are a lot more in-depth services than there are now that could be provided in a transition house that would be much more beneficial to women making those decisions. I would like to see some other services for women. Those would be around advocacy and support, but specific -- with much more support and weight to them, and more meaningful to women.
Just one instance. If a woman leaves the house and goes to the transition house, and she doesn't want to go back, she has no means of support and has to go to Human Resources to get social assistance. When she gets a settlement, if indeed she does get a settlement -- and it could be two or three years, or however long it takes, and meantime, she has $25,000, $30,000, $40,000 from Human Resources -- she must pay that $30,000 or $40,000 back to Human Resources out of her settlement.
How many women know that? They don't. These are some of the issues women have to know -- what the ramifications of their choices are. The GAIN Act is a huge problem. I don't know. Is there anybody in a transition house who knows how the GAIN Act affects women leaving a relationship? I don't think so. Those are some of the things they need to know.
Training. Is the minister advocating training for police and Crown counsel? Is that something you're advocating to the Attorney General, to make sure we have more knowledge and awareness around the dynamics of domestic violence -- the training to make that happen?
[ Page 4453 ]
Hon. S. Hammell: The direct answer to that is yes, but let me step back a little just to talk to you a moment about your concerns around the transition house system. You and I know that the women who work on the front lines in the transition houses do some of what I think is the most difficult and compassionate work on this planet. I mean, they deal with incredible issues around violence that are repeated and difficult to deal with, all caught in the complexity of human nature and the nature of the beast. They do an incredible job, and they often come from a place where they have experienced violence, or experienced it indirectly, or they come to that place with a great deal of caring for other people in their communities. There may be situations where they should know the latest up-to-date information on social services; but on the other hand, maybe people from the transition house should be able to put them in touch with somebody else, with the people who know that.
Just to make sure that I don't leave this without letting you know, we do have $200,000 that we spend on in-service training for people who work directly with the issues of violence. Your concern for people to be trained -- that's what I hear your concern is -- and to be there to support women is justified. Your comments are appropriate, in terms of doing that. Given our resources, we try to do that as best we can.
[4:00]
Moving over to the Attorney General and the training of Crown counsel, there is constantly ongoing training with the Crown counsel within the Attorney General's ministry. If you're asking me if I am funding training for the Crown counsel out of my budget, no, I'm not. You have a mixed message there.L. Stephens: I understood it, though. I understood what you were saying.
On the first part -- the transition house workers -- I know where many of them have come from, and I know why they're there. They remember and want to help, but they need help, too. Where they have the ongoing training to do their role within the transition house, I think they need help, and the women who come to them now need additional help. I think it's time to sort of step up a bit more the kinds of services that are provided to women who are coming to the transition houses.
Because of that, this is where I think there need to be more services included in the basket, if you like, of what is in a transition house. I'm not saying that it's the transition house workers who should be providing that service. I'm saying that the services should be available from the community. Again, perhaps in the same kind of integrated fashion or the case management concept that the Ministry for Children and Families is going to, you have health and justice and all those ministries that come into play.
The same thing is needed in Women's Equality on the transition house and certainly around the domestic violence issue. Health is a huge problem, as the minister knows. Justice is there. Children and Families is there. All those components are in transition houses as well. I think that the case management concept should be something the minister could look at.
As far as the Attorney General is concerned, I'm sure he has a lot of pressing issues around the justice system itself, and domestic violence is one of those issues. I think you need someone who is always saying all these kinds of things, to never let them forget: "What are you doing about it? What are you telling the police out there? What kind of programs are you putting in place to train the people you're responsible for around the dynamics of family violence? And what kind of legislation are you going to bring forward?"
Men, particularly, who are not involved or have no relationship with domestic violence simply don't think about it. They just don't think about it. They need someone there to say: "This is what's happening. This is what you can do about it. This is what I want you to do about it, and let's get it done."
One of the other areas I have heard people mention is that, along with the children's commissioner and the youth and family commissioner, we need a women's watchdog. We need to make sure there's an independent person who monitors government policies, practices, procedures and legislation and that the police are in fact doing what they're supposed to be doing, that Crown counsel is charging and that all these things that are supposed to be in place to protect women are in fact being followed -- and vigorously so. I wonder if the minister could talk about whether she thinks a women's watchdog or ombudsman would be something that would be appropriate.
Hon. S. Hammell: I have to think about it. You know, just off the top, I wouldn't answer yes or no. So I would have to think about it. But again, I do want to step back to just talking for a minute about the VAWIR policy and the Attorney General's ministry.
I work very closely with the Attorney General. We worked up the amnesty question together, along with the transition houses. We worked together around the Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. We work with him to pressure the system and ensure that the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy is followed, that the policy does not allow diversions. When something comes to my attention, then I pass it on to him. People will give me examples of where something is going wrong, and then I will pass that on to him. I just want you to be assured that this is an extremely important issue. Although the Attorney General actually deals with the enforcement, it's absolutely critical that we in our ministry and women in general hold everyone's feet to the fire around these issues.
L. Stephens: That is what I would like the minister to do -- to hold the Attorney General's feet to the fire on these issues and make sure that he is aware of the effects of practice and his policies on the lives of women as regards to domestic violence and to the two issues of vigorous arrest and prosecution. That's not happening. Again, that just says to the perpetrators out there that nobody cares and they can get away with it. I'd like to see some noises made in that direction, that vigorous arrest and prosecution are something that we're looking for.
I'd also suggest that a risk assessment procedure be advocated for, that the police put in place a risk assessment procedure to determine whether or not individuals who have been removed from the home
[ Page 4454 ]
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm sure you're aware that the number of spousal assault incidents where police recommended charges increased from 56 percent in 1992 to 74 percent in 1995. We don't have the stats for 1996. Within three years, there was a significant jump in spousal charges. Although I can't say definitely, I would assume that has a lot to do with the VAWIR policy and the fact that it has had some impact on the necessity to charge in a family violence situation.
I don't make it a regular habit of mine to defend various ministers, because I'm very sure they're more able than I am to do so, but this Attorney General has been very, very supportive around all the issues of family violence. He has a long record of holding that concern in the community, and has brought to this relationship -- at least, with myself and my ministry -- a very strong support.
You've mentioned two things: vigorous arrest and prosecution and the risk assessment procedure. I assume that you raised both of these with the AG. I will continue to do that on your behalf as well as mine.
L. Stephens: Just a comment on the stats, on the charges
An absolutely perfect example of that is the Gakhal and Velisek cases. How many times did these women go to the police and nothing was done? How many complaints did they make and how many incidences of violence were there that were never properly investigated? That's the issue -- the fact that clearly there should have been charges laid there, and there weren't. How many times does that happen?
The numbers as far as charges and convictions that the Attorney General gave to me, which the minister is now talking about, look good. The charges and convictions look good; it looks like yes, we are increasing. But the fact of the matter is
In the transition houses, records in sexual offence proceedings were a huge issue. The federal legislation now makes some pretty strong rules around what is and what isn't available for fishing expeditions. Would the minister comment on whether or not the transition houses in British Columbia are now fully aware of what they can and cannot do as far as releasing women's records around sexual offence proceedings?
Hon. S. Hammell: I would not speak on their behalf on an issue like this, but I was very aware of their concern as we went through this legislation, in particular their concern that the legislation would not be proclaimed prior to the dissolution of Parliament, which it was. They are very aware of it, and I assume are very clear about what the rules are.
L. Stephens: Whose responsibility is it, minister, to make sure that the transition houses are aware of what their legal rights are? Is it the role of the individual transition houses? Is it the role of the B.C.-Yukon? Or is it the role of the ministry to provide the information to the individual transition houses on what their rights are -- what they should or shouldn't provide to a counsel who has the nerve to ask? As we know, counsel will ask for the sun, the moon and the stars, hoping you don't know that you don't have to give it to them. That's what I'm asking: who has the responsibility to make sure that the transition houses abide by the law, but are not intimidated or coerced into giving things away along this line that they are not required to?
Hon. S. Hammell: I guess what I'm worried about here is assuming the records guidelines take that into full consideration, given the proclamation is not very old; it's only been a couple of months. Just sort of speaking from a very layperson's perspective, I assume that the responsibility for obeying the law falls to two sets of people. One is the board of the transition house itself, because those are the people who are ultimately responsible in front of the law. I would assume, given some time to shake things down, that we would incorporate what those guidelines are or how the new regime should be followed as assistance and support for those people who are then implementing the word of law. I see us playing a support role and advising people on what they must do to adhere to the law. But we do not provide them advice; we are not lawyers to them.
[4:15]
L. Stephens: No, I'm not suggesting that the ministry provide legal opinions. All I'm saying is that this new federal legislation impacts significantly on transition houses. It would seem to me that in this province, and in every other province, every single transition house should have a copy of what the legislation says so that they can provide the appropriate service to women coming to the transition house. Somebody should have the responsibility to make sure that they all have this information. I'm simply asking whether that's a role that the ministry sees itself fulfilling and being responsible for, or whether it's left up to the individual transition house societies to sort of look after that on their own, or whether it's something that the provincial association would do.I just want to comment, too, that I personally think
I would suspect that the transition houses are very much the same. So I would think that there needs to be someone -- and I would suggest that it's the ministry -- to make sure that for the information of transition houses, they are provided in a timely way with legislation or new changes to whatever it may be that affects their ability to provide service to the women that come to them.
Hon. S. Hammell: I think it's a good suggestion. We will check, because I would expect that the federal Status of Women department -- through Hedy Fry, the secretary of state -- would have provided that kind of information to the women. They're the ones that fought the fight internally with the federal government to ensure that that bill was passed. But I still think, and I take your point well, that it is a good suggestion. We will follow up on it.
L. Stephens: I want to move on a bit to criminal harassment. I know that the minister, in conjunction with the
[ Page 4455 ]
Attorney General, brought forward a policy and a brochure on this issue. I attended the workshop in Whistler on this, and it was very informative. I learned a lot. I think it's something that people are just becoming aware of and are beginning to grapple with -- what it means and what some of the subtleties are around criminal harassment, what is criminal and what is not.
Could the minister talk a bit more about whether or not the ministry is going to be pursuing further initiatives around criminal harassment in the coming year?
Hon. S. Hammell: Jurisdictions from across the country have indicated interest in what we've done around harassment. The first place that I'll be taking that piece to is the status of women conference, which is a federal, provincial and territorial conference.
If you're asking if I am going deeper into the issue at this point, no. But I am taking the work we've done here to other provinces.
L. Stephens: I'm thinking more in terms of educational initiatives, as to what criminal harassment is, what people need to know about it and how they can protect themselves. So is the ministry using some educational avenues at their disposal to talk more about this particular issue around universities, colleges -- those kinds of places, where there are large numbers of young people?
Hon. S. Hammell: We have distributed the information broadly, but do not have programs specific to educational follow-up, other than sort of generally. Whenever we can, we will highlight the information and take opportunities such as
L. Stephens: That leads us into the multicultural issues, and my colleague from Vancouver-Langara wants to talk a little bit about multiculturalism.
First of all, I would like to just simply say that this is an area that needs to have more work done around it for women who are disabled, and women who do not speak English. Those are areas where we have a very large population in British Columbia now, and I wonder if the minister could talk about whether or not her ministry is involved in providing services to the multicultural community, and what form those services might take.
Hon. S. Hammell: We see our work as being very broad-based. We represent or we work with, and we include and have a responsibility to, the needs of all the women of British Columbia: aboriginal women, women of colour, immigrant women, women with disabilities, lesbian women, young women, old women. We just try to have that very, very broad umbrella that includes all the women of British Columbia.
We reach out to the multicultural community in a variety of ways. Our programs are all available. For example, our Safer Future program and the four components of that are all available to the immigrant community, to work for
We also fund counselling services and support programs through the Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services Society, the Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society and a variety
The other one that was actually quite a lot of fun in terms of the immigrant community was the Internet program, because it managed to pick up a number of new Canadians and get them on the Net and up and running in that perspective. It was very welcome to that community.
As you probably know, previous to my being in this ministry, the pamphlet "Keeping Safe: Women at Work" was translated into a variety of languages and, again, got out into the community. I spend a fair amount of time trying to work with the women from other cultures. I find it not only interesting but very rewarding, because the women are very eager and new -- eager to learn about this country and some of the things that we provide in the ways that we look at things.
So yes, we do work with the multicultural community, and we spread it throughout our work as broadly as we can.
V. Anderson: In the multicultural area, I notice that the report we have available to us on the Multiculturalism ministry is one report for 1994-95. Does the minister currently have a report on Multiculturalism for last year? Is there a current plan for the coming year? That would be for 1996-97 and 1997-98.
Hon. S. Hammell: The '95-96 year is just being completed as we move into 1996-97. We are bringing that to a close and beginning to work on our next report.
V. Anderson: Could the minister just broadly express the themes of the last year or the main multicultural focus of the last year in the most specific terms she is able to? Are there different themes for the coming year? I know that in the past there were focuses each year according to changing circumstances. Could the minister indicate if there are some themes that were completed and highlighted in the last year, and are there other themes which are being highlighted in the coming year?
Hon. S. Hammell: The general themes of the ministry are those themes that are presented to the multicultural community, and they are the three themes of economic equality, stopping the violence and health issues. So those are the three themes that are presented, no matter where you come from as a woman. Then we may have projects that are more focused on, say, a multicultural perspective. For example, this year we will translate
So yes, there are themes and then there are specific projects around those themes, as well as the general work we do. For example -- and I think of this because it's in my community -- the Surrey Women's Centre has counselling services in Punjabi. Those counselling services were in Punjabi last year, they were in Punjabi the year before, and they will continue to be this year, because obviously it serves a fairly large Punjabi community. We try as best we can to integrate a multicultural component throughout our program and throughout the things that we do.
V. Anderson: Within your ministry, have there been multicultural or understanding programs for the non-immigrant community?
[ Page 4456 ]
Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is yes. One example I can give you is the work we do with the aboriginal community around family violence.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that response, particularly since the minister has not included the aboriginal community as part of the immigrant community. They actually don't think of themselves as part of the multicultural process, either.
I was thinking particularly that a lot of our difficulties in families are cultural issues that aren't "ethnic cultural issues." They're the cultural issues of whether you grew up in a rural or an urban setting and therefore have that kind of understanding. They're the cultural issues of whether you grew up on the east side or the west side of Vancouver. There are quite different understandings, as I've met couples in wedding interviews
[4:30]
What I'm asking is: in the very important area where you are dealing with personal relationships, growth and development, has the ministry taken multiculturalism as the basis for helping people to understand their own culture in relation to other people's cultures, not just immigrant or non-immigrant? That would apply to immigrants, because you will find that some immigrant persons, some of whom have, say, a Chinese background, have grown up in different cultural areas of the world or Canada. So there's a cultural component which goes beyond ethnic or religious or other understandings.Hon. S. Hammell: I couldn't agree with you more. Obviously culture, depending on how you're using it, means different things to different people. It means different things at different moments. I talk in my office about passing the culture on from one person to another. There's a tradition and a history that is gathered, depending on where you live, who you are, how much money you have, what colour you are, what sex you are and all those other things that make up who you are as a human being.
In our programs we deal specifically
If you are asking me if we have a program that deals specifically with cultural differences in a very broad way, I would say no. We deal with culture specifically within programs that have a specific focus, such as violence or the one called Children Who Witness Abuse.
Just to pass information on to you, we have counselling services in Polish, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and the South Asian languages. We've tried to broaden out and reach a number of those different cultures.
V. Anderson: Part of the reason for asking that is that we need to clarify what we mean by culture and multicultural. I relate that to the cultural competence of the staff and the people who are working within the program. I refer to the cultural competence study and booklet which were prepared by the Ministry of Social Services some years ago. Is that cultural competence model being used, and are there programs of orientation or training or education -- whatever term you want to use -- within the ministry for people who are part of ministry programs?
Hon. S. Hammell: Within our ministry we have the program Valuing Diversity, which is training for our staff. We did that last year, and we will be doing it again this year.
V. Anderson: I noticed in the earlier report that there was an advisory committee on multiculturalism within your ministry. Does that committee still exist? How is it made up, how many people are part of it, and who chairs it at the moment?
Hon. S. Hammell: Within the ministry we have a special adviser on multiculturalism, as well as the special advisory committee.
V. Anderson: Might I ask who the adviser is at the moment?
Hon. S. Hammell: It is Reeta Sanantani.
V. Anderson: Within the budget of the ministry, what kind of budget is set aside for the multicultural program in development and activities?
Hon. S. Hammell: We have within the ministry that special person. That person has that responsibility, plus the advisory team. Then throughout the ministry and throughout our programs as they hit the street, there are multicultural components. We don't cut it up into blocks. We fund the Surrey Women's Centre, and within that funding they deal with the multicultural component of their community. So I can't give you a specific number.
V. Anderson: Is there an evaluation, then, of the programs -- what the multicultural component is? So at the end of the year, can one indicate what has happened and what has taken place? Is there documentation of that?
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. That's what we do in our multicultural action plan each year.
V. Anderson: In the last printed report I had, it indicated as a summary, an overview
"The ministry has implemented a number of practical and effective multicultural approaches. To date, the ministry's approach to multiculturalism has been through service delivery rather than internal education. In 1995-96 we intend to support staff education and promote multicultural understanding through offering [experimental] workshops."So I understand there's service delivery, which you've talked about, on one hand. Then there is internal education, in which they talk about staff education and experimental workshops. Could the minister comment on those two areas?
Hon. S. Hammell: When you're asking on the two areas, are you asking about the service area and staff training or the staff training and experimental workshops -- the latter two?
V. Anderson: I was asking about the latter two, because I think you did comment on the service areas previously. So it's the latter two.
[ Page 4457 ]
Hon. S. Hammell: The staff training is the program around valuing diversity. We're having a little bit more difficulty identifying the experimental program. So can I get back to you?
V. Anderson: I'd appreciate that. Also I'd appreciate it if I might receive -- and probably our Women's critic would, too -- copies of your multicultural plan for last year and for the upcoming year. We'd appreciate receiving both of those.
What involvement does the ministry have with the Interministerial Committee on Multiculturalism, which is chaired by a representative from Multiculturalism B.C. itself?
Hon. S. Hammell: We are a member. We also worked with them to develop the multicultural part of the Internet grant so that we reached out beyond the traditional community.
V. Anderson: I was interested in the comment about the Internet grant. Could the minister explain a little bit more about the Internet program? It sounded quite intriguing and modernistic, if you like. So I'd be curious to know a little bit more about it in respect to multiculturalism.
Hon. S. Hammell: The Internet program was actually very exciting. It was funded under B.C. 21. We have $400,000, through which we had people apply for a training program. There were certain components. You had to train. Once you got your grant, you had to commit to training a number of people. There were certain things that we provided, and certain things the community group had to provide.
The purpose was to move more women onto the Net, because when we first looked at it, the figures that we were getting were that women were about 20 percent of the Net users. So the initiative was to try to bump those numbers up or at least make women more conscious of this particular tool.
AMSSA, which you know well, received $65,000 under that Internet program to reach out and work with the community. I can't remember the woman's name who works with AMSSA; maybe you can remember. But she was very excited about getting the grant and working with the communities and very delighted to be part of it. So it was good; it was very interesting.
V. Anderson: Could the minister
Hon. S. Hammell: The last of the funding in the
V. Anderson: So I gather that when the minister says they will be doing an evaluation at the end of this year, whether there will be a follow-up program will depend on the result of the evaluation, in my understanding. Is that right? The minister is nodding yes, so I'll take that as an answer.
The other question I would ask is: is the minister aware of and using the multicultural, multifaith calendar as part of her programming?
Hon. S. Hammell: Certainly I'm using it in my constituency. It sits on my desk. In fact, I was going to the gurdwara not this weekend but last weekend, was wondering about the occasion and did actually use it to see. It was the Monday that was actually the occasion. I think it was the fifth or sixth guru, but the birthday was there. I could relate it back to the fact that I was going to the gurdwara on the Sunday. So I certainly personally use it. I think it is a wonderful calendar.
V. Anderson: If you already have one, they don't need to make sure you get one. But I've been asking each of the ministries, when they're aware of it: "Is there any reason why it's not being promoted and used within the ministry?" I note that the Ministry of Agriculture in Ontario has for a number of years had their own version of the multifaith calendar. They use it extensively, as do others. With the commitment that our ministries have to multiculturalism and with it being the only tool of this kind available anyplace, I'm curious to know why it isn't used more effectively by the ministries in their programming.
Hon. S. Hammell: I would certainly be delighted to accept a calendar on behalf of the ministry and give it to my deputies.
V. Anderson: I will make sure it gets delivered to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your questions and your interest. I'll turn it back to my colleague.
[4:45]
L. Stephens: I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for the information package that she provided prior to today's estimates debate in response to requests that had been made in the previous debates. I want to thank her and her staff for that and for the time that they've taken to put that together. I appreciate it.One other comment I'd like to make before we leave this one
So that's the other thing. I just wanted to make the point that one of the other things that legislation does is allow early intervention and prevention initiatives to take place. That could be in the form of counselling or mandatory counselling or whatever, but it is possible if you've got some legislation. I just wanted to make that point.
A number of groups have said to me that legislation -- the new BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, particularly sections 10 and 11, which permit the Ministry of Human Resources to deny or reduce benefits -- has a huge impact on
[ Page 4458 ]
single mothers and single women. I don't know whether the minister was aware of that or not, but LEAF -- an organization that I know the minister is aware of -- has taken on that particular issue. I wonder if the minister has been able to do anything about that or whether in fact that's something that has escaped the gender lens.
Hon. S. Hammell: Can I just ask the member to be more specific on the question? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand it.
L. Stephens: This refers a little bit to what I was saying earlier about family assets. Sections 10 and 11 of the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act permit the Ministry of Human Resources to deny or reduce benefits, or may require that an applicant repay those benefits in cases where the ministry determines the woman might obtain access to these family assets. So that's one. As well, the fact that a lot of the financial assistance workers make some very arbitrary decisions about the hardship grant for single mothers and women with families is an issue that really needs to be looked at -- what's going on with the Human Resources financial workers. The fear of poverty is great; a lot of these women will not leave relationships because when they go to Social Services -- or Human Resources, as it is now -- many times the information they're given compels them to go back.
So I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about whether or not she is aware that the BC Benefits Act, and those two sections in particular, do not benefit women.
Hon. S. Hammell: As you know, B.C. Benefits was a massive change in the way they do things in social assistance, and there's been significant change within the community as a result. I understand some of these issues, and I'm prepared at any time to look at specifics in terms of the policy in specific cases and bring forward recommendations to the minister responsible. There is an appeal process. If a hardship grant has been denied, then there is an appeal process that people can go through.
I do want to highlight
I do want, though, to talk to you about the fear of poverty, and I believe that that is a significant barrier to women leaving an abusive relationship. I have been told this time and time again by people on the front line and by people who are academics -- and it's their business to do this kind of research. So I have made the whole area of economic equality a priority -- or probably a stronger priority to some extent. I believe that when we have narrowed that wage gap, when women are more economically independent, when they stay attached to the workforce, when the work allows them to take time out through those child-rearing years without loss of pension or loss of seniority, or there's some way of bridging these things in our community -- when we basically value many of the things that women do -- some of those barriers will be removed. That's not a solution that's going to happen tonight or today. But certainly the fear of poverty is one barrier for women leaving abusive relationships. My only response at this point in time -- because I do not think you could provide social services high enough to remove that barrier, nor could we afford it -- is that we have to keep women attached to the workforce in some way or another.
L. Stephens: I just want to make one comment. There is a division now: there are the individuals on social assistance who are not working, and then there are the working poor. The family bonus goes to those who are the working poor and not to the women that are on social assistance who have children. So there is a very clear inequity between people who are working poor and people who are on social assistance with children. And I think that's the issue here, and what we need to do is to try to find some way that we're not penalizing those people who are on social assistance -- many of them through no fault of their own. But that's the effect of these two pieces of legislation: the family bonus and BC Benefits. The family bonus does penalize people who are not working, because it takes the money from those who are not working and gives it to those who are working. I would suggest that the minister perhaps look into this a little bit more and discuss with her colleagues how these problems can be alleviated, because they're quite significant and they do keep women on social assistance.
Hon. S. Hammell: I just want to clarify a few things in my mind, and I'm sure that we'll agree in the end. My understanding is that people who are on social assistance get medical, dental and optical assistance. That is looked after by the social assistance system. Now the working poor get medical, dental and optical, so we have a parallel. Any clawback or any change in the rates has not affected families; it has only affected single people -- well, we should check that. I'm fairly confident, though there have been times when I've been confident and quite wrong -- that's fairly directly related
V. Anderson: I would have to agree with my colleague that families on social assistance were affected. Their yearly income was reduced, and it went to people who are working. That was one of our complaints, and it is still one of the complaints we have. I'd ask the minister to do some research on that for families. They did lose what to some people didn't seem like a large amount of money, but one of the things they lost was the benefit they got at the end of the year. That added up to quite a bit of money, which was then put into the other services. So there was a loss for families with children.
The other area I would focus on in that regard is the change to do away with the unemployed status that affects about 5,000-plus persons at the present moment. A significant number of those will be women who will go from receiving $596 a month to $500 a month at the end of June. So single, employable women will lose $96 a month, and that's a drastic change for them.
At the same time, there was a very inadequate process put in place where a person could apply for disability
[ Page 4459 ]
processes. I hope the minister will take note and will research for herself how many women will be involved, how many women are going to be caught in this transfer, how many will be disenfranchised and will drop from $596 to $500 a month automatically. They may or may not be able to retrieve it in the coming months. If the minister has a comment on that.
Hon. S. Hammell: We will be monitoring this particular aspect, and we are involved in the long-term evaluation of the policy.
[5:00]
V. Anderson: At this point monitoring is good, and it should be done. But I think the process should have been monitored earlier than this, because some people are going to be in very dire financial, emotional and personal difficulties because of this. The monitoring should have taken place earlier, so that these kinds of inadequacies didn't come into the picture.Let me just take a moment to come back to the previous topic of multiculturalism and present the multi-faith calendar to the minister and tell her that their plan is on sacred words for this year. The theme for next year is sacred sounds. I know that if the minister was to get her order for the ministry in early for next year, there could be some substantial savings on behalf of the ministry as part of the program, so I will have it sent across to you. I think without an awareness of the faith backgrounds, we're not aware of the cultural importance and significance.
Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to thank you very much, and I'll pass it on to my deputy.
L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a little bit about custody and access and highlight this for the minister. This issue appears to be another battleground that is emerging. The federal government is beginning to turn its attention to custody and access. The Attorney General assures me that it is happening in British Columbia, as well. It impacts on women, of course, and has some huge ramifications. A number of women's groups in this province are beginning to get active on this issue, as well. I wonder if the minister could talk about whether or not her ministry has done any studies or reports on the issue or if they intend to do so in the coming year.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. S. Hammell: Two years ago, we funded the custody and access group to do some
We hope to have a joint meeting between Minister Priddy and myself, because the issues fall across the jurisdiction of those two ministries. We are very aware of the problem and very concerned about it, and we will be working with not only the Attorney General but with Minister Priddy around this particular issue.
L. Stephens: I would like to highlight two things for the minister. One is "best interests" and the definition of that. The other is what constitutes demonstrable harm. Those are two concepts that are going to be under severe scrutiny, I would think, and we need to have some very clear definitions around what those mean. It seems to me that decisions will turn on the interpretation of those two concepts. Is there an ongoing direction of your ministry
Hon. S. Hammell: It will be one of the issues we will look at with those two other ministries, but to say that it is going to be the priority issue -- no. It certainly is an issue that, with those two other ministers, we will look at. I guess I can say to you again that I'm very aware of the problem, but I am also aware that it is a shared jurisdiction in terms of my activity. So we'll work with those two other ministries.
L. Stephens: Yes, it is, and with the Attorney General as well. There's a shared jurisdiction there, too. I would hope that the ministries involved will perhaps fashion a formal joint committee of some kind to really wrestle this one to the ground. It looks like and sounds like, from the men's groups that are forming and becoming very vocal, and from the women's fears, on the other side, that the same thing is happening.
To stay out in front of this
Hon. S. Hammell: I will keep you informed.
L. Stephens: There are some other brief issues that I want to talk about. Oh, I'm sorry; I apologize. The member for Vancouver-Langara has asked if he could
V. Anderson: On the same issue, regarding the interministerial crossover of concerns in the area of women in custody and in foster care, I raise both of those areas. What we've discovered in the past is that, in interministerial concerns, the concerned people got lost between the ministries.
I know that I've had occasion to phone ministries, and they would say: "Well, that was the other ministry." I'd phone the other ministry, and they'd say: "Well, that was the one you just phoned." And I'd say: "I'll give you two days, and then I'll take it to the press." The next day, I got a joint response from both ministers. I hope we don't have to do that kind of thing, because people are hurting out there.
One of the realities I find in constituency work is that the thing most needed is legal representation in custody and foster care. We have a process at the moment whereby the ministry has legal resources and all of its other resources available to it, whereas neither the adults, who are mostly women in this regard, nor the children involved have resources available to them. The foster parent, who is the caregiver, who is concerned for the child, is caught between the concern for her own need and that of the child and is
[ Page 4460 ]
always accused of being biased one way or the other, because there is no representation and there has not been independent representation for the children.
The foster parent -- or the parent, as the case may be -- is fighting a battle on two fronts and is therefore not able to cope properly or effectively with any of them. So I think there is a major concern that the children be given independent legal care, which they don't have at the moment, freeing the foster parent and the parent to be able to support much more equitably their own need. The parents are not getting that support, and most of them are women at the moment. Particularly, I raise to the minister that when a foster parent, who is usually a woman, speaks up, the tendency in the past has been to do away with her and go on without her, and she has no security after that. So it's a major concern out there for families and for women.
L. Stephens: The further questions that I have are going to be rather hodgepodge, if I can use that word. One we need to talk about a little more is the Safer Futures program, and I understand there is $610,000 in this particular program. There is PEERS, which is the one for teen prostitutes, I understand. The Trafficking in Women forum is another initiative. Could the minister talk about those and how much funding is attached?
Let me just make this suggestion: under the Safer Futures program, if the minister would commit to providing me with the programs and the dollars attached to them, that would suffice, except that I would like her to speak sort of broadly about the teen prostitutes -- the PEERS program -- and the Trafficking in Women program. I'd just like you to talk about the programs generally. I would like the itemized, line-by-line program funding amounts that go with these at some other time, if that's agreeable.
[5:15]
The Chair: There's a motion here for a five-minute recess.Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 5:16 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. S. Hammell: You asked about Safer Futures; and you wanted a broad brush -- right? It is, as you said, $610,000. It has four components. One is a schools component, where an agency partners with a school. It has a community component: an agency or group partners with somebody within the community. It has a third component where if you are
It's really an interesting program, because you encourage activity from the community around prevention. It's not somebody doing it to the community; it's the community saying: "This is a good idea. Let's work together on this problem." We have done some very interesting projects. One that I can think of off the top is this program in North Vancouver, where a school is partnered with the North Shore Family Services Society. It's You're So Lucky To Be In Love: A Program About Stopping the Violence and Building Healthy Relationships -- which are best dealt with when people are starting to make those relationships and developing patterns and habits within relationships. That's when you can get at some of the questions being asked.
The other specific project was PEERS, the Prostitutes Empowerment, Education and Recovery Society of Victoria. We contributed $10,000 to the design of a multidisciplinary service being developed by the Ministry for Children and Families. We're partnered with the society, plus the Ministry for Children and Families, to go in there to try to see what support we can give to those young women who have been caught up in this activity. I don't know if you followed this project as it flowed, but there was a very strong presentation to Victoria council, a lot of support within the community to get in. It shows a very compassionate and dedicated side to the city in dealing with some of their very obvious problems. It's an interesting project.
L. Stephens: I was fortunate to have a meeting with Cherry Kingsley, who is the young woman who put the report around child prostitution together for the Ministry for Children and Families. That was one of the issues that was discussed there. Her report was about looking at the children in care, some of the difficulties that arose around children in care and what some of the things were that they had to deal with. Teen prostitution was a very large part of that. I thought some of her recommendations about what some of the problems are that need to be dealt with in trying to keep teens off the street and out of prostitution were quite insightful.
There was also a study that was released in March of '96 by the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society. They were talking about child prostitution, and this report said that in the previous four years in Vancouver only six people had been charged with procuring sex from a minor, while 354 juveniles were charged with prostitution.
I wonder: is the minister involved in looking at how her ministry can provide counselling or services? In what way can her ministry help, particularly with the young female prostitutes that we see on the streets?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. S. Hammell: Our ministry sat on the interministry committee that developed the initiative out of the AG's committee. We have worked through that ministry to bring our perspective to the work. We looked at the social supports of the young women out in the community; we looked at some of our social supports and how we can include them; we worked within that community. It's very interesting, because since that report has come out, since a lot of this work has been done and at least since the initiative around prostitution by the Attorney General -- actually, the initiative started in the previous administration -- Vancouver police have reversed their policy. They charge the johns and don't charge the prostitutes, feeling that they have already been victimized once and that obviously, charging them is not being productive. They have completely flipped their focus. It will be interesting to see the results of that change in attitude. Our work in this area is largely through the Attorney General's initiative.
[5:30]
L. Stephens: I understand there is a provincial action plan that includes street outreach and support, community[ Page 4461 ]
coordination and public education. Is the ministry working to identify the gaps for adults and youth, perhaps looking at whether or not the policy is already in place and the existing services are working? I'm looking at enforcement and perhaps some legislative changes. Is that ongoing? Is there a constant monitoring of this policy, this initiative, this action plan? Where does your ministry fit into that evaluation?
Hon. S. Hammell: This is a very interesting example of how the ministry works. We move onto the table that is doing the work around the initiative. We are part of the planning, part of the evaluation -- part of looking, as you say, for the gaps, evaluating and being part of that process. We don't duplicate and re-fund; we just focus our energy and bring our perspective to that table. In fact, that perspective is quite different than it may be from another ministry's perspective, because we see it from the feminine or the female point of view and bring that to that table. Yes, we are working on all those issues that you identified, and we are working on them through that committee.
L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a little bit about women's health issues. I know the minister is familiar with the provincial health officer's report last year around women's health. The Minister of Health and I had a little bit of a discussion around women's issues this year. The one I'm thinking of that certainly seems to be at the top of my mind is AIDS and HIV, the number of women who are exposed to HIV and the number of babies that are being born to mothers with HIV. Is your ministry involved in any way with any of these initiatives and again, working to identify some gaps?
Hon. S. Hammell: We're not at this time.
L. Stephens: The Minister of Health said there was an AIDS strategy being developed for the province. Is the minister saying that this ministry is not part of that strategic development?
Hon. S. Hammell: What we have to do is discipline ourselves to not touch everything where a woman is involved. In fact, when there is a line ministry that has the particular responsibility, we play a little bit of a different role. We don't go in and sit with them on every issue that affects women. What you look for are issues that are particular to women. AIDS has long been established in the male community. I agree with you: it's now moving into the female community, especially with that very tragic issue around children that are being born with AIDS. However, we are not at that table at this time. There may be a time when we think we should be, and then we would make that decision. But at this time we're not at that particular table.
L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister may want to pursue that issue, because health is a large part of
I want to highlight a few things: elder women's issues around poverty, pensions and all of those kinds of things that I know the minister is aware of; also, young women and bulimia and anorexia. I don't know if the minister is involved in any of those kinds of talks with the Minister of Health. Perhaps she could talk a little bit about whether or not there's an educational component in high schools under Safer Futures or under some other program that the minister has to educate young women on the dangers of bulimia and anorexia.
Hon. S. Hammell: I know you have canvassed some of these areas with the Minister of Health also, so I'll probably be fairly brief. We have done work in the past on this issue, and the work on this issue would fit into the Safer Futures program. But no one has applied yet to take advantage of that opportunity. I believe also that the women's health bureau has done some work on this issue and has played a role in maintaining a concern about that issue, particularly as it pertains to teenagers and women in their twenties -- about my daughter's age -- when they start to really think about it.
L. Stephens: We're getting to the end here. There are just a couple of things I'd like to talk about. One is women and substance abuse. We were talking about the transition house that is particularly set up to deal with substance abuse by women. There is also an issue that needs to be highlighted, and that's prescription drugs. We know that there's a very large number of women who have addictions to prescription drugs. It was interesting to see the ambulance stats on what kinds of problems they were called out to assist with. Half of the calls were related to prescription abuse. That is quite astounding. I have spoken with ambulance attendants, and they have told me that there's a huge number of people that they've been called to assist, and it's been because of prescription abuse.
People talk about -- and we all think about -- intravenous drug use and illegal drug use, but the fact is that for women, the largest drug abuse problem is prescription drugs. I just highlight that for the minister and ask if that's something she's been talking with the Minister of Health about and whether there's anything coming down that may address this particular issue.
Again highlighting education, perhaps educating doctors -- again, young women, older women
Hon. S. Hammell: It's interesting that you should ask, because about three weeks ago I was at a conference -- maybe it was a month ago now -- where a woman talked to me for quite a long time about this particular problem. I've kept in touch with her, and in fact we have worked with the Ministry of Health around this issue. I understand there is going to be a one-day conference around women and prescription drugs, or that that is in the planning stage. So there certainly is activity going around in this area. It is an area of grave concern.
L. Stephens: So I presume the minister will be following through on this and will be taking whatever steps are necessary to try to deal with this issue.
The other area is affordable housing and its impact on women. We have second-stage houses, and we have some social housing, but -- I think everyone agrees -- not enough. About 30 percent of B.C. households are headed by women that are considered to be in need of core housing. That means women who can't afford adequate housing in their community without spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on rent.
So I think that if we're talking about safety and security, we have to talk about housing. We have to try to come up with
[ Page 4462 ]
ways to make sure that women with children have adequate housing, proper housing. We've seen on television from time to time the news clips of mould growing, all of the walls crumbling, insects, and all of those kinds of things. We've seen that from time to time. I think we all shudder when we look at those and wonder how those kinds of dwellings are able to remain on the market. I wonder if the minister has any comment about housing and whether or not she is putting forward any initiatives or studies or interacting with any of the other ministries in any way to try to address this particular issue.
Hon. S. Hammell: I just can't imagine you asking me such a good question at the end of the day!
This province is the only province that is doing social housing. The federal government walked away from social housing two or three years ago. There's not one social housing unit being built across this country, except in this province. We've maintained our commitment to social housing. I wish the feds -- and maybe they will now, because they're going into a different phase -- would come back into the program and support the work that the province continues to do and the fine work they did prior to leaving the field.
For 50 years there has been activity in the social housing field through the federal government and sometimes through federal-provincial partnerships, as well as partnerships that are developed at the local level through co-ops and through non-profit housing. We have built throughout this country a fine stock of housing that is available for some of the people who need, as you have described, some kind of support in terms of housing because it takes so much of their income.
I agree with you 100 percent; it's a priority. We have maintained our funding despite all kinds of good arguments not to. As far as I'm concerned, I would strongly support maintaining that commitment for at least another year and, hopefully, on through.
The Chair: Member, noting the time
L. Stephens: I just want to make one comment. I believe that this is an important issue. I do recognize that the federal government has withdrawn from social housing, and I think that's something they need to take a look at. So I want to have on the record that I feel very strongly about social housing and that we need to build our stock here in British Columbia. I will commit to doing what I can, and to use whatever influence I may have with the federal government and Minister Fry to try to move this particular initiative forward for British Columbia.
[5:45]
Those are all the questions that I have. I want to thank the minister and her staff for the debate this afternoon, and I appreciate the information she has given and the information that she has committed to give.Vote 56 approved.
Vote 57: ministry operations, $37,632,000 -- approved.
Hon. S. Hammell: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.