[ Page 4463 ]

The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. In the main legislative chamber, we will continue debate on the Ministry of Finance estimates.

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
(continued)

R. Thorpe: Just before we broke for that short dinner recess, I had asked a question. I ask it again. It appears that the FTEs in this area have moved from 51 to 58. Could the minister confirm that and also outline what those increased positions are?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the number of FTEs in the previous year, which is to say '95-96, was 66. Then the actual reduction that occurred in the previous year was down to 57 FTEs; the 46, I guess, was a number that had been set and was in place for one month. But in fact, the actual number declined to 57, and then there was a further reduction down to 53 FTEs in this year. So, in fact, there has been a declining number of FTEs that have actually been attached to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat.

R. Thorpe: Again, I'm getting a little confused here. The documentation we received from the minister's office on Friday clearly states for the '97-98 period a budget of $7.384 million and FTEs of 58, compared to 51 for the year before. Is this document incorrect?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to explain this. If it's the same document I'm thinking of that the member is looking at, there are two lines, and I'm focusing on the cabinet policy and communications secretariat line. What I'm suggesting is that the numbers stated in the previous year to the one shown here -- '95-96 -- is 66 FTEs. The 46 number which shows here was adjusted during the course of the year, so the number declined from 66 -- not to 46 but to 57 actual FTEs, as opposed to the budget amount of 46. I'm trying to figure this out myself as I go along. Therefore, the reduction this year is in fact a further reduction of four FTEs. So the budget amount of 46, which it shows here, was in fact never experienced in reality. It was a budget amount that saw a reduction of 20 from the previous year, but the actual reduction from the previous year turned out, in the result, to be nine, and now we have a further reduction of four in this year.

R. Thorpe: Does that make a lot of the FTEs and the numbers suspect in this document that we received in a briefing Friday, or do we just have one error here?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think it's a question of error or no error. The number in the column was the number that was originally authorized, and it was authorized in this particular case, as I understand it, at a level that saw a very ambitious reduction of 20 from the previous year. In the result, the reduction was about half that -- nine -- and add in this year a further four.

But I think what happened was that in the course of the last year, the reduction of the full 20 was not achieved; rather, the reduction went down to 57. So this column here, which indicates 46 and 5 for a total of 51, is the column that indicates the number of FTEs that were authorized. And in this case, the secretariat overburdened that authorization in what was, admittedly, a fairly ambitious reduction from the previous year, which wasn't fully achieved.

R. Thorpe: I would very much appreciate it, then -- and I don't want to debate it here -- if we could perhaps go back a couple of years, if the minister would undertake to do this in the next few days, and have someone in the minister's office or area of responsibility provide a chart that clearly shows the flow here so that we understand what's going on. If I could have that commitment from the minister tonight, I'll move on to my next question in this area.

[6:45]

R. Thorpe: I guess the other thing that appears to be a little confusing. . . . I just wonder if the minister could make some brief comments on it. When we look at the estimates book for a year ago, we see a number of $6.9 million, and then we see a restate of $8.3 million, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand, and now we see an estimate of $7.4 million, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. I'm sure someone's going to get up and say: "What a great job! They've had this prudent fiscal management." But I just wonder if someone could take us through that flow. If some budget has been moved from other areas, is that where the $8.255 million that's been restated comes from? Could you just maybe share some details with us on that?

Hon. A. Petter: I should, as I have before, just introduce staff who are with me for this section of the debate. Sitting to my left is Tom Gunton, who's deputy minister in charge of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, and behind me is Allan Cohen, who's director of corporate communications for cabinet policy and communications secretariat.

Yes, there was a reorganization that took place, and that resulted in the restatement in the '96-97 numbers, carrying through on an apples-to-apples comparison to the '97-98 numbers. Part of cabinet would have been previously considered cabinet operations. As I understand, it was folded into the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, and that's why the adjustment was made.

But the result is that the numbers here, which show a year-over-year reduction in expenditure, are comparing apples and apples and therefore demonstrate that in this area -- as in others throughout this government -- we have made significant reductions in accordance with some of our fiscal objectives over the past year.

[ Page 4464 ]

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the editorial comment will grow larger as the evening goes on, but I'll just refer the minister to the earlier comments of my friend from Delta South on fiscal management. But I don't want to get dragged into that, because obviously we'll agree to disagree.

Just for background so that we have a clearer picture of where we're going, could the minister give us a brief overview of what cabinet operations were shifted into the cabinet policy and communications secretariat?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand it was the component of cabinet operations that coordinates legislation and strategic planning, and that component of cabinet operations was brought into the secretariat function.

R. Thorpe: In looking at the detailed numbers that I have received. . . . What I'd like to confirm, first of all, is that the number of 53 FTEs for this fiscal year is a real number that we're dealing with. Is that an actual number we're dealing with, or is that an estimate that we're not going to be able to achieve at a later date?

Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, that is the real FTE allocation that we expect and will manage to have the communications secretariat live within.

R. Thorpe: Based on that, and looking at the details we get from the supplementary book here, total salaries and benefits anticipated for the coming year are $4,292,000. Would the minister like to explain why, on average, the cost per employee is $74,000, according to my calculations?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess there are two points here: one is that the per capita number includes a whole range of functions other than salary, like benefit levels and the like. The second point is that one would expect the average to be somewhat higher within an operation like this, which is a policy and communications operation and which tends, therefore, to have employees who are at higher pay levels within the public service. That wouldn't be the case if it were a delivery mechanism with a much higher component of, say, clerical staff and the like.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps this is a naïve question, but can the minister confirm that everyone who works in this area is paid according to published government guidelines for pay and salary classifications?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Looking at what's deemed in the supplementary information to be professional fees, I note that we have budgeted some $287,000 for professional fees. I wonder if the minister could please give us a highlight of what types of professional fees you pay to consultants and how much is allocated for those areas.

Hon. A. Petter: It would be for a range of different kinds of consulting contracts relating to policy development and communications.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister would agree that that was a reasonably vague answer. I'm just wondering if he could be a little bit more specific and break it down into types of professions or types of categories and give us a dollar figure, perhaps by the different types of categories in that area.

Hon. A. Petter: It's really difficult to give a specific answer without speculating, because this is a budgeted amount that has not been fully allocated yet. But I can give an example. Maybe that would suffice.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I said I'd be happy to provide an example: policy work has been going on in respect of youth policy, development of youth policy within government. I understand there have been consultants utilized to help to develop that policy framework. That would be the kind of example, but it's a fairly small amount in relation to the total budget, and it is as yet largely unspent, so it's sort of difficult to determine. It's there as an amount against which the secretariat can undertake contracts in specific areas of policy and communications development on an as-needed basis.

R. Thorpe: First of all, I'll disagree with the minister: $287,000 is not a small amount of money; it's a fairly significant amount of money. I guess I'm a little concerned that the contracts may not have been let, but as I understood the minister's prior answer, strategic planning had been moved into this area. To me, strategic tends to be a little bit further out, not what we're doing today or tomorrow. One would think that there would be a plan. The details of the contract let may not be known at this point in time, but there would be a plan.

As I understand it, within this group there are some different working groups. There's an employment policy working group, I understand; there's a land use and environment resource working group; there's an education and social policy working group; there's the office of the Premier's youth adviser -- those kinds of things. Perhaps, then, in their strategic plan, the minister could just indicate to us how much of that $287,000 has been allocated against each one of those strategic working groups.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member had listened a bit more attentively, he would have heard me say that the amount was small in relation to the total budget, not small in absolute terms. But the money isn't allocated by allocating envelopes in the way the member suggested; it's allocated in terms of policy development as the needs emerge. I can probably best provide the member with an answer by referencing last year as opposed to the coming year, where decisions on these matters have not been made. This is, after all, a budget to provide for these needs as they arise.

Last year there were a number of contracts let with respect to the Premier's youth forum and the development of that youth forum and also in the areas of jobs, youth, crime and safety and to provide advice with respect to treaty negotiation matters. These tend to be small contracts -- which is to say contracts in the range of $5,000 to $20,000 -- to provide specific policy advice on particular issues or, in the case of the Premier's youth forum, in respect of a particular forum which involved a particular set of interests and constituency. Last year's example provides the best guidance for the kind of ways in which these moneys are spent and will be spent in the coming year.

[7:00]

[ Page 4465 ]

year, according to the figures we have, it was around $568,000. You give three examples here, but it's obvious that you don't really want to answer the question.

Let me ask you this about the youth forum. Do I understand correctly or incorrectly that as the Premier moves on his youth strategy and development, expenses related to having those forums, etc., would be funnelled into one of these program costs?

Hon. A. Petter: No. It would be the expenses in relation to the planning of a forum or the planning related to a policy that would be accounted for in the contracts that are let through this particular vote.

R. Thorpe: Moving along to advertising, it's $1.8 million. I understand that this is non-statutory -- requirement advertising. Could the minister give us some indication of the types of programs that this $1.8 million would be spent on?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, to put this all into context for the member, part of the reductions across government in the last year on expenditures and in this year's budget have entailed major reductions in communications budgets. If you look at the STOB 40 blue book totals, you'll see that budgeted this year is about $16.5 million versus in excess of $21 million last year. So I think we need to put this into the general context that the resources available for communications, advertising and the like within government have been reduced substantially.

With particular reference to the funds that the member is questioning in respect of the policy and communication secretariat, again this is early in the fiscal year, and it's not possible to anticipate the kinds of contracts that would be let under this envelope. But I can, again, provide examples from the previous year: family bonus public awareness campaign to make people more aware of the family bonus; Ministry of Agriculture, agency for the Buy B.C. campaign; Health, comprehensive communications support on strategic and creative initiatives; Environment, International Union for Conservation of Nature conference in Montreal. So it's an eclectic group of communications issues that arise from time to time during the course of the year that the secretariat takes a role in providing communications support.

R. Thorpe: From a strategic and planning point of view, it's not that early in the fiscal year, but that seems to be what the minister wants to hang his hat on tonight. Can the minister advise me of how much out of the $1.8 million for advertising in the secretariat has been committed to as of this date?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the amount spent to date -- that is, committed for and expended -- is in the range of $490,000, in respect of B.C. Benefits and the youth initiative.

R. Thorpe: Was that committed and spent, or just spent?

Hon. A. Petter: Committed and spent.

R. Thorpe: Would this area include any opinion researching or opinion polling?

Hon. A. Petter: Not in this STOB.

R. Thorpe: Sorry?

Hon. A. Petter: Not in the money appropriated under the STOB that the member was questioning.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister then clarify which STOB it is spent under?

Hon. A. Petter: It would be under professional services, which would be STOB 20, I believe.

R. Thorpe: Just flipping back to that STOB 20 for a second, if we could, how much of the moneys have either been spent or committed to date on opinion research/polling?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the amounts committed and spent to date would relate to three annual or ongoing arrangements with different polling companies. The amount for those would be in the range of $50,000 or $60,000.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister give the details of how much has been spent on opinion research or polling with respect to no-fault and also the new legislation that was introduced today about the ability of the government to sue tobacco companies?

Hon. A. Petter: Cabinet policy and communications secretariat's polling has not involved polling in respect of no-fault. The services I referred to, the $50,000 to $60,00, relate to subscription services to opinion researchers who undertake polls on a variety of issues.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could just answer the last part of my question, with respect to any opinion research or polling done on the legislation that was introduced today: the ability of the government to go after tobacco companies for health costs.

Hon. A. Petter: There's no such polling of which we're aware in the budget of the policy and communications secretariat.

R. Thorpe: The. . . .

I. Waddell: Do you have a fishing licence?

R. Thorpe: Excuse me, did you want to ask a question?

I. Waddell: No.

R. Thorpe: Okay.

I. Waddell: I was just asking you if you have a licence for all that fishing, there.

R. Thorpe: You can only fish in British Columbia with a licence. You should know that, especially as a lawyer.

With respect to rents paid by this secretariat, could the minister advise us how many locations the secretariat has and the amount of rent for each place?

Hon. A. Petter: The secretariat is in one location. There is, as I understand it, some media-monitoring equipment and a small complement of staff associated with it that has continued in its previous location. But the principal secretariat functions are consolidated in a single location.

[ Page 4466 ]

R. Thorpe: So this number in here of $473,000 for rent would just be sort of a transfer between BCBC and the ministry. Would that be correct?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it would all be payments to BCBC.

R. Thorpe: The primary. . . . The bulk of the offices are located over on Government -- I guess it's Government -- and have recently been relocated there -- at least since our last estimates, anyhow. I'm just wondering if the minister could give us an all-in cost of what it cost to relocate, furnish and get that secretariat set up on Government Street.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, it was more of a consolidation than a move. There were very limited tenant improvements required, so the total relocation or consolidation cost was just over $105,000. The savings in rent from the move are estimated at being about $72,000 per year, so I think it's a fairly cost-effective move.

[7:15]

Could the minister confirm that within this cabinet policy and communications secretariat there are currently still two branches: policy and communications?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there are two divisions or branches: policy and communications.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please confirm the number of defined working groups within the policy section of the secretariat? Also, how many FTEs are attached to each?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I understand there are three major working groups: an employment policy working group; a land use, environment and resources working group; and a social policy and education working group. Staff allocations are shifted according to need. But at the present time, the employment working group would have a staff of five; the land use, environment and resources working group has three; and the social policy and education working group also has three.

R. Thorpe: Some information that I have indicates to me that perhaps at one point in time there were a couple of other working groups. Maybe the minister could confirm that it's an oversight and that they are continuing. Or, in fact, have they been disbanded? The first one would be the program review and budget working group. The next one I have is the office of the Premier's adviser on youth. Have they been disbanded, or is it just an oversight?

Hon. A. Petter: The ones I gave earlier, I guess, are the formal policy working groups. There are some other groups that do some policy and other matters. There is a Premier's Youth Office. Maybe the member is referring to that. That certainly continues to exist. There's also a strategic management and legislation working group and a priority issues working group that are not focused on substantive, ongoing policy areas but, as the titles suggest, focus on strategic management and legislation or priority issues.

There was a program review and budget working group at one time, but that's been folded into the employment policy working group, given the economic and fiscal focus on jobs as a central focus of government economic and budget policy.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise me of how many FTEs work in the office of the Premier's youth adviser and the priority issues working group?

Hon. A. Petter: In the case of the Premier's Youth Office, it would be four; in the case of the priority issues working group, it would be five.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the priority issues working group, I wonder if the minister could explain in a few words what their focus and purpose is.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess the major distinction here is that the priority issues working group tends to focus on shorter-term policy issues that emerge, as opposed to longer-term policy development that is the preoccupation of the other working groups. So they try to anticipate issues which affect government's ability to achieve strategic objectives and then manage in a proactive manner around those. They work with ministries to develop their issues management capability. They manage and coordinate opinion research across government to ensure that cost savings are achieved in research. And they ensure that the research supports the development and implementation of government's overall strategic objectives.

R. Thorpe: When you say "manage and coordinate opinion research across government," I would assume -- but you could correct me on my assumption if it's wrong -- that when you're managing it, the costs are probably allocated to a variety of ministries. I would like you to confirm that.

Secondly, you talked about this being done to ensure that cost savings are achieved for government. How do you measure to ensure that savings are achieved by government in this area?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think the principal mechanism would be avoiding duplication. There's a function here to ensure that different ministries are not duplicating their efforts in terms of opinion research, to ensure that the information is gathered in a way that is useful to government as a whole. And it saves costs by ensuring that information is shared appropriately amongst the agencies that can benefit from it.

R. Thorpe: I would think that in order to manage, and I understand that word, and to coordinate, and I understand that word -- because one of the objectives is to cost-save -- then it would be fair for me to conclude that this secretariat would have vast knowledge of all of the opinion research being done throughout government and throughout all of its ministries. Since their objectives are to manage and coordinate and be cost efficient, could the minister advise me of how much is spent by government on opinion research?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm afraid I don't have that information at hand. I will certainly try to get a fuller answer for the member, if he wishes me to do so.

R. Thorpe: Yes, I would very much like the minister to not only make his best efforts but to ensure that we have a comprehensive listing or report by ministry on how much is being spent by a ministry on public opinion research. We do 

[ Page 4467 ]

make statements here about managing, coordinating and cost savings. So I would think it is prudent financial management to have that information at hand. Yes, I would like that commitment from the minister, and I'd like to receive it as soon as possible.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think that the member is perhaps inflating the role of the cabinet communications and planning secretariat in regard to cost savings. It is not a central financial control function that is performed by the secretariat. What the secretariat is trying to do is make sure there is an effective and efficient flow of information. For example, by subscribing to certain public information research services, as I described earlier, and then by making sure that information is shared with interested agencies and ministries while monitoring opinion research that goes on throughout government to ensure it isn't duplicative, savings are made. But it's not quite the same thing as the suggestion that this secretariat is somehow responsible for fiscal control of all public opinion research activity in government. It isn't. It does perform a useful function, however, in coordinating. And by coordinating, it ensures the most efficient and effective allocation of information concerning opinion research that it can achieve.

R. Thorpe: This is a CPCS document that we received. I'm just reading from it. I didn't write it; I'm just reading it. It states:

". . .to manage and coordinate opinion research across government to ensure that cost savings are achieved and that the opinion research undertaken by government is coordinated with the appropriate CPCS working group, and to ensure that opinion research supports the development and implementation of a government strategic plan."

Hon. A. Petter: I thought I had already said in my prior statement that if the member wished it, I would endeavour to try to get the information he requested, and I will do that.

The point I was trying to make is that the budgets of various ministries and the allocation of funds through those budgets for opinion research is the responsibility of the ministries. It's not inconsistent at all to suggest that the secretariat plays a role in ensuring that there isn't duplication and ensuring that information from subscription services, for example, is shared in a way that ensures that the conduct of opinion research is managed effectively.

That's rather different from saying, as the member seems to inflate that statement, that there's somehow some detailed cost-control function performed centrally. That isn't the case. The cost control is done through ministry budgets in the normal way and is monitored in the normal way by Treasury Board. What's done here is a coordination effort to manage and coordinate opinion research to ensure that the research is conducted efficiently and with minimal duplication and, therefore, that savings are made.

[7:30]

I'd like to move on, if I could.

I. Waddell: You should become a columnist.

R. Thorpe: Take it easy, Presto.

Communications branch. Could the minister advise me of how many FTEs are attached to the communications branch?

Hon. A. Petter: I believe it's 22 FTEs.

R. Thorpe: Communications support. The office provides support to ministries through the following activities, and the first point I have here is to provide strategic communications direction to ministries. Could the minister perhaps explain, in terms that I may understand, what that really means? What is this communications branch providing for the various ministries in government?

Hon. A. Petter: It's a range of advice that's provided on such basic things as coordinating the timing of announcements so they don't conflict in terms of timing and arrangements; providing advice on the most effective ways in which ministries can communicate, again ensuring that there isn't duplication of effort; ensuring that the messages communicated are ones that are consistent with government policy; and those kinds of activities that ensure that ministries carry out their functions in a way that is consistent with an overall direction of government and communicate in a way that is consistent with that overall direction, as well.

R. Thorpe: Can various ministries in government actually go out and put communication actions into the field, or must they have final approval from this secretariat before any communication or advertising can be put out into the field for British Columbians?

Hon. A. Petter: The secretariat provides sign-off on all government communications functions throughout government by ministries and government agencies, again to ensure that communications is conducted in a way that reflects overall government objectives and the other goals I already referred to -- those of not having duplication and of ensuring that messages are consistent with government policy and the like.

R. Thorpe: When the minister says sign-off, I just want to make sure I understand it. That is final approval. Without the approval of this secretariat, communications and advertising cannot take place. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the way it works is that communications plans would be subject to sign-off or approval, but some of the creative work that would then take place under those plans and carrying out those plans would 

[ Page 4468 ]

be left to the ministries. In the case of major government announcements, there would obviously have to be approval by cabinet. That would be coordinated by the secretariat, and the sign-offs would have to provide for approval of those major announcements.

R. Thorpe: Again, I would just like a bit of clarification. I think the minister alluded there to. . . . At least, I thought I heard that there was sort of some sign-off early in the process, and then they would perhaps go away and do their work. I guess my question really is: before there's any on-air communication -- electronic, radio -- or print ads, they must receive final creative approval and sign-off before they're placed. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. A. Petter: In cases, for example, where a ministry is undertaking an information campaign, the sign-off would be with respect to the communications plan to make sure that the placement of advertisements, if that's what is entailed, or commercials on radio and the like, do not conflict with other campaigns or in other ways conflict with government objectives. Beyond that, it would be left to the agencies to then carry out the plan and to make the ultimate decisions. In other cases, in respect of matters that are perhaps of more central importance to government's overall policy objectives and are more centrally significant, then there would be attention paid to sign-off in respect of the actual editorial content and other matters, which for the most part would come through the secretariat to cabinet for approval.

R. Thorpe: I'm concluding from those statements -- and I would ask the minister to correct me if I'm incorrect -- that this is the final approval ground for the plans. It's in the final approval before it actually takes place. Quite frankly, it now appears to me that if there are a number of messages out there, they probably have flight boards up, etc., so that programs aren't running into each other, to make sure that there's not overlap, and to hopefully, from their point of view, maximize the penetration of their various campaigns to the public. Would that be correct?

Hon. A. Petter: By and large, I'd say yes, that would be correct. The idea is to coordinate government communications as effectively as possible.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise me of what role the secretariat plays in the selection of the variety of advertising agencies that the government and its ministries and Crown corps use?

Hon. A. Petter: There's a competitive RFP process for any major advertising contracts that is, for the most part, conducted by the ministries that are undertaking the advertising. The role of the secretariat would be to ensure that that process takes place according to the requirements and to assist the ministries in undertaking the process appropriately.

R. Thorpe: My thanks to the minister. The minister mentioned the word "major" in his answer. I would just like the definition. At what dollar figure do we start being major, and at what dollar figure are we non-major?

Hon. A. Petter: The general threshold here -- which isn't to say there might not be competitive processes below that threshold -- is the same as elsewhere in government. Purchasing Commission policy threshold is, I believe, $50,000.

R. Thorpe: Out of the total number of employees -- I think you mentioned there were 22 in this branch -- how many are located outside Victoria? In other words, how many people are dispersed, say, in Kamloops or wherever? Or are they outside this total?

Hon. A. Petter: Six of the FTE positions are regionally allocated.

R. Thorpe: Just for clarification, are they included in the 22? They are? Thanks.

With respect to the controls, there are a few words here on controls -- how this secretariat actually does control the sign-offs to ensure that initiatives are coordinated and appropriate. Actually, it even says: ". . .the purposes of approving communication expenditures by ministry." That's interesting. These contracts are for values of $100,000 or greater, according to this document here.

One of the things that interests me, though, is that it appears, from my reading of this document -- so perhaps you could clarify it for me -- that the communications secretariat has the authority to transfer funds out of one STOB, which would perhaps be for statutory requirements, into an advertising area, if it so desires. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I think the $100,000 figure the member referenced refers to a different threshold -- one for Treasury Board approval, not for competitive bidding.

I think the other matter has to do with reallocation of funds from STOBs 40 and 42, both of which are advertising STOBs -- one of which, I take it, is focused on statutory advertising to a greater extent than the other. To the extent that there is discretion between the two and the opportunity to spend out of one or the other, yes, approval is provided through CPCS communications concerning the allocation of advertising initiatives by the ministries between those two STOBs.

[7:45]

For instance, under the Children and Families ministry, I think there's $400,000 in advertising and $1.6 million in statutory advertising. So, theoretically, this communications secretariat could move that money out and use it for other programs. Could the minister please answer that?

Hon. A. Petter: There is opportunity to move funds amongst STOBs within government; that's true. But the idea of putting a budget together is to try as best as possible to allocate the funds to the STOB in which it will ultimately be expended. The fact is that between STOBs 40 and 42, however, there is a potential overlap. You could have a ministry, for example, deciding to allocate reports to STOB 40, which is publications, even though they might also be allocated to STOB 42 as annual reports or non-discretionary publications. 

[ Page 4469 ]

Obviously that can have implications on the flexibility of the ministry and its ability to meet its needs. Therefore there is an appropriate role to be played by the communications secretariat in the allocation made, particularly between those two STOBs.

R. Thorpe: In the communications support group, there's a comment here that "CPCS communications specializes and can provide expert advice on subjects such as. . .hiring and professional development." Does that just pertain to the secretariat, or does that cover all ministries in government? In fact, is this secretariat responsible for hiring all communications and advertising personnel throughout government?

Hon. A. Petter: CPCS does provide support to ministries in respect of, for example, the kind of communications needs they have, the kind of staff resources they require, the qualifications for candidates to fill those kinds of resources, and support in the recruitment processes that they go through. Of that kind, there is support provided. The actual recruitment is, of course, the responsibility of the ministries that are concerned.

R. Thorpe: I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Delta South. I do look forward to the answers to the commitments that the minister has given tonight, and I do appreciate that.

F. Gingell: I hope that this question hasn't been previously asked and answered. But in trying to recognize the division of the role between cupcakes -- there's another word for CPCS -- and Treasury Board, you look down the organization chart of Treasury Board and there are people who are responsible for the development of social policy, employment policy, tax policy, economic development policy, etc. Then you look at CPCS, and they have people who are responsible for employment policy, land use, education. Where does the dividing line come? How do you separate which is which?

Hon. A. Petter: Treasury Board staff's major responsibility is to monitor policy from the point of view of the budget -- making sure the policy is consistent with the budget and also in terms of its fiscal implications. So if a new policy comes forward, Treasury Board staff might well comment upon the fiscal implications of that policy. Once the policy is in place they'll tend to monitor it and make sure it's being implemented in accordance with the budgeted allocations. The functions of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat in respect to policy is quite different. It's to focus on the policy in terms of meeting the objectives that it sets out to meet beyond simply the fiscal component of those objectives -- but ensuring that the larger policy objectives are consistent with overall government policy and that the policy is well designed to achieve those particular objectives.

F. Gingell: I hope I understand that. If I may, I will just put it in my own words to ensure that I've got it right. The role of Treasury Board is to have a watching brief on ongoing government programs. The role of the policy division of CPCS is to think about new initiatives that will deal with emerging issues. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: It's not quite that cut-and-dried. I wish life were that clear and cut-and-dried at times. Certainly it's true, I think, that much of Treasury Board staff's function is to monitor ongoing policy. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, programs that are pursuant to policy; policy that's being implemented in the form of programs. But it's also true that Treasury Board staff will comment on policy proposals and provide advice concerning the fiscal implications of those policy proposals -- what they'll do to ministry budgets, the pressures they'll put on government, their cost-effectiveness.

Conversely, I think it's true that CPCS staff tend to focus on the formative component of policy -- new policy -- but I'm sure are also involved at times in evaluating and refining existing policy as well. It's more the focus; it's the focus of the oversight. The oversight role of CPCS is in terms of the policy objectives being met in the general sense of them being good public policy, meeting the government's overall policies and priorities, etc.

I must say that the two institutions do have to coordinate their efforts and work together. So if there are fiscal implications to policy and policy has other policy dimensions to it, what one would hope is that when that policy reaches cabinet, there will be both input from Treasury Board staff on the fiscal side and from CPCS staff on the policy side -- and, hopefully, some coordination between the two to make sure that the one had taken account of the input of the other.

F. Gingell: As you're aware, the council of deputy ministers and the auditor general are doing a lot of work on the accountability exercise. One gets into thinking about how this is going to be installed and integrated into government programs. One of the real challenges that I think government is going to face in this issue is clearly defining the criteria that it's going to measure. . . .

The government has made a decision that they believe is important relative to the health of young people -- to improve birthweights, say, and a program is developed on improving birthweights which may involve training and financial support and other things. Does CPCS now recognize that someone -- and I would presume them -- has to develop the criteria by which the success or failure of these programs will subsequently be measured? Has that become an integral part of their planning process?

Hon. A. Petter: I think in the example given that CPCS's role wouldn't be so much to generate the criteria as to ensure the ministry has generated the appropriate criteria. Of course, again, presumably there would be input from CPCS in terms of the policy objectives and from Treasury Board staff in terms of the fiscal objectives that might be contained within the stated goals and measurements, therefore, of the program. But I think generally one would expect that the role here would be to coordinate and make sure that as a program comes forward and is evaluated, both prior to and subsequent to its implementation, the role of an agency like CPCS or Treasury Board staff would be to test the program against certain fiscal and program measures. And part of doing that would be to get the agency to produce those measures and ensure that those measures are ones that cabinet would agree with as part of the design of the program.

F. Gingell: A current issue that's on the front pages and that's certainly being reflected somewhere in the costs of this government in 1997-98 is the salmon war, the issue with our friends to the south. What role would CPCS play in an issue such as that?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure if the member was just reaching for an example. If he was, perhaps that wasn't the 

[ Page 4470 ]

best one, because in that case there is a fisheries secretariat that is dedicated to providing policy support in respect of fisheries matters. But CPCS would still no doubt play a supportive role on the policy side or on the communications side where resources are required. I would think an initiative that is that central to government activity would inevitably have some involvement. But its involvement would be secondary -- on the policy side, at least -- to the fisheries secretariat.

F. Gingell: Perhaps I didn't make a particularly good choice. Could the minister give us a couple of examples of issues that he dealt with in 1996-97 from a policy issues point of view, and ones that he sees as looming or that he is already involved in in 1997-98?

[8:00]

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm just talking about "spin" in some weird generic sense that I use, not in the sense that the member is referring to.

Be that as it may, the CPCS played a major role in the child poverty initiative. The reason I say it's a little different is that there are also intergovernmental dimensions to the child poverty initiative, because it draws on our own B.C. Benefits program. It also led to involvement with the federal government. So in that case there would also have been involvement from intergovernmental affairs staff, as well. Those are two examples that I can think of from last year and this year that may help give the member some sense of the kind of major policy development in which CPCS has played an important and central role.

C. Hansen: I've got a document that's titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," and it's dated February 5, 1997. My understanding is that this document is a product of CPCS. I wonder if the minister could confirm that.

Hon. A. Petter: Without seeing the document, it is difficult for me to say.

C. Hansen: I guess that begs the question of how many documents titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy" come out of CPCS these days. As I mentioned, this one has. Perhaps one of the staff might be able to deliver the front cover to the minister to refresh his memory.

In the meantime, while that's going over to the minister, I will carry on. The information I have is that this document is in fact a product of CPCS. I just want to ask the minister the context in which this document was prepared.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that there is a jobs working group involving ADMs of various ministries that is coordinated by CPCS. It appears likely that this document came out of, or might have come out of, that initiative. Often, CPCS, in developing strategy documents or the like, will not be producing the documents themselves so much as coordinating and working with agencies in the production of policy initiatives. I'm informed that this particular one may have been a. . . . The cover sheet may have come out of the working group I described.

C. Hansen: I gather that if CPCS was playing this coordinating role with this working group, certainly the actual production of the document. . . . If it wasn't CPCS, perhaps the minister could inform me where this document might have been produced. Because, as I understand it, a working group of ADMs doesn't have a secretariat per se, other than CPCS. So my understanding would be that a document like this would in fact be prepared by CPCS.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to ask the deputy minister to check and see precisely where this document was produced -- whether it was within CPCS or whether it was within one of the ministries. But just speaking from personal experience, I know that very often documents will be produced initially by ministries, brought forward, critiqued, brought back. In other cases, documents may be undertaken by CPCS or by another agency. But if the member wants to know in respect of the particular genesis of this document, I'm happy to ask the deputy minister to follow up.

C. Hansen: My question is: if this document did not come out of CPCS, what would be the other possibilities as to where this would come from?

Just let me back up a little bit. We're talking about a process here: the estimates of the spending for the government of the province of British Columbia. Our job in opposition is to make sure that those spending estimates are adjudicated. It's our job to make sure that there's accountability for initiatives by the government. The taxpayers' money is going to be spent through the process that we're talking about tonight. I have this document, which is the closest thing that I've been able to find in a year. It's called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I'm trying to find out who to hold accountable for it. My understanding is that the body that developed, produced this document was CPCS. It's my opportunity, when it comes to accountability in this chamber with regards to the spending this government's going to do on job strategy. . . . The time is now; it's here in this estimates, with this minister and with these officials, talking about CPCS.

So my question to the minister is: if this document was not produced by CPCS, who in government, throughout this whole estimates process, do I hold accountable for this document?

Hon. A. Petter: The member is confusing a couple of things. CPCS operates as a central agency to facilitate in the development of policy positions for the consideration of cabinet. In that case, it may handle any number of different documents, comment on them, develop some itself, etc.

Once the documents reach cabinet and become the subject of discussion -- and, ultimately, decisions -- the accountability for the policies that are then carried out fall according to the respective responsibilities of the ministers. In the case of employment, there is a Ministry of Employment and Investment that is specifically targeted at employment, and the minister is in a position to then comment on the success, or to respond to the ill-considered criticisms of that success by members opposite. But CPCS is there much like you could say, I suppose, Treasury Board staff is there. Treasury Board staff handle and review and critique and produce a range of documents on a range of issues, but the accountability for those issues rests with the respective minister and ministry in whose substantive policy area they reside. Once cabinet decisions are made, that minister and ministry have charge of that policy.

C. Hansen: This document is very much a policy document in terms of the directions that the government intends to 

[ Page 4471 ]

go in. One week ago today in this chamber I raised the issue of this document with the Minister of Employment and Investment. The minister's quite right, because certainly I would assume that if anybody in this government knew something about a jobs strategy, it would be the Minister of Employment and Investment. And one of the things that was so blatantly obvious a week ago today to every one of us in this chamber was that the Minister of Employment and Investment had never seen this document; he had never read this document. He was sitting with his deputy minister and his assistant deputy ministers, and none of them could enlighten us about where this document may have come from.

I have since been led to believe that this document is not a product of the Ministry of Employment of Investment but a product of CPCS. So I'm here to hold this minister, as the minister responsible for CPCS, accountable for what's in this document. If I'm wrong on that, I would like the minister to explain why I'm wrong. And if it's not him that's responsible for this document, who should I hold responsible?

Hon. A. Petter: As I said to the member earlier, I'll be happy to follow up and confirm or clarify the genesis of this document to the best of my ability. If it's confirmed that this is a document produced by CPCS, or by CPCS in conjunction with others, then I'll be happy to share that with the member.

But I think the member is still confusing two matters. There are any number of documents and advice and drafts and position papers by various agencies in government on a range of matters. But the question of holding government accountable. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: The opposition looks much more ferocious to me now than it did just a moment ago.

The question of a particular document. . . . If it interests the member, fine. But it seems to me that the way our system works, and is intended to work, is that once government adopts policies, then those policies reside in the ministries who have charge of those policy areas, and the minister can then respond for that. But the notion that ministers are held responsible for drafts and discussion papers and ideas that form part of the product, or are leading to that product, strikes me as sort of missing the point.

C. Hansen: One of the things I never thought I would have the opportunity to do is maybe to question the previous Minister of Employment and Investment.

If you go back to the budget that was brought down on April 30, 1995, in that document there is a commitment that there would be a comprehensive jobs strategy with clearly identified goals. Then, in the budget that this minister brought down in June of last year, there was specifically, again, a promise for a jobs strategy. I was quite delighted when I found this. I think I made reference last Monday that this had come to us through FOI; I subsequently was informed that no, it wasn't through FOI, but we were able to obtain the document.

This is the first document that I've ever seen that sort of fulfils that promise of a comprehensive jobs strategy, or at least even comes close to it. My challenge that I have undertaken is to find out if we have a document that sets out a jobs strategy for the government, which I would see as a policy initiative and the fulfilment of a commitment that was made a year ago -- that certainly this is something that we can look at and hold the government accountable for. Other than this document, there has been nothing else that has come out of this government in the way of a jobs strategy that is in any way comprehensive, that is anything other than simply piecemeal.

I guess I've now gone through my second minister: first of all, the Minister of Employment and Investment, who obviously had never read it, didn't know anything about it; and now the Minister of Finance, who's responsible for CPCS, also seems to be unaware of this document, as are his senior officials from CPCS. In the document, though, there are some very specific references to CPCS. It says: "Staff of CPCS are currently working with the ministries to provide more concrete information for future decisions. . . ." I'm wondering if the minister could tell us how that interministerial cooperation is working.

Hon. A. Petter: There is, as I've already suggested, an ADMs' committee, a deputies' committee, working on the furtherance of a comprehensive jobs strategy. I'm a little hurt that the member says that there's no other document that outlines the government's commitment or the nature of our jobs strategy, because in the budget speech this year I outlined five major elements of such a strategy, including the sustainable fiscal foundation, better skills and training for young people, investments in infrastructure, partnerships with the private sector, and initiatives targeted to key sectors of the economy.

I freely admit that this is a work in progress and that there is more that can be done and is being done, including work on a jobs and timber accord and the like. I invite the member to reread the budget speech and familiarize himself with another document that sets out in a very public and comprehensive way the direction this government is taking in respect of such a jobs strategy. Work is continuing on building on that strategy in the future.

I am trying to get further information for the member on the precise genesis of this document. We'll try to confirm that with him as soon as I am able to do so. I just don't want to glibly say, "Yes, it comes from here or comes from there," without being certain that that is in fact the case.

[8:15]

If this document that I have does not fulfil the government's commitment to a comprehensive jobs strategy, is he talking about only five paragraphs in his budget speech fulfilling that commitment?

Hon. A. Petter: A jobs strategy is not paper. A jobs strategy is action -- action this government is taking and has taken in any number of different ways, from the Premier's involvement in the Canadian Airlines rescue to the initiatives that the Premier and this government have undertaken to protect our west coast fishery resource, through to the initiatives underway to protect jobs in respect to the jobs and timber accord.

What the budget did, though, was outline the five major elements of the job creation strategy that the government has 

[ Page 4472 ]

pursued. It provided an overview of those elements and then within the sectoral initiatives it outlined further specific sectoral initiatives -- six of them, in fact. If the member seems to think that the strategy is a piece of paper, it isn't. The strategy is the plan of action that this government is undertaking as reflected in the budget, as reflected in further work.

Certainly, a draft document called "B.C. Jobs Strategy: Themes and Next Steps" that was generated, I assume, at some official's level for discussion by other officials, for ultimate consideration at some point by cabinet, is not a jobs strategy of this government. It may well be a document that will help to inform and lead to further work towards filling out a jobs strategy. But I think the member mistakes what a jobs strategy is, in terms of this government's commitment to a jobs strategy. It is a real strategy to create real jobs, not pieces of paper -- even important, informative pieces of paper that may assist the government in accomplishing that objective.

C. Hansen: But certainly this is something that's very important to government, and that's called accountability. It's fine to have grandiose ideas as to what constitutes a jobs strategy. Quite frankly, if the minister goes back and reads through Hansard, he will find that the Minister of Employment and Investment has a different definition of what constitutes a jobs strategy. There are some overlapping areas -- I remember that infrastructure, for example, was a common theme -- but it's certainly not good enough for a government to have the Premier with one idea of a jobs strategy in his head, the Minister of Employment and Investment with another jobs strategy in his head and the Minister of Finance with yet a third jobs strategy.

If we don't have something that comes together that we and the people of this province can hold the government accountable for, then I don't think government is doing the job that's required. When we wind up with commitments for a jobs strategy, certainly the public doesn't expect something that's piecemeal and is going to create 100 jobs here and call that a jobs strategy. I think the minister mentioned training programs as a jobs strategy. Training programs are good, but they don't create jobs for young British Columbians when they finish the programs.

I will just come back to one of the specific themes in this document. If I can read the quote here: ". . .there are several common ideas that emerge from the sector strategies. They are" -- the first one -- "government and private sector working in partnership. . . ." The second one reads: ". . .creating a stable investment climate." I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the fact that in the last year, we've gone in the wrong direction when it comes to creating a stable investment climate. So if anything, we're falling back on meeting the conditions of a jobs strategy as set out in this document.

Hon. A. Petter: First, let me say that I have confidence that what British Columbians hold governments accountable for is performance, and the performance of this government and of this province in creating jobs over the last five or six years has been outstanding. About 50 percent of all the jobs created in Canada have been created in this province, with only 12 percent of the population. That doesn't mean to say that we don't need to do more or be more strategic in our approach; and as we've indicated, we are.

In terms of the more specific question concerning a stable investment climate, I fully agree with the member that we need to do everything we can, without compromising other key social objectives, to foster a stable investment climate. Much of what we have undertaken in this year's budget is designed to do that. In fact, the first element in the elements I outlined in the budget was a sustainable fiscal foundation. I'll read it to the member:

"To create the jobs and economic climate that will bring opportunities for new businesses and for communities, we must start with a sustainable fiscal foundation. Providing this level of certainty is necessary for businesses to make their investment plans and to be confident about the future. The plan for fiscal sustainability I've already outlined is a critical part of our strategy for higher growth and job creation."

I spent this morning up in Whistler, unfortunately not outside enjoying the scenery but inside speaking to the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, encouraging them in the view that British Columbia is an excellent place in which to invest and showing them some of the progress we've made in terms of fostering and encouraging such investment. You'll get no disagreement from me in respect of the need to encourage investment. And yes, we had some slowing in the rate of growth in our economy last year, although happily, we saw continued growth. I mean, this is a rare province in that we've had 15 years of straight economic growth. It was disappointing that growth slowed last year, although it picked up considerably in the last quarter and is continuing to improve coming into this year. That's all excellent news, and I can assure you that this government is very mindful of the need to encourage investment and will continue to do so. I guess there's further evidence I could provide the member, but he's going to get me all excited, and I'm going to start speechifying. I don't want to do that.

My deputy and I are now in the process of implementing an ongoing forum with business and others to talk about impediments to investment and how we can eliminate those. The Minister of Employment and Investment has an initiative to remove overly burdensome regulation. There have been announcements in the last few weeks to streamline the Forest Practices Code to remove some of the unnecessary red tape without compromising environmental standards.

Absolutely -- we've got to encourage investment, and we're committed to doing so. We're also committed, of course, to protecting social programs and infrastructure, which also attract investment and make this province a great place in which to live and in which to invest.

C. Hansen: It's not my intention to revisit the whole budget debate tonight, but I did want to respond quickly to three points that the minister just made. First of all, he talks about strong job growth in this province, and while we had 40,000 new jobs last year, we have seen a decline of 18,000 jobs in British Columbia in the last six months alone. If anything should set off the alarm bells, it's some of the job numbers coming out of Stats Canada in terms of the decline in the absolute number of British Columbians who are employed today.

Secondly, he talks about GDP and how there are great signs. British Columbia, when it comes to per capita GDP, ranks tenth of all the Canadian jurisdictions. We have a terrible record when it comes to GDP growth. As you go around this province, people hear the minister talking about the fact that we're supposed to have this booming economy, but they don't feel it. It doesn't reflect in their pocketbook, their take-

[ Page 4473 ]

home pay or their ability to put food on the table, and that's because the per capita GDP in this province is in fact declining significantly while this government has been in power.

Thirdly, the minister talks about the need for investment. In terms of the new capital spending on plant and equipment in this province, it's below the Canadian average. Last year, in 1996, if British Columbia were to even have met the Canadian average when it came to investment in plant and equipment, there would have had to have been an additional $1.9 billion spent on plant and equipment in this province. I don't think the examples the minister uses are very good ones, because certainly the last few months, if anything, should dictate a very strong turn of direction when it comes to the policies this government has been implementing.

I want to come back to CPCS, because that is the item we're discussing. In this document, it refers to the fact that the staff of CPCS policy, communications and issues management have met. And one of the staff recommendations that came out was that "further creative and focus group work be carried out around the. . .key ideas for the strategy intended to convey a sense of confidence in the future." My understanding is that this focus group work is underway, and I am wondering if the minister could confirm that, in fact, it is CPCS that is contracting this focus group work?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there have been some public consultations around both policy and communications in respect of jobs initiatives -- not undertaken by CPCS, as I understand it, but undertaken by the Ministry of Employment and Investment with input and coordination from CPCS.

C. Hansen: Could I confirm that the cost of that work is in fact coming out of the Ministry of Employment and Investment budget, then, not the Ministry of Finance budget? Is that true?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the funding for the actual consultation and the like is funding that will come from the Ministry of Employment and Investment budget. Obviously the coordination work done by CPCS is the responsibility of CPCS and hence comes out of CPCS's budget. But the actual consultation and policy work is the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

C. Hansen: If I can just zero in on one or two other aspects of this document. . . . Again, this is coming from staff recommendations. As I read this -- page 5, if you do not have the whole document in front of you -- it's talking about staff at CPCS policy, communications and issues management. They say: ". . .it is recommended that the government continue to note its successes, but avoid high-profile and large job creation targets." It says: ". . .first, the emphasis of the strategy. . .has less to do with quantity. . .and more with quality; second and more importantly, the government may not be able to do this credibly. . ." -- that is, claim high-profile and large job creation targets -- "given its lack of success in announcing targets that subsequently have failed to be met" -- for example, the budget debt management plan. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that reference.

Hon. A. Petter: I think I can just comment generally that it's obviously important to try to set targets that can be met or exceeded. I think you'll find that's reflected in the efforts I've made and in the budget I introduced -- to base those targets on prudent assumptions and to make sure that we work hard to achieve or, hopefully, exceed those targets that are so set.

C. Hansen: I gather that during the course of this debate over the last few minutes, the minister now has a copy of this document from ministry sources. Could the minister now comment on where this document originated?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the document was a staff discussion paper prepared by CPCS in the course of consultation with various ministries.

C. Hansen: When he talks about interministerial working groups, could the minister advise us how the preparation of this document would involve the Ministry of Employment and Investment?

Hon. A. Petter: They'd be on the working group.

C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us at what level the Ministry of Employment and Investment is involved?

[8:30]

C. Hansen: With this interministerial working group on this jobs strategy, could the minister advise us if this group at the ADM level has in fact met to address the issues contained in this document to date?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it -- and the member can appreciate that this is not subject matter that I'm directly familiar with -- there have been ongoing meetings of the working groups at various levels on the development of the government's jobs strategy. Where exactly this document is and when it would have been discussed is difficult to say, but it presumably would have been one of the documents that would have provided a basis for discussion within the context of those working groups -- judging by the date, some time ago, but in the evolution and development of the government's overall approach to jobs.

C. Hansen: I've got a bunch of other issues regarding the jobs strategy, but I will save them for another venue and turn this over to another colleague. Before I leave, could the minister perhaps. . . ? In terms of these initiatives when it comes to a jobs strategy, are all of them funded out of specific ministries, or do they have to go to Treasury Board for special allocations for things like the communication plans?

L. Reid: Might have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the precincts today is a lovely gentleman by the name of Mr. Bruce Topp. He has done some wondrous things in the school district of Richmond, and I know he will continue to lead by example as a classroom teacher. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand the question, most of the funds with respect to the jobs strategy would be contained within ministry budgets. That doesn't mean that they don't require Treasury Board approval; there may be funds that are frozen or whose approval is subject to Treasury Board 

[ Page 4474 ]

approval. There are obviously various contract thresholds and the like that require Treasury Board approval, so Treasury Board may be involved. But the funding would be allocated within the various ministries' budgets.

K. Krueger: Looking at the priority issue of the working group mandate, specifically their responsibility for coordinating opinion research across government and ensuring that the opinion research supports the development and implementation of government's strategic plan, obviously the gambling expansion that was announced by the Employment and Investment minister this spring is a major component of the government's strategic plan. The people with the minister would be familiar with the type of opinion research that has been done in British Columbia over the last two years on the issue of gambling expansion, so my first question for the minister is: how many public opinion surveys on the issue of gambling or gaming in B.C. have been conducted over the last two years?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not able to discover the answer to that question. I'd be happy to get back to the member and try to do so, but I guess I really want to discourage the member. It's true that whenever you have a central agency like Treasury Board or CPCS, they have general oversight functions over aspects -- in this case, of communications or public opinion research -- but I think that to expect that provides a detailed knowledge of those activities is incorrect. We can get the information, but I'm sure the member has brought up or will aggressively bring up this matter within the ministries that are responsible for it and to the ministers who are accountable for it -- and probably, if he has not already done so, will continue to do so in the future. We'll try to get the answer as best we can, but I suspect that the information is more readily obtainable from the minister who is directly accountable for the substantive policy concern the member is addressing.

K. Krueger: Accepting that the minister can't answer the specific question but will when he has access to the information, and relying on the gentlemen who are with him as his advisers tonight, I wonder if he would confirm whether, to their knowledge, there have been any public opinion surveys on the issue of gambling expansion -- particularly destination resort casinos and slot machines in British Columbia -- other than the Environics poll taken the first week of January this year and published May 12. Do these advisers know of any other public opinion surveys on those issues?

Hon. A. Petter: To the best of my knowledge and that of the officials, there certainly has been some polling on gaming. In fact -- and I'm not sure, as I was just consulting while the member was speaking, so he may have referenced this -- I believe the minister released a poll a while back. If the member wants to know what polling has been undertaken within government with respect to gaming, we can try to track down that information and provide it to him, if he hasn't already ascertained it or isn't in a position to do so from the minister. We just don't have the information at hand. But certainly I believe there has been polling done on gaming.

K. Krueger: In the fall of 1994 and the early spring of 1995, this same government put out media releases that said the public in British Columbia were opposed to gambling expansion and didn't think that sort of activity was necessary or desirable in our province -- and in fact went so far as to say, essentially, that it was the provinces that hadn't been able to generate the kind of robust economy which British Columbia enjoyed that indulged in such activities. So it's a pretty remarkable departure from those publications -- and they were voluntary press releases -- to suddenly swing into a massive gambling expansion of the scale we've seen announced this spring.

In the absence of any firm knowledge of any public opinion polls indicating a change in the public attitude on these issues, I wonder if the minister could just give us CPCS advice as to why such a dramatic change would have taken place. Surely this is the body that coordinates government decisions and ensures that the government is well aware of public opinion on important issues such as this.

Hon. A. Petter: We'll be here all night if we take every issue that the members opposite, with their responsibilities, want to discuss simply because CPCS is a central agency. I guess what I'd say is that, in my recollection, in 1994 there was announced a modest gaming expansion. This past year there's been announced a modest gaming expansion. In both cases there was rejection of a fuller gaming expansion.

But rather than getting into that debate, I encourage the member to have that debate, if he hasn't already, with the minister who is directly accountable and can provide a much fuller account of the rationale for the decisions that were made and not made, the polling that was done or not done, and the implications for social policy -- a much more productive forum than trying to attach such a debate to the debates of the operations of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations and, in particular, CPCS.

K. Krueger: While we're quite willing to be here all night if necessary, I don't think we have any intention of canvassing every issue. But this is a major issue and a major departure from government's stated direction and stated assessment of public opinion. Therefore we certainly expected that CPCS would have some input for us as to how such a dramatic change could have occurred.

The Environics poll I referred to, which was taken the first week of January and published May 12 -- a curiously long lag between -- was a peculiar poll in that it initially asked the respondents how they felt about the gambling expansion issue and then asked them a whole series of leading questions, clearly leading in one direction and not asking questions such as, "Would you be even more unkindly disposed toward gambling expansion if you knew that the spouses of male pathological gamblers attempt suicide at triple the rate of the normal female population?" and so on. Rather, it asked them things like: "If you knew that the deficit could be cut, debt reduced and your taxes would come down if the government enjoyed expanded gambling revenues, then would you be in favour?"

Some people refer to this as push-polling and other less flattering terms. I wonder if CPCS has any strategy around the use of that type of polling in this or any area of government.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me again just go on record as saying that despite the member's best attempt to try to make assertions I disagree with, I simply need to reiterate that from the government's point of view there was no dramatic change in policy. What was undertaken this year and in 1994 were modest expansions in gaming activity, consistent with the concerns that have been expressed about more major expansions in gaming policy. However, I understand that the member doesn't share that view. No doubt he has had it out or will continue to have it out with the minister.

[ Page 4475 ]

In respect of polling, I'm not personally familiar with the poll the member is referring to. But I am very well familiar with the fact that polling or public information research involves what's called "argument testing," in which you push the respondents to consider their conclusions in light of competing interests to test how firmly those conclusions are held -- to see what choices they would make in order to ascertain the validity and depth of feeling and opinion. That's a very common technique. It's done in order to try to probe more fully what opinions really are and what choices people would make when faced, as one must be in public policy, with considering competing demands for finite resources.

K. Krueger: In the mandate document for CPCS, under "Communications Support" on page 4 near the bottom, the bottom paragraph, a quote is: "CPCS communications also specialize and can provide expert advice on subjects such as advertising." I receive quite a bit of negative input about advertising that's pushing gaming in British Columbia. I wonder if CPCS has issued any specific instructions on advertising gaming in British Columbia in the last couple of years.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the advertising that the member is likely referring to is advertising of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. CPCS would have no direct oversight or involvement in its production or messaging, etc.

[8:45]

So two questions, really: did CPCS have any indirect say in the kind of advertising done? Is there any specialization of these individuals?

Hon. A. Petter: No. I'm informed CPCS has had no involvement, direct or indirect, in the B.C. Lottery Corporation advertising. The role played by regional coordinators in CPCS is the same, save in respect to the territory that they cover across the province. There's no relationship between the regional coordinator in Kamloops and the fact that the B.C. Lottery Corporation also happens to be located in Kamloops.

K. Krueger: For these regional government communications offices, could we know what their individual budgets are and whether they have support staff? How many people would be concerned at each location? What's their approximate budget?

Hon. A. Petter: I find this hard to believe: apparently they have no support staff. They function as best they can without the support staff. Their office expenses and the like are covered within the CPCS budget.

F. Gingell: Just while we're on this particular subject, I go to this document that deals with the cabinet policy and communications secretariat in their role of "planning, coordination and implementation of communications programs and policies, advertising and information services for ministries, special offices and certain bodies. . . ." We know what ministries are. Could the minister please advise us what "special offices" and what "certain bodies" are?

Hon. A. Petter: I assume this refers to things like commissions, agencies and boards that function within the consolidated revenue fund -- the fisheries secretariat would be an example -- and other like offices and agencies that might undertake activities that CPCS could be of assistance in coordinating.

F. Gingell: Do I take the minister's statement as an assurance that all the work that's done by CPCS in the field of communications is within the consolidated revenue fund only?

Hon. A. Petter: No. There is certainly direct responsibility for agencies within the consolidated revenue fund, but CPCS will also provide assistance on a liaison basis with agencies like Forest Renewal, for example. Where there is a forestry issue, there may be a need to work with Forest Renewal to ensure that activities are coordinated between government and Forest Renewal. So it's not the case that their activities are confined in that way, but their primary responsibilities would be in respect of agencies within the central government.

F. Gingell: I can appreciate that where you get big public policy issues like FRBC, there is a need to ensure coordination. I was hoping you were going to mention B.C. Lottery Corporation, because that's been the discussion we've been going through. Where there is a big public policy issue such as the Lottery Corporation, it kind of surprises me that CPCS didn't see itself with an important role to play in ensuring that all the communications programs were coordinated -- that they fit in with one another and someone wasn't saying one thing and someone else saying something different. I take it the minister is giving his assurance that in the past year and in this year's estimates there is no use of human resources within CPCS in relation to the issue of expanded gambling.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me clarify -- and I appreciate the member's question, because it helps me to do so. In terms of policy advice, CPCS would have been involved in providing policy advice and channelling of policy through to cabinet for a decision regarding gaming and communications regarding changes in government policy regarding gaming. What I was saying was that the information I have is that CPCS was not involved in any way with the B.C. Lottery Corporation in respect of its advertising program -- not to say that it couldn't have been. It just wasn't, and I imagine that was because that program is very much directed at the sale of existing lotteries and was not seen as falling within the ambit of activity that government was generating as policy and communications regarding the changes in those policies.

F. Gingell: Without wanting to suggest to the minister or to the deputy minister for CPCS any way of moving further expenditures off-budget, does CPCS ever bill anybody outside the CRF for their services?

Hon. A. Petter: It's a great idea. I'm sorry; I shouldn't be facetious. To my knowledge, based on staff's advice, CPCS has not billed agencies outside of CRF for the services it provides them.

B. Penner: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. This question also relates to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. A little earlier this evening my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton was asking some questions about CPCS's role in communicating and advertising strategies with 

[ Page 4476 ]

regard to youth programs in British Columbia. Last week the B.C. Liberal Party came into possession of a document that showed that between June 1996 and April 1997 roughly $1.5 million was spent by this government advertising youth initiatives. Approximately $750,000 of that went to ad placement; more than $300,000 went to the preparation of those ads -- production costs; and more than $130,000 went to focus group research.

My question to the minister is whether any of that money would be coming from CPCS's budget under STOB 40, or whether those expenditures were strictly from the budget of the office of the Premier.

Hon. A. Petter: I can provide the member with fuller information if he wants, but the information I have at hand suggests that CPCS did participate in the agency contract for the spring youth initiative in the amount of $510,000.

B. Penner: I'm just seeking a point of clarification. The minister said the spring communications initiative. Which spring would that have been: spring 1996 or spring 1997?

Hon. A. Petter: Spring of '97.

B. Penner: Of the $1.8 million that's budgeted for STOB 40, I wonder if the minister is able to tell us how much of that is going to be dedicated to promotion of youth programs. I note that although the document we obtained last week indicated $1.5 million had been spent from June 1996 to April 1997, we continue to see ads appearing in newspapers in British Columbia extolling the virtues of the Premier's youth initiative. So my question to the minister is: how much is that ongoing campaign costing, and how much is the Minister of Finance contributing through his budget to that ongoing media campaign?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I think it would probably be easier if I were able to obtain for the member some information in writing to give him a more detailed picture. But just on what I've been able to ascertain from staff, it appears that of the production and creative costs related to the agency -- the ones I referred to already -- about $510,000 was the cost that was borne by the CPCS budget. The remainder was cost-shared between -- or amongst, more correctly -- four ministries who deliver Guarantee for Youth programs.

B. Penner: I'm just about finished with this line of questioning. I'll just ask if the minister can enunciate for us which four ministries he's referring to and what amounts they contributed to the media campaign.

Hon. A. Petter: I can give the member the four ministries; I can't tell him how much they contributed, but I can try to get that information. The ministries are the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

B. Penner: My final question to the minister is: was all of this activity and the expenditure of these funds directed at a media campaign essentially quarterbacked through CPCS? Did CPCS play the lead role in terms of strategizing and coordinating this advertising?

[9:00]

R. Thorpe: So with the support of the document we have, tonight we've been able to confirm that the cabinet policy and communications secretariat coordinates, controls and manages all of the advertising for government. We also note in the total estimates book that close to $25 million is available. My question is: how do CPCS and Treasury Board interface on managing and making sure that all the funds are accounted for by all these various ministries, for which this secretariat is quarterbacking the expenditures of all this money?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can't resist saying that the startling revelations that the member seems to have discovered were all contained in the briefing notes that we provided to him. But if he thinks it's startling that there's a coordinating function for communications in government, when there's an agency called the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, I guess that's startling.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

In terms of the division of responsibilities between CPCS and Treasury Board staff, it would parallel the same kind of division I spoke about earlier with respect to the questions of the member for Delta South -- namely, that Treasury Board staff's role would be to monitor advertising in terms of ensuring that it and communications fall within the appropriate allocations for budgets and to monitor the expenditures to ensure that they are in accordance with approvals given by Treasury Board for such expenditure. The CPCS function, on the other hand, would be to coordinate that advertising and make sure that it communicates a set of messages or information in a coherent way that's consistent with overall government policy, that doesn't involve duplication and that most effectively communicates the information or messages that are contained within it. The two agencies obviously have to work together at times to perform their complementary but discrete functions.

R. Thorpe: This is my last statement on this, just so the minister is fully informed on this subject. No, we were not provided with this briefing document on Friday. It's something we've obtained ourselves. I appreciate that you think it came from your staff in the briefing on Friday, but it did not.

F. Gingell: One last question on CPCS. I see that the final words, both in the estimates and in the briefing document that you gave us on Friday, indicate this important role for the public liaison function of government. I'm recognizing that all of us sometimes need some help with these matters, and they're not always as easy as they may seem -- if they don't come naturally to us. I wonder whether CPCS has within its budget any training funds available for helping people fulfil these roles -- they're somewhat different; they're not that straightforward, all these interpersonal skill and conflict resolution issues -- and whether CPCS has a clearly identified plan to ensure that it can look after these responsibilities.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, there is not a specifically designated component of the budget that's targeted 

[ Page 4477 ]

towards, say, conflict resolution or interpersonal skills. But it's an area that is of interest to the secretariat. The secretariat, as I understand, is looking at this area and doing some work around development of programs and may have funded some workshops in this regard. But it's not something they have allocated as a specific component of their budget at this time.

F. Gingell: With that, if we may, we will move along to Treasury Board.

Coming back to the issue of the accountability initiative, obviously Treasury Board is going to play a major role in helping and guiding the various ministers and program directors in this area. Someone from Treasury Board was assigned to the function about a year ago; they were then moved into the comptroller general's office. They've now been moved from there into the Ministry of Forests, I think, in the accounting. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, the Ministry of Highways.

I wonder if any individual has been assigned to pick up these responsibilities.

Hon. A. Petter: Not as yet, unless events have overtaken my recent travels, but there certainly is an understanding that we need to restore some of our capacity to move forward on the accountability initiative. I have raised the matter both with staff and with the deputy minister, and with the Premier, who also has an interest in this initiative.

F. Gingell: And not only in the position that Har Singh was fulfilling day to day on the ground. . . . There was also a deputy minister who was assigned some overall lead responsibility, in the person of Brenda Eaton. Strange, isn't it? All the people who had lunch together with Mr. Gunton, other than Mr. Gunton, are gone. At any rate, Brenda Eaton is no longer here, and I'm wondering whether any other deputy minister has been assigned that lead role.

Hon. A. Petter: Indeed there has. It happily gives me the opportunity to introduce to the House Don Wright, who is the deputy minister in charge of Treasury Board and who has now assumed responsibility for the accountability initiative within the Ministry of Finance.

F. Gingell: Just a word of advice: watch those last suppers. [Laughter.] They tend to do you in.

An important ingredient in the accountability exercise is that there have to be consequences, both negative and positive consequences. One can appreciate that that may cause some management problems, because that's not the way governments -- and I don't mean this government necessarily but governments, period -- have operated in the past. Is that side of the accountability issue something that has been dealt with by government and that they've given thought to, to consider the issue?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I just want to be clear that this government certainly does take seriously the need to hold its officials and managers accountable. There are numerous ways in which that can be done, of course. The accountability initiative will enhance the measurements against which that accountability can take place, but I'm guessing that perhaps the member is suggesting added forms of incentives or disincentives than those that have been previously used.

I guess I can say that it is certainly an issue that I have thought some about, and I know that the officials have, as well. We have looked at institutional structures and adopted some where agencies are allowed to retain some of the savings they make, for example, as an incentive. But if the member is talking about further incentives -- salary incentives, for example, or disincentives -- I have certainly considered those. I'll be frank with the member that I haven't in my own mind become sufficiently advanced in my thinking to have a strong opinion as to what might work and what might not work.

If the member has gone further in his thinking, I'd very much welcome the benefit of his consideration of that issue. I think there should be ways in which we can provide additional incentives or disincentives to managers and ways to create natural market-based incentives for people to exceed targets, with some consequences if they don't. I'm certainly open to the idea; I like the idea. In many ways, it's more attractive than traditional command-and-control regulation or management styles, and I think it's worth considering.

F. Gingell: It's truly a very difficult, complex subject that has all kinds of ramifications you can spend the rest of your evening thinking about.

Treasury Board has clearly had a role for years in the evaluation of the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of programs. This initiative, I would suggest to the minister, is an exercise in moving this evaluation of relevance, efficiency and effectiveness into the ministry itself. The ministry is setting up its own measures, and the ministry is arranging for the measurement to produce results that can be certified or to get a Good Housekeeping seal of approval from some independent third party.

That raises many issues, and if I may, I would like to ask some questions about what's happening and where we are going. First of all, is the program evaluation group within Treasury Board taking an active role in advising, educating and training people who are responsible for program delivery within ministries?

[9:15]

F. Gingell: The minister will remember that when we were discussing the budget of the office of the comptroller general, we were talking about funds that that office has available to use for outside consultants. You will remember that the answer was that those funds are used more to bring in skills that are not present within the ministry, recognizing that this accountability initiative starts to call for a completely different set of skills from many of the things many of us have, whether we be accountants or engineers. It requires professional expertise that is an unusual type and is hard to find.

I understand that there is an organization that is involved in developing the professional skill sets that are involved in these types of appraisal exercises. I'm wondering whether the ministry is looking to the future and having any input in the kinds of programs delivered at our colleges or universities -- maybe the school of public administration at your own university -- that will ensure there is a supply of people with these somewhat different professional skill sets available.

Hon. A. Petter: I certainly want to acknowledge that I think there are skills associated with this kind of initiative that 

[ Page 4478 ]

challenge the Ministry of Finance to add to its professionalism in this regard. I know that's an issue that is under active consideration by the deputy minister. There is a limited contracting budget within STOB 20 budget within the Ministry of Finance. But as I understand it, under PSERC, the employee development office does have the capacity to bring in experts in areas such as this to assist in the development of skills within government. I agree that as we move forward on this initiative, there will have to be more systematic effort made at training and inculcating the values that go along with this kind of approach to accountability.

I think the member's suggestion is well taken. There may be schools of public administration and the like within this province that could assist and provide some expertise and build their own capacity in regard to this kind of accountability program throughout government.

F. Gingell: I don't wish to spend a great deal of time on this issue, but sitting in the position that I do, one can appreciate that I get concerned that nothing is happening on the accountability initiative. I think we have a real opportunity that will pay dividends if it's properly done and people use it as a proper management tool. I would just end this particular section in relation to the accountability initiative, recognizing that we don't need to go into all the issues, because we're all familiar with them. But the commitment from government is real -- that you will get somebody in Har Singh's place soon. If we don't, it's going to lose its impetus, if that hasn't already started to happen.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's concern and observation is well founded. To be candid, in the last six to eight months the focus of government and of the Ministry of Finance, in terms of our fiscal agenda, has been directed at making substantial cuts and making adjustments in ministry budgets and the like to ensure that we could produce the kind of fiscal management plan, financial management plan and budget that we have produced. There have been changes of staff as well: two new deputy ministers. All of which, I think, has taken away some of the focus and energy from this initiative.

If the member is seeking some reassurance that the initiative remains one to which government and this ministry are committed, I can provide him with that assurance. I think that goes beyond this ministry, through the public service to the deputy minister in charge of the public service, to the Premier. And yes, we are mindful of the need to have some added resources within this ministry to give some leadership and direction to that initiative, so that we can start to move forward yet again.

F. Gingell: In the organization of Treasury Board there is a new position for the year 1997-98: assistant deputy minister of special projects. Can the minister advise us just exactly what is defined in Treasury Board as a special project? Give us some examples.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, we were very fortunate to attract a very capable individual to this ministry to assume this position. His original focus was on the management plans that formed part and parcel of the program review and part and parcel of the very substantial cuts both in ministry budgets and in FTE complements associated with them over the past year. That having largely been done, the focus of this individual is now shifting to the management of the capital side of expenditures.

The member for Delta South is, of course, familiar. . . . We undertook a very extensive capital review last year, with some strategic direction as to how to reduce our overall capital investment, but to do so in a way that maximized the return to the taxpayer through greater efficiencies. We also sought greater involvement from private sector participants through joint ventures and the like -- public-private partnerships, I guess, is the term these days.

Mr. Sakalauskas is now focused in that regard and will also be having special responsibility for major government initiatives that have fiscal implications as they emerge from time to time -- an example being the negotiations regarding the jobs and timber accord.

F. Gingell: Within this same organizational chart is the capital expenditure review group under the acting director, Manuel Achadinha. The way the boxes are done, that doesn't look as though it's a box that reports to the ADM of special projects; it looks as though it reports directly to the deputy minister. Has the capital expenditure review group been absorbed into Mr. Sakalauskas's group, or. . . ?

Hon. A. Petter: It's not so much a case of absorption; it's a case of him having oversight responsibility now in terms of the management at the ADM level of that group, which is a very important group in terms of trying to maintain an approach to capital expenditure that maximizes the return to government as a whole and to the public as a whole from our very extensive investments in infrastructure. It also has implications for maintaining our targets in terms of the financial management plan and the debt -- the GDP side.

So it's not so much that one has been absorbed into the other; it's that the assistant deputy minister will have oversight and provide direction in respect to capital projects, and will also then take on additional special responsibilities that relate to governmentwide initiatives of the kind I've just outlined.

F. Gingell: So this group in special projects looks at capital expenditures, whether there are alternatives and ways in which resources can be freed up from other programs, and has produced some form of matrix by which they can all be placed and evaluated and given points and added up and divided and multiplied, and see who comes out the winner and which projects get the top priority. That's sort of the idea, is it?

Hon. A. Petter: That's sort of the idea. Maybe I can explain the genesis of this a little bit. Mr. Trumpy, who is in fact assistant deputy minister for provincial treasury, took on -- on an ad hoc basis, at my request last year -- responsibility for the capital review, with the assistance of staff, who are now involved in the capital expenditure review group. The group and Mr. Trumpy did an outstanding job in terms of dealing with stakeholders and coming up with a capital plan that saw a reduction in year-over-year capital spending and some pretty concrete proposals as to how that reduction would be managed in a way that maximized the value of the investments. They also sought alternative sources of investment for public-private partnerships. Happily for him, Mr. Trumpy has now returned to his primary preoccupation of being in charge of provincial treasury. And the oversight responsibility that he had has now shifted to Mr. Sakalauskas, whose title of special projects may well change in light of that responsibility.

The role here is to make sure that those general criteria -- and as they evolve, new criteria -- are applied by the minis-

[ Page 4479 ]

tries. It is not a component of Treasury Board staff to make decisions about, say, which schools are built. It's to make sure that the decision-making criteria that are applied -- in this case by the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training -- are consistent with the objectives of maximizing value, seeking economies of scale and looking at alternatives to construction, such as extended hours. All those are part and parcel of the evaluation criteria applied by the ministries and of the interaction between -- in this case -- the ministry and the local school board.

They're responsible, therefore, for the continuing development and implementation of that policy by the various agencies. They act as a central Treasury Board oversight function with respect to those agencies, obviously monitoring them to make sure, as well, that they stay within their budget envelopes and respond to issues that might arise throughout the course of the fiscal year. So it's a long yes, but a slightly more nuanced yes, I guess, to the member's question.

[9:30]

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, but again I want to qualify the yes. Yes, in the sense that the apportionment of the overall capital envelope of government amongst ministries is something that this group obviously has a major role, in both monitoring and providing advice to Treasury Board and, through Treasury Board, to cabinet. They have also provided assistance in evaluating the capital spending of Crown corporations and the like.

However, the qualification is this. In terms of good financial management and of apportioning the budgets to meet the social policy goals, yes, certainly this group would have a major say. In terms of coordinating capital spending from an economic development point of view -- in order to maximize jobs, in order to try to ensure equity and a fit from the point of view of the best strategic advantage of investments in terms of the investment climate of the province -- that side of the equation would be more the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So in terms of tying this in with a job strategy and an overall vision for infrastructure development that will provide transportation services to remote communities and those kinds of things, economic development would be the oversight agency there, linking with the particular ministries which are concerned.

It's sort of a matter of coordination taking place in both forms: economic development from the macroeconomic side and Treasury Board in this unit in terms of fiscal management and maximizing the return to taxpayers and ensuring that ministries and agencies live within their appropriate budgets.

F. Gingell: I don't know whether to give a little commercial at this point. I think I will. I'm sure that the ADM of special projects wasn't listening to my private member's statement last Friday, but I spoke on the issue of hospices, and I'd like to suggest that there are ways of reducing the capital requirements in hospitals. There are ways of reducing the operating costs in the Ministry of Health and in hospitals, at the same time creating a much better environment for people to die in: to die at home or to die in freestanding hospices that are set up and organized for that. Those could be major savings. Maybe it's a project you could pass on to special projects, because I think it's something that will have good results all the way around.

I take it that issues to do with the reduction in staffing that have taken place over this past year in trying to sort out some of the issues, because I must admit that in reading the various press releases and some of the documents, it's just a little hard to understand exactly what has happened. . . . I was looking forward to the minister explaining that to me and wiping away the fog that surrounds that. But perhaps it is in Treasury Board that we should be dealing with that.

Hon. Chair, I don't think we're going to be finished with Treasury Board this evening. There are other people that wish to ask some questions, and I wouldn't mind a sit for a few minutes. Perhaps the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has some tax policy issues to discuss.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to get into this estimates debate tonight. I have a number of issues, and I'm hoping this is the appropriate place to raise them with respect to. . . . I think it does come into much of that was being asked in terms of priority of spending and making sure that government is committing its dollars wisely, but more specifically it's with respect to the management strategy that is determined through Treasury Board allocations to particular line ministries.

I wonder if the ministry has had an opportunity to examine in a broader, more philosophical way, to what extent program demand that may drive long-term debt -- and I'm thinking more specifically on long-term capital projects. . . . To what extent has government determined what level of debt is acceptable as a long-term policy strategy, and how might the management of that debt be part of an overall fiscal plan that can be put forward with respect to capital funding for projects?

Just so the minister knows where I'm heading on this, at some point -- and it may not be at this particular stage of these estimates -- I would like to talk about the revenue side and about the matters of tax reform that are currently being discussed across the country with respect to some blending of tax systems that might facilitate long-term debt management.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to answer the question in as much of a nutshell as I can. Since I became Minister of Finance. . . . In respect of preparing for this year's budget with the growth in GDP being less than had been previously forecast, and that having an impact on our debt-to-GDP ratios, I felt it appropriate to reconvene the private sector advisory group that had assisted my predecessor in terms of debt management strategies. The advice they provided essentially became the basis for the debt management component of the financial management plan in this year's budget. Interestingly, it's not that much different than the advice they provided previously, but at that time government sought to exceed that advice, and maybe that was a mistake.

At the same time there were discussions that went on with other groups, including the Business Council of B.C., 

[ Page 4480 ]

who suggested that perhaps a higher level of debt-to-GDP was appropriate. I think the Business Council suggested perhaps a level as high as 25 percent of debt-to-GDP, as opposed to the 20 per cent cap that the business and labour panel that was convened had recommended. Be that as it may, the advice that we have followed is to try to establish a cap of 20 percent of debt-to-GDP and to reduce the current debt-to-GDP ratio to 20 percent over the course of three years. That's what the financial management plan targets. Looking beyond that, over the course of the next 15 years, to then seek to incrementally reduce that percentage from 20 to 15 percent of debt-to-GDP. . . . I think that is the most appropriate measure to measure the amount of debt in relation to the size of the overall economic pie as represented by GDP. And that is set out in "Budget '97 Reports" on page 30, as I'm sure the member is aware.

G. Wilson: The reason that I'm pursuing this line of questioning is because it appears that there is fairly intensive debate across the country at the moment, with respect to that very question: what is the appropriate level of debt-to-GDP?

Secondly, given the fact that we are reaching the point at which we are going to have to start to put some significant investment back into our communities with respect to capital projects that will require long-term debt financing and whether or not in fact governments are on the right track by looking toward a graduated reduction. . . . Now, I think the member for Delta South takes the position that it should be zero. He scolded me somewhat the other night when the matter was posed by the Minister of Employment and Investment, and I said that from our perspective, 26 percent was the appropriate percentage. At some point the member for Delta South and I are going to have a bit of a discussion as to what he meant in that rather scolding little note that he sent me.

But the point is that we are going to, I think. . . . As people who are involved in a general debate around public policy and financing of capital projects, it would seem to me that we are moving along the line of joint venture partnership and moving toward privatization in a manner that becomes counter productive at some point and that will create a greater degree of expenditure requirement in the final analysis, if in fact those joint venture projects don't work or if, through the privatization of certain government delivery of services, we find that those services fail.

I'm curious to know where in the planning process the projections are done with respect to what the long-term costs are going to be with respect to this graduated reduction of debt, in the event that we have an escalating or increased demand. For example, if we're to deal, as Treasury Board has dealt, on a matter such as a public transport service such as B.C. Ferries -- and this will be something we can discuss in the B.C. Ferries estimates. . . . But because Treasury Board has been approached and has taken the attitude -- or government has, and Treasury Board now administers -- that B.C. Ferries should have a reduced subsidy annually, the direct result of that is to transfer debt to Crown corporations and to increase costs to people who have to travel on B.C. Ferries. And if, in addition to that, they're having to pick up the burden of capital construction -- i.e., the building of new ferries -- we are looking at long-term debt management of the Crown corporation for the provision of public transportation. It may well be that at some point this administration, or a future administration, will have to pick up the debt incurred, because ultimately the public has to have that service.

I'd like to hear from the minister what the rationale has been with respect to this movement toward graduated reduction, rather than looking at the maintenance of a level of debt-to-GDP that would provide us the opportunity to adequately and properly fund those services deemed necessary by the community.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the hon. member makes some excellent points, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who receives scolding notes from the member for Delta South. It's reassuring to know that members on that side of the House do, as well.

I think the issue of the optimal level of debt-to-GDP is a debate that has no right answer. It is something that I guess one has to make one's judgments about. In a growing province like British Columbia, with a history in which public infrastructure investment has been a key component of the growth in our economy -- and with members of all political stripes asking for more roads and other infrastructure -- I agree that to go the route of the member for Delta South and say that zero is the appropriate level would not be well received when it translated into a drying-up of public investment in key infrastructure.

But as to what the appropriate level is, I don't think there's any science to it, and that's why we went out as a government and sought advice from various groups -- labour and business and others -- as to what level there ought to be.

Now, I do want to comment on one thing the member said. He talked about the pressures of growth in the economy. But, of course, the pressures of growth in the economy from increased population and the like means that the economy is growing and therefore you have 20 percent of a larger economy, and that 20 percent in real dollar terms can accommodate more investment. So debt, in nominal terms, that's held to a fixed percentage in a growing economy will grow. The actual level of debt will grow, but it will be sustainable because the economy will be growing, presumably, by as great, or greater, a share.

The other point the member makes, which I must say resonates with me, is this question of public versus private debt. Are we really better off as a society if a bridge that might be built by the public sector is built by the private sector? I think one can argue both sides of that issue in terms of apportioning the debt burden, in terms of sharing risk, etc. But I guess what I would say is that I think it is not a bad thing that we set targets. Clearly the markets are very sensitive to targets, and while we may have an internal view in this province as to what is an appropriate level of debt, that view may not be shared by those outside this province. I don't believe in being slavish to the one view or to the other. I know that the bond agencies that downgraded us did so, in part, because they saw a 20 percent debt-to-GDP as being more than they would have liked -- to have kept our previous debt rating. On the other hand, we have the Business Council of B.C. saying, "Let's go to 25 percent" -- or potentially. And the member opposite says the same. So it's a balancing act.

[9:45]

[ Page 4481 ]

need in order to maintain a healthy and growing economy. I don't think there's any magic, but I think the advice we've received is reflective of a pretty good balance in that regard. If we drive hard and make tough choices, limit our expectations on the public side and be creative on the private side -- encourage more investment where there can be profit -- I think that we can end up in a situation where we are economically better off.

G. Wilson: I think, though, that the minister made reference to the question of being slavish to those who set the bond rating. I think one of the concerns that we have to have as legislators and as people who in this country are rather heavily dependent upon external financing forces that are our bonding agents as well as those people who lend us the money. . . . The difficulty that I have -- and I guess I want to get to the question of taxation -- is the fact that there seems to be a prevailing attitude out there that I'm not sure is a healthy one, frankly. It says that we're all better off if we can somehow attack the debt to that degree -- to the detriment of our ability to operate and to finance the ongoing capital projects that are needed to keep our society living in a reasonably healthy state.

Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that we should have an unfettered borrowing or spending ability so that we can simply run debt up to the ceiling. But I'll tell you where I am coming from on this, and I'd like to get the minister's response to it with respect to Treasury Board. I think the danger we're facing is that we are now being driven by an agenda that is to a large degree pushed out by the ultra-right wing. It says that all of a sudden we have got to become so preoccupied with the matter of debt retirement, become so preoccupied with the fact that government may have borrowed to a percentage of GDP that doesn't suit American bonding agencies, that what we've done is put ourselves in a situation where the most needy in our society, the poor in our society, the people who need our assistance, can't get it. I think that's a problem; that's a big problem.

The second thing I think it does -- and I'd like a comment from the minister -- is that it drives the taxation agenda, the revenue demands of government, because what we are saying is that in order for us to meet the expectations set not by the priorities in government spending but by external financial forces, we have to set tax rates, tax levies, at levels that we can't afford to continue to pay.

So it seems to me that what we need to do is review the extent to which we are going to be governed by, and driven by, external financial forces and the degree to which we are going to set those rates ourselves. I think one of the measures of a successful government is the extent to which it puts in place its tax collection system and then wisely expends those dollars. One of the ways I think we can do that is for us to start to look at comprehensive tax reform that is built around a financial management plan that recognizes that carrying a certain percentage of taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP is okay -- and in my judgment it's around 25 or 26 percent -- that it is a functional part of our plan and that we are going to set revenue expectations on the basis of that so that we can put in place the kind of program expenditures that are necessary in order to keep our society operating.

I don't think we're doing that. As a result of that, I think what's happening is that we're creating expectations that we can't meet on budgetary matters, and we're forcing ourselves into a revenue collection system that, frankly, the population can't support -- can't pay. So I'd like to hear from the minister on that, because I think these are critical issues if we're to face the kind of demands that are going to be put against this government, or a future government, in the next decade.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I agree with the member that we cannot be slavish in our adherence to concerns outside this province. That's why, in formulating the financial management plan contained in this budget, we sought the advice of those within the province. But I do want to say to the member that there are trade-offs being made here. While it's true that I don't think there is a perfect answer to whether 15 or 20 or 25 percent is optimal, it is equally true that you cannot continue to increase the percentage of debt-to-GDP and be sustainable.

Secondly, it is true that the higher level you set, the fewer program dollars are available for meeting operating costs, because more is going to service the debt. I think that needs to be borne in mind, as well. If we want to steward those public dollars for things like social welfare, education and health care on the operating side, on the program side. . . . There will be fewer dollars available if an additional 5 percent is allocated towards debt, and therefore the servicing costs of that debt are greater than they would be at a lower level.

So I think we want to be careful in saying there's no price to pay by increasing the debt target. There is a price to pay, and the price to pay is that more of those very precious taxpayer dollars are going to service the debt, which in turn is providing useful physical assets which I understand also have value to society. But it's a matter of effecting that balance. The member says it's 25 percent; our plan says that in the short term it's 20 percent, moving toward 15 percent. At the end of the day, I would like to see us minimize the amount necessary to service infrastructure debt in order to maximize programming, but not at any price. I'm not sure there is a perfect answer.

G. Wilson: It's unfortunate that the hour grows late, because I think this is a very important debate that needs to take place, and clearly tonight is not the time to get into it in any detail. The fact is that whether or not the target is set at 20 percent, the government isn't hitting that target. It seems to me that we have to make realistic targets -- targets that we can in fact meet -- so that those targets, when met, provide the security and comfort to those in the lending business as to what we're up to.

I would like to hear from the minister on a matter with respect to personal income tax and the extent to which personal income tax now. . . . As a proportion of federal income tax in British Columbia, I think it's at 52 percent. This is something that is not the highest in Canada, but it's by no means the lowest, either. There are a number of people advocating, and these are people involved as economists, that we amend the income tax collection system to move toward a single income tax collection system -- whether that's through an independent agency or whether it's strictly by the federal government or strictly by the provincial government -- whereby the portion of the provincial income tax is set as a proportion to the base rate rather than as a percentage of the amount collected by the federal government.

That seems to be an issue that is gaining some support across Canada. It's an issue, I understand, that is being discussed fairly widely by people in the ministries across the 

[ Page 4482 ]

country. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not this ministry is engaged in that discussion and debate and whether or not there is some support for that process. If so, is there some support for the idea?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll quickly answer, and then, given the hour, I guess we'll have to defer further discussion, regrettably. The first thing I want to say is that I do think it's an important debate, particularly on the debt issue. It is refreshing to have the debate free from some of the hysteria that sometimes occurs, particularly in this Legislature, in which terms like "debt" and "borrowing" are thrown around as though they occur independent of the social realities and realities that this province faces in terms of meeting the demands of a growing economy and the associated social pressures we're under. So I agree with that.

In respect of the question concerning income tax collection, it is true that we now have a single income tax collection system, at least in most provinces -- not in Quebec, of course, where they've chosen to do their own income taxes, and not in some provinces where corporate income tax is collected separately. Most provinces, this one included, operate under a single income tax collection system through tax collection agreements with the federal government.

But there have been requests from the western Premiers and others that we look at a tax collection agency more at arm's length from the federal government than Revenue Canada, in which, through whatever means, the provinces have more scope to set policy that is particular to their component of the tax collection so we're not forced to adhere to federally driven policy as we are now, where the federal government will make a decision as a matter of its budget decision and that decision and social policy will automatically draw in the provinces with respect to their share of what's collected.

What we have been pushing very strongly is that the purpose of a revenue collection agency, in our view, is not simply to provide some independence from Revenue Canada but to provide greater autonomy for provinces to set real policy within areas of their taxation policy, while still taking advantage of a common collection agency. That point has been pushed very aggressively and in fact formed part of the report that I and western finance ministers submitted to the western Premiers -- and that was endorsed and released a couple of weeks ago.

With that, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES

Hon. D. Streifel: Maybe the hon. member across the way would like to ask questions before I kind of outline where we want to go.

M. Coell: I wasn't sure you were going to; that's why I was going to ask you. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand the zealous attitude of the member opposite, so here we go.

I rise today to introduce the budget of the Ministry of Human Resources for the fiscal year 1997-98. With me are members of my executive. . . . It says here: "Follow instructions." I guess I'm not supposed to be incorrigible, am I? Hansard will probably wipe that out.

On my right is my deputy, Dr. Sharon Manson Singer; behind me is the assistant deputy minister of field services, Chris Haynes; the executive director of the planning and performance measurement division, Garry Curtis; and on my left is the executive director of finance and management services, Arn van Iersel.

This will be the first full year since the creation of this new ministry. Our role is to ensure that all British Columbians are provided with the basic necessities of food and shelter while they seek financial security in the changing economic and social environment of our times. In most cases that means supporting our clients as they make the move from welfare to work. It also means ensuring that people with disabilities have the financial support they need to live with dignity and to make meaningful contributions in the communities in which they live. The creation of the new ministry has allowed us to focus more effectively on the needs of those among us who are most vulnerable, and it has allowed us to consolidate the far-reaching changes we began in December 1995 with the introduction of the B.C. Benefits reforms to the province's income support systems.

We are now a ministry of 2,272 full-time-equivalent positions. We deliver services and monthly cheques to nearly 320,000 people through 138 offices in the communities across British Columbia.

The introduction of B.C. Benefits in late 1995 marked a dramatic change in government's vision of social assistance. Implementing the new vision of B.C. Benefits has required my ministry to redefine its role and adapt its method of doing business. I am pleased to say that we are well positioned to take on this new set of challenges. Our trained and experienced staff are uniquely experienced in serving individuals and families making the move from welfare to work. They ensure that low-income people with disabilities are assisted to maximize their independence and well-being through assis-

[ Page 4483 ]

tance available under the Disability Benefits Program Act. Ministry of Human Resources staff are ensuring that the limited resources available are being delivered only to those who are eligible -- only to those who are truly in need -- and we have taken a range of steps to minimize the occurrence of fraud and abuse in the income assistance system.

[6:45]

Over the past months I have met with many of my ministry's clients who are benefiting from training programs and transition-to-work benefits made available through our government. As well, I've met with the employers that are employing these former income assistance recipients. I have met with the contract placement folks that are bringing these individuals into the workforce. It's a success story that in some respects we'll touch on briefly as it affects our clients, but it's primarily under the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

We believe that no one, least of all our youth -- the newest entrants to the labour market -- deserves to be caught in the destructive cycle of unemployment, poor self-esteem and dependency. For families where dependent children are involved, we place the highest priority on the well-being of those children. We believe that being employed results in higher self-esteem for the parents and better role models for children. Parents, because of their commitment to the future well-being of their children, are often the most motivated of all. Single parents have responded dramatically to the changes that directly assist them to seek a job.

Under B.C. Benefits, government identified the barriers that were preventing these parents from going out and finding work. Most parents who want to work need access to good child care. So under B.C. Benefits, child care subsidies of up to $580 per child per month are available to families with low incomes to help pay for child care. Government now provides vision care and dental coverage for children of low-income working families.

The good news is that the changes are working. The success rate has been remarkable. The average monthly income assistance caseload fell by 9.4 percent last year. That's the biggest drop in 20 years. The percentage of our population depending on income assistance is down to 8.1 percent, the lowest level in five years. But there is much more that must be done. The single-parent caseload has fallen every month since March 1996. Compared to December 1995, 15 percent fewer single-parent families are now on welfare. Is our work finished? No, not likely.

B.C. Benefits is also about young people, the newest entrants into the labour market. We are firm in our belief that most young people do not need welfare. What they need is training, education, information about the labour and job markets, and skill in how to find work, get work and keep work. That is why our youth programs, under the direction of my hon. colleague the Minister of Education, Skills and Training, provide opportunities to move into the workforce through entitlement to job search and work preparation. The number of young people aged 19 to 24 on welfare is down 27 percent compared to December 1995, and the adults-over-25 caseload numbers have been reduced by 13 percent. B.C. Benefits helped make work a better deal than welfare, and in thousands of cases, people simply made the rational economic choice and went back to work.

B.C. Benefits also provides significant benefits for low- and modest-income working families, through the B.C. family bonus, a monthly cheque of up to $103 per child. The bonus makes it easier for families with children to leave welfare and stay off the system, because they continue to receive the family bonus as they establish themselves in entry-level jobs in the economy. This innovative social policy is a key tool in this government's campaign against child poverty. Federal and provincial social services ministers have unanimously recognized B.C.'s family bonus as the best working model for a national child benefit. Just as medicare was the landmark social policy of the 1960s, the national child benefit will be the social policy milestone of the 1990s, and B.C. leads the way.

Child poverty is a national disgrace in a country of Canada's wealth and resources. To successfully address this critical problem, B.C. recognizes the need to provide some economic support to low-income families outside the welfare system. We have taken that approach, in contrast to the cut-and-slash approach we see in other provinces. Though we are making progress here in British Columbia, we believe that too many B.C. children and their families are still not getting their fair share. More work has to be done, and we are proud that British Columbia has led the fight to address this issue.

We continue to urge the federal government to respond to the plight of the nation's children with more than empty gestures. The federal government, working with the provinces, should commit to implementing, at the earliest opportunity, a comprehensive child's agenda which includes a national child benefit. The government of Canada should increase its commitment from the $600 million in new dollars promised for July 1998, to $2.5 billion to $2.9 billion. That is the true cost of a national program to address child poverty in a meaningful way, and those funds should be indexed to the cost of living. It may be the most compassionate and cost-effective investment the government of Canada ever makes.

Now I would like to turn to the specific details of my ministry's budget for '97-98. This is the new ministry's first budget. The process of splitting income assistance functions from those of the rest of the former Ministry of Social Services was complex and involved months of work. The total budget for this fiscal year is projected at $1.697 billion. Included in this budget are savings of $102 million. These savings are made up of $83 million in administrative and program cost-saving measures and $19 million in savings due to a projected further decline in the caseload. My ministry has achieved savings associated with the decrease in caseloads through clarifying the rules around eligibility for income assistance, ensuring that limited resources go to those truly in need and implementing rigorous protections against fraud and abuse. We have managed the caseload by strictly limiting accepted applications to those truly in need.

B.C. Benefits is working. B.C. Benefits is a collaborative cross-government initiative that reflects a new approach to social policy. In partnership with the Ministries of Education, Skills and Training, Finance, and Children and Families, we have largely succeeded in the areas of removing the barriers between welfare and work, making sure that work is a better deal than welfare and implementing rigorous policies that ensure that limited resources go only to those truly in need. The results speak for themselves. Thousands of people left welfare for employment, and most of those thousands of 

[ Page 4484 ]

British Columbians are now economically independent contributors to their communities. But thousands more who need employment remain on our caseload.

Over the past five years, the B.C. economy has created more than 220,000 new jobs, and we expect a further 40,000 jobs to be created this year. Perhaps more importantly, the vibrant economy here has a huge turnover of jobs each year as people retire, change jobs, get promoted or move as businesses expand or evolve as the labour market changes. In fact, there are approximately 500,000 hirings in this province each year, and every one of those hirings could be a job opportunity for one of the clients of my ministry. We are developing partnerships with other ministries of government, with private sector groups and with communities to actively direct welfare applicants to new job opportunities. Our network of 138 offices is in touch with over 8 percent of the population of B.C., with people who need jobs.

In May the Premier announced the Canada-British Columbia agreement on labour market development. Through this agreement, training employment benefits and living allowances will be made available for up to 26,000 persons in B.C. who are either currently on income assistance or would receive income assistance in the absence of a federal program. This agreement is a first step toward B.C.'s vision of a fully integrated provincial labour market development system which can serve the needs of all British Columbians, and it is supported by adequate, secure and stable funding arrangements.

Under the Premier's B.C. jobs strategy, many government ministries are concentrating on creating decent-paying, family-supporting jobs. Business, labour and communities are all being asked to work together to get people back to work. The jobs strategy is focusing on areas of the B.C. economy where there is significant potential for growth. There are new visions for forestry and fisheries; tourism; mining, smelting, oil and gas; Asia-Pacific trade; leading-edge technology-based industries; the film industry; infrastructure for education and health; roads, bridges, transit and our rail transportation system; self-employment. In our own communities, for the most part, small independent businesses are doing their part.

There is no shortage of ideas and no shortage of job creation plans coming on line. Government already has a wide range of programs in place to encourage and assist the transition from welfare to work. Through the Premier's Guarantee for Youth initiative, all employable young people from the ages of 19 to 24 are guaranteed access to skills training, workplace-based training and apprenticeship opportunities leading to employment, largely through MOEST.

The Ministry for Children and Families offers child care subsidies and vision and eyecare benefits for low-income families. The B.C. family bonus helps families who leave welfare stay off welfare with an annual monthly cheque that recognizes the extra costs of raising children.

My ministry has a range of assistance for people moving into that critical first job. A transition-to-work benefit of up to $150 a month is available for one year to parents who are leaving income assistance to take a job. Working parents will continue to receive Ministry of Human Resources enhanced medical benefits for one year after leaving income assistance. Funds to purchase clothes required by an employer to start work can be issued to clients who have a confirmed job. Work transportation funds can be provided if transportation to a confirmed job is a problem. A one-time-only benefit called the work-entry benefit can pay up to $200 to help with employment startup costs for single parents beginning a job.

The Ministry of Human Resources is proud of the work we've done in the past year. We believe we have made a positive difference in the lives of many of the most vulnerable in our communities. We look forward to continuing to assist our clients to achieve economic security through our trained, experienced staff in 138 offices across the province, in partnership with other ministries and on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Hon. members, I will be pleased to take your questions.

M. Coell: I'd just like to thank the minister for his comments. I realize that this is the first year for this ministry. There have been incredible changes, with the development of the new Ministry for Children and Families and the re-establishment of the Ministry of Human Resources.

What I would like to do is to quickly go over some of the programs that were delivered by the Ministry of Social Services just to make sure that they're not still being in any way delivered by staff of this ministry. That may take a few minutes, but I think it will save us some time in the long run if we as members of the opposition know exactly what programs and services the ministry is delivering. The minister can stop me at any time if he wishes to add something.

The Ministry of Social Services had programs for child, family and community services, and adoption services -- infants, special needs adoptions, international adoptions, ministry adoptions, post-adoption services and community adoption support services. Is the present ministry or staff still involved in any way in the delivery of those programs?

Hon. D. Streifel: As far as I understand, we have no involvement in those programs. They have all been successfully transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families, I believe.

M. Coell: What about the agreements for care outside the child's home? They are voluntary care agreements or special needs agreements, preventive and support services to families, child-centred family support services, direct support for families, homemaker-to-work programs, counselling and respite?

Hon. D. Streifel: Only the homemaker service would be provided through the regular routine that the ministry does. It's not connected to child protection initiatives or anything like that; it's only for income assistance clients.

M. Coell: Would that be, then, for people on disability allowance or for seniors unable to care for themselves?

Hon. D. Streifel: In most instances, it would be in a circumstance where somebody is discharged from hospital and needs assistance in that manner. That's the basis of the program.

M. Coell: Does the ministry have any involvement in residential care; family care homes; regular or restricted family care; specialized residential services; group homes; receiving, assessment or planning programs; or specialized residential child care programs?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, none of those.

M. Coell: Day care supports for teen parents were in the former ministry, and support for young parents, pregnant teens and residential living for pregnant or young mothers.

[ Page 4485 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: The only involvement we would have would be that if someone were eligible, they would receive the day care subsidy in that manner.

[7:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: We have two youth shelters, and we are in the process of effecting the transfer to Children and Families. But we have none of the others that the member spoke about.

M. Coell: Another group is community support services, and that would be the at-home respite benefits program -- I wasn't sure whether that might be still involved in this ministry -- contracted respite relief services, child and youth care worker services for families in need and the infant development program, professional support services for children with special needs, child and youth care worker services for families and children with special needs, parent support for families with children with special needs, homemaker and homemaker support services for families and children with special needs. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: None of the above.

M. Coell: They had services for adults with mental handicaps. And there were the residential services that the minister was responsible for last year: community residential services, semi-independent living, respite care, intensive adult day care, day services, supported work projects, the self-help skills program, and supports for providers of family and professional support services.

Hon. D. Streifel: Again the answer repeats: none of the above. Shall vote 44 pass?

M. Coell: I just have one more category that I want to cover, and that's the community project funding that the minister was responsible for -- the community volunteer program and the employment initiatives for the handicapped. Two programs that we talked about last year were Healthy Kids -- I believe that's been transferred -- and children's orthodontic services.

Hon. D. Streifel: They're not with us -- those other programs you mentioned. But we're down to the community projects. We have a couple, I understand.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could just outline those two programs for me, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: A few of the projects. . . . They're centred around advocacy or advocacy groups that work on behalf of our clients; that's the extent of them. If you want details of the program, piece by piece, we can try that when we get in there. Or I can send it over to you.

M. Coell: Okay, thank you. That helps a lot with the line of questioning that members on this side will have. The other issue -- and your staff was kind enough to give me a. . . . So you know what I'm talking about.

I just want to know whether the minister is able to answer questions on all of these areas. I realize that some of them. . . . The family bonus is the Minister of Finance's role. Whether he would have us ask questions of him or the Minister of Finance. . . . The Healthy Kids role is the Minister for Children and Families. Whether he's able to answer questions on that. . . . It is joint -- shared with the ministry but delivered by the Ministry for Children and Families. The other one, of course, is Youth Works, which is delivered by Skills and Training.

If the minister could comment on what areas he is able to answer questions on and on what questions we should direct to the other ministers responsible. . . . I realize that this is much different than last year because of the changes in the ministry. We just want to make sure we're asking the questions of the right minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: In some respects, I think, it may be a bit confusing for both of us through these estimates, as we're still a bit in flux. I know I tend to speak a lot about many of these programs, because they're my clients -- our clients in this ministry. They're being served by and benefiting from these programs. But I refer the member, for the details of the program, to the ministry that has administrative authority.

Areas around the clients -- how they get there and that sort of thing, the human side of the issues -- are certainly within this ministry. The numbers -- how many are going and the referral -- all relate to our drop in caseload and that aspect. So if you bear with me, we'll try and be as cooperative and flexible as possible, because a couple of these things I have a touch on, like the national child benefit, for instance. I've been doing negotiations in leading British Columbia at the national table, so I can't really say: "It's not me." Like I say, under direction I can give you kind of an ongoing step-by-step of where we're at and where we'd like to be.

But for the base details of Youth Works and the Welfare to Work stuff. . . . I can certainly introduce you to the success some of our clients have had; I'd like to do that. But again, at the risk of repeating -- probably this is my longest answer tonight -- really, the details are up to the ministries that are delivering the programs.

M. Coell: The way I would proceed, then, is to ask the minister. And if the minister is not able to answer, then we would refer to the Ministry of Finance or to Children and Families for the detail that we require.

In looking through the estimates this year, I see two main areas that I wish to canvass. The headquarters function, for which you have your senior staff with you tonight -- field services, income support, policy and performance measurement, finance and administration, and then communications and corporate services -- is one group to canvass and look at. Then there are the core service delivery programs: income assistance, which is your main program in this ministry now; disability benefits; Youth Works; living allowance, I think, would fall within the ministry; health services; and then prevention, compliance and enforcement. I think there is a fair amount to be covered in that.

I would also at some point like to give the minister an opportunity to discuss Bills 14, 15 and 16 -- how they've been implemented with the change -- because they were brought 

[ Page 4486 ]

in prior to the ministry changing, but they are still very much a part of this ministry and key to it. Also, there are a number of issues regarding income assistance, basic support and shelter that I see as another area we would spend some time on. I know there are members of the Liberal caucus who have specific questions about areas in their ridings, as well as other members in the House, I'm sure.

So with that, if we could look first at field services -- and I believe your senior deputy minister is here -- and if you could outline for me any changes that have happened specifically because of the change in ministry -- what that group is doing differently. . . . I may give an example of that. Prior to the ministry splitting, you may have had people doing both jobs. The transition for field services, I think, would be probably the most important part of the transition as to what staff with skills went to the Ministry for Children and Families and what staff stayed with the ministry. If you could just. . . . I'm not looking for great details. The transition of that staff and the staff you were left with, how they're functioning. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: We have, of course -- my opening remarks -- 138 offices that provide support. It's delivered through financial assistance workers, who are capable folks on the front line who do the work for us. We have no social workers in this ministry; that function has all gone to Children and Families. Is that kind of where you want to go, in a breakdown of what we look like in the field? If the member would indicate. . . . Never mind; you got it.

M. Coell: Of the 2,272 FTEs, how many would be financial aid workers? What I'm looking for is the caseload for those particular financial aid workers, and I have a number of questions regarding that.

Hon. D. Streifel: We have 1,068 FAWs -- with two less it would probably be William the Conqueror or something.

M. Coell: Could the minister detail, in ballpark numbers, what the remaining staff are in the 138 regional offices? Are they secretarial, research. . . ?

Hon. D. Streifel: Within the field structure and the offices we have, the rest would be made up of administrative support staff, with a few supervisory positions as well. You're looking for the 2,200-something, aren't you?

M. Coell: That's what I'm looking at, just to make sure that they're involved in support somewhere.

I wonder if we could spend some time talking about financial aid workers. As the minister said, they're the front line. They're the people who are the face of the government, in many instances, for someone who's coming in needing assistance. I wonder if you could detail for me the training that a financial aid worker would receive.

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand that there's no formal training program for FAWs in British Columbia. We train our own. We give our financial assistance workers a core training, an introductory when they're hired on the job and then one month of on-the-job training.

M. Coell: I believe that in the past there were courses at the community college for financial aid workers. I don't know whether they've been continued or not.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, those courses were human services worker courses. They weren't necessarily for government service or direct. . . . They could work in a multiple of disciplines and employment afterwards. We rely on our in-house training for our FAWs.

[7:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: As a result of and in response to Gove, our FAWs receive an additional two days training based around the issues of abuse and neglect. They're trained to recognize some of the symptoms and make the appropriate referrals.

V. Anderson: In the same vein, could I ask the minister: what are the requirements, the standards, for hiring persons as FAWs?

Hon. D. Streifel: In January '96 we implemented the KSA -- knowledge, skills and abilities -- recruitment selection process for financial assistance workers. The knowledge, skills and abilities uses an extensive multiple-choice test as a preliminary screening method, and only those folks who pass through that screen are in fact hired.

V. Anderson: Are there no educational requirements, no particular training or past experience or orientation, like grade 10, grade 12, university or community college? What kind of experience or training is required in the initial application?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, the folks may have those educational criteria or prerequisites, but they still have to pass the criteria that we lay out for financial assistance workers.

V. Anderson: If I understood the minister right, he said they may have all of those or none of those. None of them is particularly required; there are no basic requirements or standards at all. It's all or none, if I understand the minister correctly.

Hon. D. Streifel: Regardless of what educational background or experience an individual has when they apply, they must fit the knowledge, skills and abilities criteria. So we would recognize -- anyway, that would tell me -- that if somebody's been working in a related field for a period of time, we would accept that as it applies to the position the individual is applying for. There's where the knowledge, skills and ability criteria come in that we lay out for our financial assistance workers.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister might make available to us a copy of the exam. That would be helpful, if that's possible.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to take a chance here. I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but if we pass these 

[ Page 4487 ]

documents out in a broad manner -- or in any manner -- we never know where they're going to drift out to, and individuals who are applying could in fact be given an unfair advantage. I have no problem offering the member a personal briefing on this with my staff, so he can get an understanding of what the requirements are. But I'd like to keep the documentation relatively tight, if that's acceptable to the member, hon. Chair.

V. Anderson: I'd be happy to have the briefing on that. I'm not quite sure how you keep it confidential when all the people who have written it will go out and tell everybody else what they've written. Just the same, I can appreciate your comment. I'd be happy to move in that direction.

The concern that I have, which my colleague also raised, is that these are the front-line people. I know that over the past number of years there has been a grave concern about the inadequacies of the support system or the persons who were there. A lot of unfortunate things that happened have been documented. So, if I understand the minister rightly, after the test and before these people are hired, there is an interview? Let me just clarify that. They pass the test and then there is an interview and a selection from that. Am I right?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, that's the way it works.

V. Anderson: Then, if I understand correctly, there's a one-month orientation course before they begin the job and then a two-day course after they undertake the job. What ongoing training is there?

Hon. D. Streifel: With the 30 days of on-the-job training, the core training -- which is mandatory for FAWs -- is provided at various stages of the employee's career. It ranges from 30 days of on-the-job training, being coached by an experienced FAW, to a skill enhancement course available after four years of job experience. So there's ongoing training which happens in blocks when it's needed and at certain times in the employment life.

V. Anderson: How long is the test and what is the nature of the test? Could you summarize briefly how long the test is? Does it take an hour, three hours. . . ? I think it was fill-in-the-blanks or multiple choice, if I understood rightly.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this one. It's a multiple-choice test. That's just the preliminary screening. After that there still has to be an interview and the general methods of the pre-employment relationship, then the orientation and the on-the-job training. With it being a multiple-choice test, I would think that the length of time would really depend on the individual. Perhaps the member would be able to acquire this knowledge on the boundaries of this test through a briefing with my staff, but I'm going to take a crack at it: it's probably a bit subjective.

V. Anderson: I guess the concern I have, having dealt with so many people in the field and people who have applied and had unsatisfactory results, is that it appears to me that the orientation and the training are hardly in keeping with the responsibility of the process. I have a real concern that it looks like one of the easiest job interviews a person could get and that the kinds of issues they would have to deal with, the kinds of family or personal concerns. . . . Helping to orient people into whatever strategies they would need or helping them to deal. . .or assessing their needs or their truthfulness -- all of those characteristics. . . . It seems to me that it is the first contact with the ministry, and the fundamental one, and I have real questions about what are being presented as the qualifications and the abilities of these persons.

I don't hear a great deal. . . . Would there be one day a week or one day a month? How much time out of work are people getting for orientation and training on the variety of issues?

Hon. D. Streifel: I am not quite sure where the member is going with the comments about the individuals we employ. Our financial assistance workers are extremely dedicated. They are a well-skilled, well-educated and well-motivated group of professionals who work in this field generally because of their need to serve. If the member is suggesting. . . . I probably need clarification of the comments from the member, because on the one hand I heard him say that it was difficult to get employment because of the screening mechanism, and then I heard that we're not quite sure what kind of training these people get because of the number of mistakes they make. I really think that the mistake level is relatively low, and I would challenge the hon. member to even go back within his own profession and his own calling. I think there are scads of mistakes wherever we go.

We have a great group of financial assistance workers out there on the front line. You're right, they are the first introduction to the ministry for the thousands of folks who come forward, and they carry out that work on a day-by-day basis with caring, compassion and professionalism that you don't see very often within this field in other parts of this country. My compliments to the folks that work for us out there.

V. Anderson: Yes, I know there is dedication and I know there is concern and feeling there, but if you put anybody into a job for which you have not properly prepared them, I think all the dedication in the world won't enable that job to be done well. Put on top of it the reality of the social pressures, the discouragement and the burdens of the people who come to them -- because the persons who come to them in need are the most overburdened, worried, frustrated, frightened, concerned, dejected, discouraged persons there are in our community. . . . That's why they come to them -- because everything else has fallen apart.

What I hear is that these people have very little, if any, human relations training and very little opportunity to analyze themselves and how they are able to carry this load, then go home and sleep at night with all the pressures that are put upon them. I'm trying to be sympathetic about the pressure that's put upon the front-line workers -- and fair to them. They're being subjected to a load without the proper support.

So my other question. . . . And this I know from experience. How many hours a day are they working? How many hours in a week do they have for orientation, for consideration, for review, for getting away from the caseload to examine it and look at what's happening in their own lifestyles and how they deal with the cases?

Hon. D. Streifel: If I understand, the question was: how many hours a day and how many hours a week? For the FAWs, their workweek is seven-hour days, 35 hours a week.

V. Anderson: Within that seven-hour day and 35-hour week, are they continually taking in cases all day long for 35 hours a week, or are they taking in cases half of that time and having time out to resolve and do supervision and reflection? 

[ Page 4488 ]

It's one thing if you're filling out cases all day long; it's another if you're doing one case an hour and then have time to deal with it. The caseload is also relevant to the preparation of the person.

Hon. D. Streifel: For the member, the individual's workday could contain a variety of activities. They may in fact do intake for part of the day and casework for another part of the day. There's a half a day per week when they're in a team meeting structure. All of this is part of the work routine. I would imagine that it ebbs and flows like everybody's work routine. Individuals get their coffee breaks, their lunch hours and their time off. That's part of the regular work structure. Having been an hourly paid employee for the bulk of my work life, I understand this kind of a structure.

[7:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: We do the training. So that then becomes, I would expect, the formal training that is required. There is the orientation, and then there is one month of training on the job. I think that's fairly formal.

R. Neufeld: What I'm trying to get at here is that in the Gove report, core social workers are required to have a BSW or something equivalent -- or some other degree from a university. What I understand from the minister is that. . . . I guess if I take this through, there's absolutely no formal requirement for schooling, so I assume that's grade 12; you don't need that. You walk through the door, you go through a screening test, you have one month on-the-job training and two days of training -- and that's a person who meets clients who are, as the previous member just described, most in need and who are having a fair amount of difficulty in their lives. As I interpret from the way the minister is talking, would I be correct in my statement as to what he meant?

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

R. Neufeld: I guess I'm having a little bit of trouble with this. We're just trying to get through it, but it seems amazing to me that a first meeting of someone who's having trouble financially or in their family. . . . I don't think they know which ministry to go to. I don't think anybody catches them out in the foyer and says: "You're going through the wrong door; go to the Ministry for Children and Families for help."

I would think that the normal thing would be for them to go to Human Resources and ask for help. Someone there has to redirect them if they're in the wrong area -- or help them out, I would think, unless I totally misunderstand the system. But I've toured a bit in Fort St. John about what takes place.

I'm going to put on the record that I'm a little amazed that there is no formal training, that it only takes two days of training as per Gove's report and one month on the job -- and these are people who meet the people who are having real difficulties in life. What I'm trying to stress is the fact that. . . . I'm not going to say that the ministry makes excessive mistakes, because I think we all make mistakes, and I hope we all learn from them. But I would hope, from the Gove report and from the issues that Justice Gove brought forward, that we would be looking a little further to make sure that when these people come in, they are looked after in the best manner possible. Again, I'm not trying to say that the people who work for the ministry are not doing a good job. I'm just amazed that it only takes two days of special training, no formal training and one month on the job.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll correct the hon. member one more time on this issue. He talks about only two days' training. I don't know where he heard that or where he dragged that out of the air. The two days are referenced by Judge Gove, and it's in reference to the recommendation under the Gove commission that our FAWs be given two days or some additional training to recognize certain things within their work structure. For the member to step forward and say that that two days represent all of these individuals' training as they approach their worklife is really a bit much.

The individuals go through a screening test; they go through an interview and assessment; there's a reference procedure; there's one-month on-the-job training where they're partnered up with an experienced FAW, much like a mentoring program or an apprenticeship program; there's the core training that reviews and retrains when necessary; and then there's a six-month probationary period. That's the process that our FAWs go through as they enter their employment life.

Just to correct that the member said we don't require any formal training, my reference was that in British Columbia there's no formal training available at this time, as I understand it, to be an FAW. Through all of this, of course, the workers dedicate themselves; they do the work on behalf of their clients that come in the door. There's an ongoing supervision within the management structure of the office on a day-to-day basis, like there is in virtually every other workplace.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for his response. I didn't drag it up out of thin air. I listened very carefully to the minister's response. I think you'd better read Hansard tomorrow. You'll find that you said "two days' extra training." If the minister calls his comment "out of the air," I guess I dragged it out of the air. That's exactly where it came from. So all I'm trying to get on the record is the fact that I thought there should be a little bit more training. But if the minister says that he's living up to what Gove recommended and he's happy with the amount of training it requires and no formal training is required for FAWs, so be it. That's all I want to confirm and get on the record. I'm not trying to drag anything out of the air. I'm listening very carefully to the minister's comments.

B. McKinnon: I don't want to belabour it, but you'll understand that one of the biggest complaints we in opposition get from people on welfare is that they have one major complaint. The complaint, especially from single mothers and divorcees, is that people working for the Ministry of Human Resources are frequently cold and unfriendly. They describe financial assistance workers as "acting as if the money was coming from their own pockets." The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia have received many complaints from single mothers and divorcees about the treatment they have received from the ministry staff.

I don't for a moment believe that being on welfare is easy, because it takes away your self-esteem because of the way society has chosen to treat people who are forced to accept help from the government in order to survive. Workers can be very intimidating to people who are on welfare, maybe without realizing it, so that's the reason we're asking these questions. What sort of education or training do these workers have to deal with these people who are basically stressed out? 

[ Page 4489 ]

I don't imagine that it would take very much in this stressful situation -- trying to make ends meet and feed your children -- for people on welfare to begin to feel harassed by the workers when their cheques are repeatedly being held up or delayed, when they don't know where their next meal is coming from. This is where our concerns are coming from, and that's why we ask these questions.

So my question to the minister again is: what sort of training do these financial assistance workers -- or any worker who is hired by Human Resources, for that matter -- receive to deal with these types of jobs? The complaints are there, and they've been there year after year.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll run this for the last time. Then, after 15 or 20 minutes on training, I'll refer folks to the Blues tomorrow. Individuals apply for a job with the Ministry of Human Resources to become a financial assistance worker. They go through a screening test. They're interviewed and assessed. They provide references. There's a one-month on-the-job training, then there's core training that happens throughout their work career. There's a six-month probationary period where there's ongoing supervision. Along with this, in response to Gove, they are trained for an additional two days on issues around circumstances of violence and abuse. That's the training. It's fairly extensive. Our folks do a very, very good job on behalf of their clients.

I agree with the member opposite when she says that it's not a nice way of life to apply for welfare. That's why we know most folks don't want to be there. That's why for this ministry and the ministries that we work cooperatively with -- Education, Skills and Training, Employment and Investment, Children and Families, Women's Equality -- the main focus is to work folks out of the welfare system through assistance and aids of financial support outside the system. The whole B.C. family bonus was structured around that.

B. McKinnon: Then I would like to ask you about the basic training for your receptionists in offices. I've had complaints about workers. . . . These are the receptionists who the person goes in to see and who discuss the client's business in the reception area or in the public area of the office. These people had been very embarrassed by the way they had been treated.

I know that under the B.C. Human Rights Code it states that welfare recipients' confidentiality should be strictly respected by ministry employees. The practice of forcing recipients to line up outside the ministry offices to receive their welfare cheque is another problem with them. Has that been changed? Basically, I have two questions in that, because they both seem to be together.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, our administrative support workers are trained in their field in what they have to do. If the member opposite has any specific cases of breach of confidentiality or breach of purpose, please bring them forward and we'll deal with them.

I would ask the member to listen very carefully to her words on confidentiality when, as part of the examination of these estimates, you begin to trot out case by case by case of these individuals. See if you then respect the confidentiality of individuals on income assistance.

B. McKinnon: I object to that comment you made, because I haven't brought up any cases. I think you're being a little forward -- premature -- in stating anything like that, because I have no intention of bringing up any cases. I think I'm offended by your remark.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair with all comments, please.

M. Coell: Just a few more questions regarding the training of financial aid workers. I consider it a very important job, one which I think puts a face on government and on the rest of the people of British Columbia. When you look at having 320,000 fellow citizens using this ministry and you have just over 1,000 financial aid workers, that means those people are going to deal with a very large number of individuals per year. You may have families in there, so you may be seeing a mom and dad at once; that may cut it down. But that's still a very large number of people -- 4,000 -- who are not heavily trained.

For my own information, I wonder about the test that's given to financial aid workers, the screening test. The minister said it's multiple choice. I wonder if he could tell me how many questions are on that test.

[7:45]

I've got an idea. Maybe we'll put the opposition members through the multiple-choice questions and see how they make the screen.

M. Coell: I'd be pleased to take the test with the minister.

I wonder, then, if I could just look at the month of training that these individuals are given. Do they get a section on alcohol and drug abuse, and if they do, how long would that be?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, there is a component of the training that centres around alcohol and drug abuse -- the recognition of the barriers that individuals face when they have substance abuse problems as well as what referral agencies are in the community, and where the clients can in fact go for help and can be referred for help. That's all part of the training process.

M. Coell: I wonder if there is also a component for recognizing mental illness and a potential for child abuse.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes to both of those. The child abuse aspect of the training is as a result of Gove; it's a response to recommendations from Gove. We've done joint workshops with mental health workers on the symptoms, conditions and what we should look for, and our workers are trained in both of those.

M. Coell: Further to that, I think one of the important aspects of this job is ongoing training. My understanding is that this particular job in the ministry has a very high burnout rate because of the level of people they're dealing with and the level of intensity of the problems. I wonder if the minister could outline the wage scales for me. It's been a long time since I knew those scales and their range.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm tempted to say that the collective agreement is a public document, and wages are based on the 

[ Page 4490 ]

GEU collective agreement. Maybe the member opposite knows what an SPO 1 is within that collective agreement. There we have it.

M. Coell: For the minister, what I was trying to get at was that my understanding is that this is not a highly paid job. I agree with the minister that it has a great deal of responsibility and a great deal of importance to his office. I would just point out to him that these are not highly paid people. I think that has to be noted, because I think they do a very valuable service.

The minister commented that they have 138 offices. Are any of these offices shared with any other ministry or department, and if so, how many? I wonder if you could comment.

Hon. D. Streifel: Out of the 138, we have some co-located offices in rural areas. I don't have an exact number here. We'll get that for the hon. member in order to keep these numbers accurate. Of 138 offices, generally the co-location happens in rural areas -- update coming.

M. Coell: I would presume that the cohabitant of the offices in rural areas is probably Children and Families, but I could be corrected by the minister. What I was attempting to ask was: are there other resources that can be used for training these individuals within Children and Families, because their staff are required to have much higher levels of education and expertise? I was wondering whether they are used for assisting in the training of financial aid workers, especially in rural offices.

Hon. D. Streifel: We have used Children and Families services for training to recognize child abuse in those circumstances and mental health workers to train our workers in other aspects of the judgment call, the difficulty and the intake around mental disorders and mental illness.

M. Coell: The turnover rate in this particular job has been known to be high in the past. I wonder whether the minister could outline for me how many of the 1,068 are new this year, as of January 1.

Hon. D. Streifel: I can give you this year. Do you want me to go back a few years? If I get a big nod over there, we'll go back and look at the various years and the percentage of the turnover rate. Starting now, '96-97, we had a 4.3 percent turnover rate; 3.2 percent, '95-96; 4.82 percent, '94-95; 1.67 percent, '93-94; 4.96 percent, '92-93. Then we get into the years when we weren't in government: '91-92 with a 7.19 percent increase; '90-91, an 8.45 percent; and '89-90, an 8.6 percent turnover rate. It used to be about twice what it is now.

M. Coell: Maybe the minister can clarify this for me. What I was looking for is this: is the turnover rate how many the jobs were increasing by over the year? Are there more people working as FAWs today than there were five years ago? If you can go back to seven years ago, that would be fine for me.

Hon. D. Streifel: A percentage of the employees turn over. It wouldn't matter how many or how few; it's just a percentage. I didn't give you the numbers. I can give you the FTEs in number form, but I don't believe it's as relevant as the percentage of the employee base.

M. Coell: I would be very interested in those numbers.

Hon. D. Streifel: This will probably go down in history as the question I never should have answered. For '96-97, 40 employees; '95-96, 30; '94-95, 43; '93-94, 15; '92-93, 38; '91-92, 51; '90-91, 53; '89-90, 54. Those are the numbers of FTEs on the overturn.

M. Coell: I can see why the minister was hesitant in answering that; that wasn't the exact answer I wanted to get. I was wondering how many FTEs in total there were. You've given me the percentages of the turnover, which I appreciate. I'm just wondering what numbers of people were employed by the ministry: the FAWs, the FTEs.

Hon. D. Streifel: With the hon. member's indulgence, we'll supply that information to the member. We'll get it as quickly as possible. To ensure the solid numbers we have, we'll double-check and make sure they're correct. We don't have a complete list with us tonight.

M. Coell: I would be very interested in that list. Over the last number of years -- I would say ten years -- the number of people on income assistance has increased, and I would be interested in knowing by how many staff have increased during those years to deal with the dramatic increase in people requiring income assistance in the province. Their turnover, I would suggest, is not extremely high, and I would have thought it possibly would have been higher than that.

I wonder if I could turn to the number of people referred to other agencies. This is key in what some of the members were commenting on. The initial contact, of course, is with the financial aid worker. They have some training, as the minister said -- although I would think quite limited, if you're looking at a month and a couple of days, for any kind of expertise in alcohol and drug programs, mental health programs or child abuse. I just wonder: how many referrals, since the formation of the two ministries this year, have been made by financial aid workers to other ministries for programs?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, with the member's indulgence. . . . One of the difficulties we have is that if we effect a referral to Alcohol and Drugs or some other agency, we don't know if the individual showed up, completed, stayed or was helped. We're going to try to get the best numbers we can for the member in some form or another.

That's just one of the difficulties we have with a referral. For instance, if a person shows up and we say, "You should have a look at some assistance under a drug and alcohol treatment program," we don't know whether or not the individual actually showed up.

M. Coell: Thank you for those comments.

What I'm trying to show in this line of questioning is that these people have an important eye on potential problems. As I've stressed before, not all people coming for income assistance are in need of other services, but it's incumbent on us to be able to offer services to people who we see need them and not just pass them off.

One of the problems happening right now is that the Ministry for Children and Families is getting a lot of input into computer systems, tracking systems and the ability to transfer information from Education or Attorney General to child protection workers. What we're maybe missing here is an important link between the first contact -- potential need -- and how you can trace back into the ministry.

I wonder if the minister could comment: is there any ongoing work with computing tracking devices that could 

[ Page 4491 ]

assist those people who have been referred to other ministries -- to make sure that they indeed get there and get the services that are being offered -- that would report back to your ministry -- that the total link with the alcohol and drug programs offered by the new Ministry for Children and Families and the Attorney General all revolve around families and the potential need for the programs that we're offering as the British Columbia government. . . ?

[8:00]

It's not just a problem that we as a ministry and our financial assistance workers face, but in fact the treatment facilities themselves face similar problems. I've met with many of them over the past few months, and they tell me that one of the biggest problems they face is when somebody comes in the door to begin a program, then two or three weeks later they disappear -- from Maple Ridge, Mission, Abbotsford or wherever -- and may show up in Prince George in a week or two. So the tracking is difficult at best and problematic ongoing. Suffice it to say that we are in a process of looking at ways that we can affect this, without interfering with the privacy of individuals and their right, I suppose, in our society to refuse treatment.

M. Coell: I'm encouraged by the comments that the ministry is looking at that, and I agree with the minister. None of these treatment programs are mandatory, either for narcotics or for alcohol. In many instances, I think you may be dealing with people with mental illness -- people who are in the early stages of schizophrenia who may be down on their luck, who've lost a job, and who are experiencing the first symptoms of schizophrenia when they come into the office. I just want to make sure that the staff are aware, that they have some training and that they would know where to refer someone. I guess my concern would be that if there is a concern for someone's safety, there would be a check mechanism to see whether they did get treatment. Maybe the next time they came in, that could be followed up. I just wonder whether the minister could outline the types of information that are now in the new offices of Human Resources. What resource materials on health-type treatment programs are there for clients who are sitting in the waiting room?

Hon. D. Streifel: Apologies to the member for trying to gather some information here. Really, the answer is somewhat dependent on what's available in a community. There would be information available in offices on mental health referrals, substance abuse referrals, financial counselling and, of course, employment opportunity places. What we're going to try and do for the hon. member is maybe hit a couple of the offices and gather up a few of the brochures or the leaflets or the referral stuff that's available as examples of what is displayed in our offices. Of course, things are also posted on a bulletin board for services that are available in communities. But I'm stressing that what is available depends on the community.

M. Coell: The number of offices is 138, the number of front-line employees is just over 1,000, and the number of people requiring services this year is 320,000. I wonder if the minister could talk -- and I have some more specific questions -- about the caseloads in the different regions. We now have the regions -- correct me if I'm wrong -- coupled with the health regions, and there are 18 regions with no overlaps, which I think is a good idea. If we could talk for a moment or so on the caseloads in the various areas for financial aid workers.

Hon. D. Streifel: There are nine regions that are consistent with the health regions, the largest being Vancouver. Population-wise, the largest geographic region, of course, is the north. So if the member has any specific questions as to the caseload in certain of these regions, we'll certainly try to flesh that out. But I think we want to go home tonight. I'd be here all night talking about the largest drop in 20 years and the lowest number in five years -- that 320,000 is down dramatically from what it was a number of years ago, even last year. The purpose and focus of this government is to be based on a strong economy and on the transition to work and supports once folks get to work. It's the responsibility of this ministry as well as many others, including Finance. So if we have specific questions on caseload per region, then we can try to do that.

M. Coell: I think for tonight, then, we'll concentrate on the Vancouver region, if that's all right. The minister may have some personal knowledge of that as well, having his riding within the Vancouver region. Could we look at the caseloads over the last number of years for the Vancouver region? I'm at the minister's pleasure if he wishes to go back past the year 1990. If he did ten years before, I'd be happy to listen to that, as well.

Hon. D. Streifel: If I could clarify what the member's looking for when he refers to the Vancouver region. . . . He confused me when he suggested that my constituency may be in there; I'm up in the Fraser Valley area. Do you want to deal strictly with the city of Vancouver?

M. Coell: Yes.

Hon. D. Streifel: If you'll fire off a series of questions, we'll do what we can.

But I'd like to take the opportunity, as I promised, to broaden out the wages of an FAW. I'm going to try to get through the acronyms here: FAW SPO 1 is $33,400 to $38,000 a year; FMW EO SPO 2 -- the member probably knows what this means -- is $35,555 to $40,535; DS -- I guess it is a district supervisor type -- is $44,065 to $50,000. So although they're not millionaires' wages, if you break out that $38,000 a year at the SPO 1, based on a 40-hour week, it is 2,000 working-hours in a year, so we're dealing with $19 an hour at that rate. If you base that on a 35-hour week, it's over $20 an hour. Most of the folks that service you in a Pharmasave would like to have those wages.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that information. Just as an aside, when you're dealing with financial aid workers, quite often they're working with lawyers and doctors and delivering a service which I think is very valuable. They're quite often faced with going into situations where everyone around them working on the case is making $100,000-plus a year. So that's why I make the point.

In dealing with the city of Vancouver caseloads. . . .

[ Page 4492 ]

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, I was just trying to make the point that it is a very valuable job done by people who are modestly paid.

I would now like to move to the caseloads for FAWs in the Vancouver area, if the minister has those numbers for the past few years and the change this year.

Hon. D. Streifel: With the indulgence of the member, we don't have the numbers broken down by region, but we will achieve that. We will break out, if we can, the numbers of FAWs by region and pass them through to the member in due course.

M. Coell: What I'm looking for is the number of FAWs per region and the caseload of people requiring or asking for social assistance. I would be pleased to see that broken down over the past ten years, should the minister be able to do that. I think that would be very helpful for us.

When we're looking at regions, I would be interested to see whether there has been. . . . We looked at a global decrease in people this year in the province. Are there areas of the province that are not experiencing a decrease, but experiencing an increase? If the minister could comment on that, or if he just has the global figures and doesn't have a breakdown, I'd be interested in hearing that as well.

Hon. D. Streifel: If I understood the member's question, it was: what was the overall 9.4 percent caseload drop year over year? Is that. . . ? If you're looking for hard numbers, I think we're down to about 192,000 from a high of somewhere around 220,000. That's the general cut. There have been changes within the categories, certainly, but that's the overall cut on the caseload.

V. Anderson: I know that under the Social Services ministry, we used to get monthly printouts of the persons and the cases -- whether there were children or seniors, the size of families. There were booklets that we got every month which gave this ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the program so that you could find out if there was a change in one area: how many children were on, how many youth were on, how many seniors were on and the different ages of seniors. Are those kinds of figures still being kept as monitoring and evaluation, and are those available on a regular basis?

[8:15]

V. Anderson: I guess I'm asking, in part, when they accumulate. . . . Can the minister give the kind of trends that are taking place? Are more children on at the end of the year -- now that we've completed one year -- than were on at the beginning of the year? Are there more single-parent families on now? Are there more unemployables, as they used to be classified? Are there more employables? Are there more seniors between 50 and 60, which is a very difficult age for seniors? There are some classifications. Does the minister have year-over-year totals on these kinds of very important categories as we evaluate and look at the year's results?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, certainly within those categories there are changes. In my opening remarks I spoke about the drop in single-parent caseload; it's quite dramatic this year. Of course, the drop in Youth Works, as well, is quite dramatic. The other numbers we will acquire and pass across to the member. I suspect the member has them -- has done the research.

M. Coell: Just a couple more comments on the financial aid workers and the costs to the ministry. I wonder if the minister could break out for me the cost of running the ministry and the total dollars given to income recipients -- those two numbers.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this. On page 188 of the estimates book, it's broken out as income support programs, $1,483,151,000 -- so $1.4 billion, almost $1.5 billion, of the $1.697 billion. So the vast majority of the money goes out in support for income assistance clients.

M. Coell: Following along on caseloads, there were two areas that I wanted comments on: the Ron Hikel report -- KPMG's report -- and also the three-month residency requirement. Were any records kept? Were there any studies done on the effect of caseloads when that three-month residential requirement was in effect? And now that it's off, what has the effect been?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's about a 1,000-per-month increase in out-of-province caseloads since the cancellation of the three-month residency. If I understand it, that's what the question was: how much did it increase when we killed the program? About 1,000 cases a month, approximately.

M. Coell: Was that consistent before the program was announced? Maybe the minister could comment on how many people per month from outside the province were coming here and going onto social assistance. Then the program was put in place, and there was a drop, obviously. Now that the program is off, the number is 1,000, I guess, for the final. . . .

But if you could answer the first two questions for me. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the question is: prior to the implementation of the three-month residency, how many per month? It was somewhere over 2,000; I can't remember the. . . . It was 2,200 a month on average coming in from out of province, and the residency requirement was implemented and over time it drifted off. But bear in mind that through that period of time there was still an out-of-province caseload build, because we always protected children and we protected the refugee community.

So it was about 2,200 a month in aggregate. We took action and it dropped. Now that we've got the program gone, it's about a 1,000-per-month increase. I think that since the cancellation, it's about 3,400 or 3,500 new out-of-province cases in total.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline the number of people coming not from in-country but from out-of-country. The refugees that you mentioned -- what program, what numbers and dollar figures for refugees, and also for children? I think that's an important one for us to pay 

[ Page 4493 ]

some attention to. There were obviously children coming in -- and they were, you know, given service under three months. If you could highlight those two issues for me.

Hon. D. Streifel: Just for clarification, this is referring to the period of time from the implementation of a three-month residency, asking how many cases from out-of-province we accepted that were children and how many cases that were refugees from out-of-country per se we accepted during the period of time that the three-month residency restriction was in place. Okay. We'll try to drag that information out; we'll see if we have it. We don't have that breakdown in that case. We'll try and get it, and we'll break it out of this history and supply it to the member.

V. Anderson: I understood the minister to say that there were about 3,400 cases a month that came in from out-of-province, on average -- if not, 1,000 new cases a month. How many come in regularly in a normal month, and how many go out in a normal month? What's the comparison between the inflow and the outflow?

Hon. D. Streifel: My reference to 3,400 was the aggregate from March 17 to now, to the last count. As for the regular month-by-month fluctuation, every month we publish the figures of the caseload and the decline.

Now, if I could get clarification, is the member asking for attrition within the caseload? Could I get clarification on exactly what that is?

V. Anderson: When the minister was talking about 3,400 coming in during that period of time, how many would have gone out of the province during that time? What's the gross or the net flow? How many have come in? It was 3,400. How many have gone out from B.C. to other provinces or other places?

Hon. D. Streifel: Now that I understand the member's question. . . . From March 17 to the last cut on the numbers, 3,400 new cases were from out of the province. How many left B.C. to go to other provinces? We have no idea. They don't report to us about where they're going. Nor does anybody report back to us: "Forget about me; I'm doing well in Ontario" -- or Quebec -- "on income assistance." So we don't get those numbers in. When they leave, that's the drop in the caseload. When they leave the income assistance load, it's the drop. We don't have a tracking mechanism to find out where the folks go.

V. Anderson: In that regard, when we're working on interprovincial agreements, is something that we may be developing a tracking of the flow of people who are coming in or going out? Is that part of the discussion of interprovincial agreements? When we say that our numbers have gone down, I think it's important to say whether they've gone down because they've left the province, because they've got a job or because they've dropped out of the system for some other reason. If we're going to give success or failure stories, there still needs to be some accountability of where people have gone if they have left the system, if we're going to be able to really understand it.

[8:30]

V. Anderson: I agree with the minister about not requiring mandatory reporting. What I'm trying to understand is: when we get figures from the ministry that we have so many young people who are no longer on welfare, saying how well the program is working, how do we know it's working if they've simply dropped out of applying or if they've left the province? For what reason are those people no longer. . . ? Where are they and what has happened to them? I'm trying to get some understanding of what the figures mean. If you have a plus side, then it's important to also understand the negative side. I'm just trying to understand the meaning of the figures.

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess it's difficult to structure an overall general reporting mechanism on where folks go. But we do know, in relative terms, that where there's an increase in employment in the province -- for instance, the number of jobs or the number of job turnovers -- and an increase in enrolment in post-secondary. . . . It's the highest in Canada; I think that in an aggregate, we have more new enrolment in post-secondary than the rest of the country put together. In general terms, those are parts of the requirements of the programs that are administered by other ministries here, so that's where folks would go.

We do have, as I understand it, the need to back up what our stats are. Our drop in caseload -- the largest drop in 20 years; the lowest numbers in five years -- is quite remarkable. I understand the member's positioning: "Prove it. Where are these folks?" Through some of the programs that are administered by other ministries, we know that individuals are going to work and that they're staying in those jobs at an unprecedented rate. There was an article, printed in one of the business papers just today, on one of the go-to-work programs, Destinations, which is primarily focused around the tourism industry. After the five-year pilot in certain areas and now the overall program, there's an 85 percent stay-rate in a job. You can call it a success rate, or however you want to put it, but I'd prefer to say that individuals stay there 85 percent of the time -- employed. They don't necessarily stay at the same job. They started at maybe the entry level or at a level that's different than what they're at today. They progress up the ladder; they stay employed. We know that's a fact. Whether or not I can tell you that it's caseload No. 0019296 that's in that job. . .this ministry doesn't do that tracking. Nor do the folks phone us up and say: "I'm gone; I won't be back." It's just that we deal with the overall number.

I really respect the member's questions on this, because as the minister here it's a bit of a conundrum sometimes to figure out where they are and who they are and what they are doing. If we look at the overall effect that we've had with the use of our systems, all of those which are focused around aiding individuals to get to work, we recognize that they're useful. They're well used. When we get the reports back from those who are involved in the placement, it's quite successful. So we accept on good faith that those folks are off working and that they're in the process and in the system.

R. Neufeld: Just a bit of clarification from the minister. Prior to the residency requirement, the minister says there 

[ Page 4494 ]

were about 2,200 out-of-province cases per month on average. Since the removal of the residency requirement, we're now down to 1,000 cases per month on average. Can the minister give me some sense of why that would be? Do you have any idea within the ministry of why, prior to that, there was over double what there is now?

Hon. D. Streifel: I can probably take a guess -- and maybe from this member's part of the country. I can remember a little experience I had on an open-line show around the time of the three-month residency requirement. A hotel operator from Fort St. John phoned up the show and suggested that one of the reasons we were getting so many folks from Alberta was because the Alberta social services ministry was popping them on a bus with a one-way ticket and telling them to go to Fort St. John, that they would like it there. We do have that, which is just a little bit stronger than anecdotal evidence.

To give the extended value of an answer -- just to stay away from the negative side of the answer -- we also know that the economy in Alberta is a little stronger than it was a couple of years ago, or a year ago. There's been a bit of a turnaround in the oil patch with international oil prices. There's been a bit of a stronger boost to the economy in other parts of the country, as well -- Saskatchewan, for instance, and even Manitoba and Ontario. The residents there have benefited by a general strengthening of the Canadian economy within the regions.

Our largest feeder provinces for income assistance support were Ontario and Alberta, with minor feeds from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In that respect, maybe that would explain why we're not getting as many income assistance recipients from out of province as we were in the past. In a general strengthening of the Canadian economy, folks tend to stay at home and look for work there.

R. Neufeld: That leads into my next question. If I remember correctly, Ontario was the leading province for in-migration to British Columbia for social assistance, and that was for a number of years. Could the minister confirm that from the records, please?

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand it was Ontario, Alberta and Quebec, in that order, for in-migration -- seasonally adjusted, of course.

R. Neufeld: I would tend to agree with the minister a bit, because Alberta's economy is booming quite well and has been for quite a while. I'm not trying to get to the negative side of the coin, but it's interesting that Alberta is picking up quite a bit.

Could the minister tell me, out of the 3,400 since the cancellation on March 17, where the biggest influx is from now?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, there hasn't been a change in the ranking. Ontario is number one, Alberta is number two, and Quebec is number three for in-migration, even with the reduced numbers.

R. Neufeld: Obviously you must have monthly breakdowns from March 17 to now, I would think, seeing as how it's such a short period of time. Could you tell me, on a monthly basis, what the 3,400 amounts to? You don't have to be exact, but be as relatively close as you can be. I'll just wait for the response.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's about dead-split around 1,000 cases a month, a little bit over, on a month-by-month basis over the three months of April, May and June.

R. Neufeld: I'm just trying to get some sense of why they would be evenly split. Maybe the minister has some thoughts about when a program changes, why immediately the first month it would be 1,000 applications; the next month, 1,000; and the next month, 1,000. Is there some reasoning for that, or do you expect that possibly with the change of the program it may increase to over 1,000 a month in the near future?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this. I don't know if we have an exact answer on why it's relatively -- and I stress relatively -- evenly split. That's not to say that it's dead-on, number by number, but it's within a range of a couple of hundred cases, one side or the other, maybe 100-some-odd cases. When March 17 rolled around and we were able to effect a deal with the federal government on support for these out-of-province cases and the whole labour market structure that was begun at that time, there was a bit of a pent-up backlog within the system here. Folks who had come here, who were within that three-month structure, qualified relatively quickly, because those individuals were already here. Then as the word spread, the backlog, so to speak, or the pressure in the system was used up, and it balanced off. That's the best guess we can have as to why. Honest, we're not down there advertising. In fact, it just seems to have balanced off somewhat.

We'll try to get tighter numbers for the member as the estimates go on to ensure that I haven't inadvertently misled him. I'm sure we're pretty safe that if we take the 1,000 as a median and cut 150 to 200 on each side of it, that's about where it would run out to.

R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to get down to definitive numbers but just get some idea of why it is actually almost exactly the same per month. I'm not disputing the amounts.

The deal that was made with the federal government -- was it $40 million in social assistance transfer payments that had been held back by the federal government that was released?

Hon. D. Streifel: The holdback on the transfer payment side as a result of the implementation of the three-month residency was $47 million with the federal government, as I understand it. The reimbursement on income assistance alone was $26.6 million, but this was part of an overall agreement that saw well over $100 million, I believe, in federal resources transferred to British Columbia.

I've got a bit of a breakdown here -- again, sensitively spreading outside my ministry -- but I was there at the agreement time. Income assistance -- Human Resources -- received $26.6 million. That's the balance of the $47 million that was owing to the province. In the additional funding that came in the overall programs funded by the federal government was $22.4 million over three years to fund immigration settlement services that aren't related to income assistance but are certainly in recognition of the high influx of immigrant community into British Columbia. It's an agreement that we've been trying to get for a long time with the federal government.

[ Page 4495 ]

Along with that was a $60 million transfer over a two-year period for a joint Asia Pacific Initiative program to sustain B.C.'s gateway role -- to enable us to continue to focus on British Columbia being the main settlement area for Asian immigration in Canada.

When you package it all together, we have over $100 million in benefit that transferred to British Columbia from the federal government, directly as a result of reaching a settlement on three of the outstanding issues that British Columbia had with Canada -- one being out-of-province income assistance funding, another being immigrant settlement funding unrelated to income assistance, and the third being the focus on British Columbia being the gateway and the target of Asian settlement in Canada. So those were the three programs we did at once.

So kudos to the folks on our side who did the negotiations. We did a great job. That really signalled a new relationship between British Columbia and Canada, taking our place legitimately as the third-largest province and taking our place nationally as a province that the federal government has to do business with.

R. Neufeld: Yes, the numbers come to around $100 million. But obviously the federal government owed us $47 million in transfer payments to start with, so we're talking about $50 million to the province.

The first question I have is: did the $26 million that was reimbursed for Human Resources go directly into your budget revenue?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, that money was sent to British Columbia to the Ministry of Finance. It went into the Ministry of Finance budget, and as a matter of fact, I delivered the cheque. It came through my office. It was quite an exciting day to see $26.6 million and pass it on to my colleague, but that's exactly the way it happened. They sent us a cheque, and I delivered it to the Minister of Finance.

[8:45]

Can the minister tell me -- and I'm going by memory a bit here. . . . Prior to you becoming minister there were some claims made about how many millions of dollars were saved by the residency requirement for the province of British Columbia. Can the minister tell me the time frame that was in place and how much money the ministry claimed -- in press releases -- that they had saved?

Hon. D. Streifel: The implementation of the three-month residency requirement was in December 1995. It was repealed and lifted on March 15. That was a savings within the system of $20.3 million.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me if they've projected what the removal of the residency requirement over the next year or two years is going to cost British Columbia taxpayers?

Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry budget is $1.67 billion, and that is to fund the whole operation of the ministry. I believe that's down $103 million from what it was last year. I think it's $103 million. So we fund it within the ministry.

When individuals come and apply for income assistance, they meet certain criteria which are much more rigid than in the past, and if they qualify, they qualify. We don't have projections at this stage on what the in-migration looks like over the next year. We address it as the need arises. With Canada's economy remaining strong, we expect that within that realm, we'll be dealing with my caseload within the $1.67 billion.

R. Neufeld: Just one more question, I guess. The ministry claims it saved about $20 million over 15 months with the residency requirement, so I can assume that all things being equal, it's probably going to cost us -- it could cost us -- almost the same amount in the next 15 months with the removal of it. It's obvious from the caseloads that are already starting in British Columbia that that could in fact be true. I guess we want to hope that Alberta and Ontario maintain strong economies, and maybe that will keep people from migrating to B.C. to collect welfare.

If in fact over the next 15 months it does increase the same amount as the minister claimed they saved during the inception of the program, what steps is the minister taking to make up for that lost revenue? Obviously the transfer from the federal government went directly into Finance to fund the shortfall on the deficit, and nothing came to Human Resources to alleviate some of the problems that they were facing. I just wonder what kind of a plan of attack the minister has.

Hon. D. Streifel: A number of us have been here for six years, and a number of us have sat through estimates. I know that before I was promoted into cabinet and made that move, I sat here and I recognized what a question on future policy was and what a hypothetical question was. And both are out of order in estimates.

V. Anderson: One of the realities that we need to take into account is that prior to December of last year, our social assistance payments to persons who needed them were, for single people, about $546 a month. It has now dropped down to $500 a month, and then it even goes down to $446 for a period of time. So the incentive to come here is not that high, particularly because our cost of living is the highest of any place in Canada. And people right across Canada know this very well. As of July 1, many of those persons who had need and were considered to be unemployable -- and we'll be looking at that in more detail later -- lose $96 a month. They go from $596 down to $500 and down to $446.

The desire of people to come to British Columbia to get more money was always a myth, but it's even more of a myth now. I think that's part of the reason why the numbers aren't up that high, because with our high cost of living and our much lower support system than what we used to have. . . . The support system has gone down and the cost of living has, if anything, gone up. I think the reality is that it's quite different now for people wanting to come, unless they have real need to come here looking for a job.

Hon. D. Streifel: I recognize that there wasn't a question in that, but being as cheeky as I am, I just can't pass up the opportunity to pass a question back to the member for Vancouver-Langara -- to ask whether or not the member 

[ Page 4496 ]

supported the platform of the Liberal Party in the May election, which would have reduced the welfare rate for an individual coming to British Columbia from Newfoundland for a year to somewhere just under $400, and whether or not the member supported that part of the platform that would have reduced the rate for employables -- anybody not singled out by family relationship -- to $470 a month. If I would have answered the question, that's probably what I would have answered, and then some.

M. Coell: I have just a couple of further questions on the three-month residency requirement that was tried and is no more. There were two court cases by the Federated Anti-poverty Groups of B.C. and the Community Legal Assistance Society. I just wonder whether those court cases have finished. Have they been resolved?

Hon. D. Streifel: They're gone, as a result of the cancellation of the residency requirement.

M. Coell: In dealing with caseloads, in the spring of '96 the province commissioned an independent report by Ron Hikel, and projecting savings of $350 million to $470 million. That report predicted reductions in income assistance recipients in a range of 65,000 to 84,000 in the year '96-97. The savings were lower than that. As a matter of fact, the actual reduction was 48,000. The study predicted 65,000 to 84,000. It's still a reduction, but why was the reduction not as high as the report anticipated? I've got some other questions with regard to that, as well.

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, up until October, I believe, those predictions were just about spot-on. Do I need to remind anybody about the winter we had? It was a bit of a problem in my region. I can only imagine what it was like in the Victoria area, as I had the benefit of the 6 o'clock news. I do know I was trapped in my driveway for two or three days. I couldn't get out, not with my tractor, my plow or my four-wheel drive. The Fraser Valley was shut down for weeks, with thousands of people living in other folks' homes, in haylofts and in public buildings. The whole place was shut down. It was a pretty miserable early winter, and that in some ways would have contributed to the flattening and actual slight increase in the caseload over the winter.

M. Coell: I wonder whether the minister has the actual savings for the period where we had a reduction to 48,000 -- what the actual savings for the ministry were at that point.

Hon. D. Streifel: We're going to try and work up that information for the member. If I understand, the member is asking for the number of cases that declined over that period of time. It's a given that we kind of blew the predictions there through the winter months for a variety of reasons: the heavy winter, the snow, the employment insurance eligibility reductions. There was a dramatic change, which we always talk about as being a dump or an off-load from the federal government onto our systems. Those are the things that affected the slowing and decline of cases. In fact, over winter they had a bit of bump up. Now, if the member is asking, "With the number of cases that were reduced, what is the savings to the ministry as a result of the caseload reduction?" my answer stands. We're going to try and work that out for the member.

Perhaps if we could go on to another few questions. If we can get that here, we will a bit later; if not, we'll try and work it out in some other manner.

M. Coell: With that prediction being 20,000 people out, I just wonder whether the ministry has looked at its caseload-forecasting model and made any changes to it because of that 20,000 difference.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm really tempted here to come up with the quote of the year. What was it? "Forecasting is an inexact science." Isn't that what the weather institute has been telling us for years and years?

M. Coell: No, that was your Finance minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: Oh, okay. Hon. Chair, I'd like those last comments struck from Hansard. [Laughter.]

Actually, we take our best shot with forecasting, based on influences that we're aware of. In fact, where we miss the mark is where influences that we're not aware of come up to bite us. In this instance we were very close. We achieved almost a 10 percent drop last year, so we were close. This year we're looking at pretty modest projections for a caseload drop -- somewhere around 2 percent. We fully expect to be able to stay within that goal; we believe it's achievable.

To directly answer the member's question, yes, we have altered what we've done a little bit. We're not as aggressive in our projections of caseload drop now; we're a little more cautious. We're looking at what's happening around the country and within programs; we're looking at fully expecting to take advantage of the influences that are on our caseload with the second stage of the transition-to-work stuff and those lines. We think we can achieve 2 percent, and that's what our budget is modelled on.

[9:00]

I was going to ask the minister, who's made a number of changes to rates and procedures in the last three or four months, whether those changes are part of the 2 percent. Or will he be expecting a reduction in caseload because of the changes that have been made?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to correct part of my former statement on the 2 percent decline. That's what our forecast is, but our budget is based on a 1.5 percent caseload decline. So although we've budgeted for 1.5 percent, we fully expect to achieve 2 percent.

I concentrated so much on correcting the record, I forgot most of the member's question. So if he would indulge me with a bit of a repeat, we'll see if we can get it on the go.

M. Coell: What I'm looking for is a number of changes to ministry policy in the last three or four months and, I guess, changes to dollar figures paid to crisis grants, hardship grants, those sorts of things. Are you predicting a change in caseload because of those new procedures?

Hon. D. Streifel: No. As a matter of fact, the forecasting model we use. . . . I'm probably going to be sorry I said that, hon. Chair. I bet you the member is going to stand up next and say: "What is the model you use?" So I'm going to have to get the information, hon. members. But in fact, the simple answer is no. We don't look at policy changes for tightening up the intake system as a method of reducing the caseload; we work at it from the other end, as a matter of fact. We more or less 

[ Page 4497 ]

take the encouragement model, if that's the way to put it. We supply a great number of supports for individuals to leave the system, and we've gone through them a few times tonight. That seems to be working, because our single-parent caseload and our Youth Works caseload are dropping, and this is what we prefer to do. So those are the kinds of avenues we look at. We don't look at the references to policy changes in the intake system to reduce caseloads.

M. Coell: The minister doesn't need to feel sorry for this next question; it wasn't prompted. I'm interested in the model. Surprise! Because of the inability of the model to predict last year's numbers, what specific changes are in the model? I don't need a lot of detail about the model, but just the specific changes to the model.

[H. Lali in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: There have been no changes to the model since the hon. member was briefed on -- what do we call it? -- econometrics 101. As a matter of fact, I understood that through the briefing process, the member was very quick in understanding the econometric modelling we use. From that time, there have been no changes to the system.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that. My job is just to make sure that you understand the model in question period, not whether I understand the model.

Hon. D. Streifel: I have an advantage, hon. member.

M. Coell: I appreciate the comments.

I'd like to move on, because we've really only covered field services and caseloads so far this evening. I'd like to look at income support policy and maybe deal with some of the performance criteria that the ministry uses to evaluate the success or failure of its programs. I realize that your assistant deputy minister for income support, policy and performance measurement is here. Could you comment on some of the programs that have been initiated in the last year with regard to measuring performance within the ministry?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: No, I'm not up yet. I have to get the information first.

The Chair: The excitement of a new job here.

Hon. D. Streifel: Sorry for the delay in getting this stuff. The member asked a very broad-reaching question, and what we're going to try to do is give a quick cut on some of the initiatives we have here. If it doesn't satisfy the member, then we could supply more detail on hard copy later.

You're looking for the kind of performance measures that we use. The first set of performance measures is done. A way to measure how we deliver, I would suppose, is to assess referrals to eligibility officers, percentages of complaints about the system and that kind of mechanism. My staff may have a few more quick shots at it; otherwise, we'll pass along. . . . There's quality assurance and number of complaints. We're getting repetitious up here by saying quality assurance and number of complaints in two different ways. If that doesn't help the member enough, then certainly we could supply more information.

Who are we and what are we doing? Are we doing it well, and can we do it any better? We have to develop criteria that measure that, and that's what we're in the process of. In fact, the first set is done.

M. Coell: When you've got a budget of $1.6 billion, it's important that how you're delivering that service is evaluated. I realize it is sometimes very difficult to give objective or subjective evaluations of these sorts of programs. I would be interested in two areas that the minister mentioned, which are probably the key areas for evaluation: referrals to other agencies and how many people who come in the door requesting assistance actually receive assistance. How many are turned away because they don't fit the categories? I guess that would be: how many people try to enter the system but are not eligible? Maybe the minister could answer that one to start.

Hon. D. Streifel: We're just in the process now of actually measuring some of that. For instance, someone comes in and applies, and they're not eligible. There are lots of reasons why. They could have asset levels that are way beyond the base. They could have other sources of income. There could be lots of reasons why. We are now measuring how much of this happens. I don't think we have a complete set of data yet. Have we finished our first measuring period on this yet? No, we haven't.

As we progress, we'll keep the members updated as much as we can. If you need more information on this, I would pass it over or whatever, but without having a first run at this, it's very difficult to say what's happening.

M. Coell: I just wonder when the minister thinks the first run might be completed. Would you be looking at a six-month pilot project for people who are accepted for income assistance?

Hon. D. Streifel: We're in a pilot process. I think we're about one month into it. The pilot information we're gathering has to be assessed and evaluated. Then we'll go back out. That will tell us whether or not we have to do some more piloting -- you know, flying around looking at different areas. Or it may tell us that we can implement, and if we can implement, I would think within six months or so we should have some pretty solid data. If we have to repilot. . . . All of this is really a bit tenuous, because we're so early into it. We're about a month into the thing, but whenever we have it available. . . . Certainly the member could keep in touch with us, and we will keep him informed. We are very interested in what we find, because it's fairly new for us to go out and assess who we are and what we do and on behalf of whom and how it works. So I think it is important that we do that, and once we get through the pilot stage, as I said, we'll know more what our next step is.

M. Coell: Are you using other ministries, as well, for the pilot projects that are underway, or are these in-house pilot projects that we're talking about at this point?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's all in-house. Just to understand what stage we're at here, we're piloting the measuring system; we're not piloting the results of any measurement. So we're still testing out the measuring system that we will use when we enter into this. We're in the very early stages here, so I don't want to set the expectations up too high that we'll be able to come up with baskets full of information in the next couple of weeks. What measuring tools actually work is what we're trying to find out at this stage.

[ Page 4498 ]

[9:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this, while we're looking for the possibility of coming up with statistics. Yes, we do keep a bit of a track on complaints. I know from my own relationship within the ministry that a large number of letters come to me directly in a complaint form, and they are referred off for further work. They're either referred to a region or to an office structure. We take complaints very seriously. A number of them that have crossed my desk have resulted in some form of a look-into by specific individuals. We don't have the number the member was looking for -- I'm not sure we can actually get that -- but certainly we take them seriously. A lot of the complaints end up at the headquarters and then back out in some form of an investigation or a look-into. It's pretty difficult to say that they all come up into an inquiry or a detailed investigation. That's just the way they go.

M. Coell: The importance of dealing with performance measurement. . . . If you're going to have a major section on income support policy and performance measurement, you want to have a number of tools in place that measure things like complaints. Say that over a period of a year you may have had 2,000 complaints, what issues were they on? Then you go back at the end of the year and ask: how did we deal with those issues, or is there a problem within our system? So I would encourage the minister to keep a very close look at performance measurement within the ministry. I know it's something that the Gove report highlighted for child protection, but I think it also has a very necessary place in the Ministry of Human Resources, as well.

The flip side to this particular area of income support policy. . . . I wonder whether the philosophy of the ministry has changed with the new ministry and if the minister could draw a comparison to the philosophy that the Ministry of Social Services had -- I would say philosophy and values -- as compared to the new ministry, which has a changed role, a lesser role than the previous ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I take very seriously the member's comments about the tracking of complaints. The very little bit of information I was able to pass forward on our performance reviews or performance measurements contained a tracking of complaints. We do take them very seriously. You know, we're working to improve the way we track and catalogue the complaints from our clients, because criticism like that is one of the ways we learn how to deliver better what we deliver.

I don't have a mission statement for the member. But certainly the purpose of the Ministry of Human Resources, as far as income support goes, isn't any different than the Ministry of Social Services' was, in that we supply support and aid for those who are most vulnerable in our communities. We expect that the support and aid we supply will be for those who truly need it. We pay particular attention to circumstances surrounding children and the most vulnerable, the disabled -- you know, the work we've done in the disabled community and the Disability Benefits Program Act, the broadest definition of disabled in the country, recognizing many things around episodic illnesses and what not.

So in that respect -- that and the need to support individuals through the B.C. Benefits programs as they move off and into the workforce -- that's a primary goal of this ministry. We have a tremendous number of supports, outside the full system, for subsidies for child care, transition to work, clothing, transportation and what not. So in that respect we're not any different than the Ministry of Social Services was.

Whether or not we're changing will really depend upon influences; it gets into the future and hypothesis and all other kinds of things. But in fact, we still deliver a very good support mechanism in British Columbia as it compares to the rest of the country. We deliver it with highly motivated workers. The professional folk who work for us, the front-line staff who do the work on behalf of the clients, do a very good job with the number of cases they see on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis.

The complaint levels, in my understanding, are relatively low. We'll know more when we get through the measuring and the assessment stuff. But I believe, and I believe very strongly, that we do very good work in this ministry on behalf of British Columbians.

I'm rather proud to be the Minister of Human Resources. You know, I got ragged a little bit from time to time coming into this kind of a ministry, particularly when the ministry was split. It was written up all over the place as a demotion. I'll tell you, hon. member, to steward a $1.697 billion budget, serve the needs of 320,000 British Columbians and work with other ministries to improve the lives of thousands of others through movement into the workforce -- I'll take that kind of a demotion any day. It's a very rewarding job.

M. Coell: I think the "mission statement" has possibly not changed. But there are a number of areas that I hope the ministry still carries on -- to give you an example, the value of the Ministry of Social Services, now changed to Human Resources, recognizing the importance of respect and dignity for all persons who receive services from the ministry. I think that's a key part of the former Social Services ministry. That's something that should be in every front lobby of your 138 offices.

The income support policy of the government is extremely long, extremely full of. . . . I suspect this is the one that the ministry uses: "Income Assistance Manual." I have some questions regarding that, and I know that other members of our caucus have, as well.

The one area that I would like to touch on before we get into an overview of some of the income support policy and programs is the outstanding debts of the ministry. This is an area that I know has been canvassed a number of years in a row; it's an area that has had some difficulty in past years. Maybe I'll outline the situation and ask the minister to comment on a number of the issues and projects that he and the ministry have had to try and collect some of the money.

Now, my understanding is that the ministry is owed close to $25 million by former clients that have been overpaid for a variety of reasons. I just wonder whether the minister could confirm that this dollar figure is still there. It was $26 million last year -- I suspect it's probably still the same -- and owed by approximately 38,000 people, as well.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this in general terms for the member -- what happens when we overpay or somebody 

[ Page 4499 ]

receives money from the ministry that they're not entitled to. In general terms, we require repayment, and we will strike a repayment agreement and act on that.

If an individual has moneys owed to them from a third party and they owe money to the Ministry of Human Resources, we can attach that as well -- for instance, unemployment insurance, Workers Comp or ICBC claims and what not. We ensure that the ministry, in basic terms, is a payer of last resort. If you have another source of support, then that should be drawn on first. When that system breaks apart sometimes, from time to time, and it comes to the ministry's attention through various sources, then we will require repayment of those funds.

M. Coell: I think what I'm looking for is some idea of the amount of money that's owed at present. My understanding is that it's been in the neighbourhood of $25 million that is overpaid, as the minister said, for anything from overpayment to fraud. Whether the minister could confirm that amount. . . . I think approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people are involved.

Hon. D. Streifel: In the estimates books we have recoveries into the system, but I think it goes beyond the area the member was discussing. We don't have the exact numbers in the estimates books that the member is looking for. We'll try and grind those numbers up and see what we can come up with -- just to signal, again, that we take this whole business of moneys that are owed to us very seriously.

We have a fairly good record of collections in British Columbia compared to other jurisdictions. That's been the focus of the ministry: to assess that and improve on it where we can. That's why we require that individuals who have other sources of income attach those sources of income in that manner.

M. Coell: I think this is a very important issue, the issue of debt owed to the ministry, because those are funds that could be used to help people who actually need the funds. I wonder if the minister can confirm that in the period closing April '96, the figure was $26 million owed by 38,000 former clients.

[9:30]

In the collection of those funds, there are lots of influences that come into play. For instance, with the individual that owes the money, are there any assets available? A lot of individuals that owe us money have nothing, and it's very difficult to collect under those circumstances. But we make our best effort to collect from those that we can collect from, through a variety of mechanisms.

M. Coell: Maybe the minister, when he searches his records, will find that in May of last year existing clients owed $26 million and previous clients owed $28 million to the ministry. The ministry has limited resources and is not staffed to collect that money. When you look through the FTEs, you don't see very many collection people in the ministry, so the ministry is going to have to use outside agencies and is going to have to develop some sort of approach to collecting that money.

I would be interested to know just what approaches the ministry is undertaking at present to collect debt owed to the ministry by former clients and present clients.

Hon. D. Streifel: Sorry for the delay in information-gathering here. When an individual owes us money and we approach the individual through whatever way, we strike a repayment agreement. We identify the overpayment; we strike an agreement on how and when it will be repaid. Yes, there are times when there are clients that are no longer on income assistance. Then we will use an outside agency to help us retrieve some of those funds.

M. Coell: I just wonder what sorts of mechanisms the ministry has to identify that those funds are actually owed to the ministry. How would the ministry, whose purpose is to supply cheques to people, find out that they're owed that sort of money? What mechanisms are in place to check, to find out whether they're owed?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, some of the initiatives we've undertaken are certainly tape matches with other agencies and other jurisdictions -- work with repayable hardship benefits, for one thing. If there are circumstances that arise where an individual needs a hardship support that's repayable, then we would undertake a repayment agreement at that time. If it comes to our attention that somebody on the system won a lottery, for instance, and we've paid them for that month, we'll retrieve those moneys.

When an individual has income from other sources -- it could be WCB, it could be ICBC, it could be maintenance support, it could be an inheritance -- that information comes to us through a variety of ways. I guess in administrative terms, we tape-match with Ontario and other provinces. Certainly we've run tape matches with CPP and old age security and others. That's how these circumstances come to our attention.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

M. Coell: I wonder if you could outline for me if there is a specific department or group within the ministry that coordinates this and how many people that would be. Are you relying on your financial aid workers to actually do the research and to report suspected abuse?

Hon. D. Streifel: Back to the tape match, we tape-match with Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan -- just to complete that answer a little bit. The compliance and enforcement division would be involved with this, as well, hon. member. They would supply information to the FAW, and that would be entered into the files. Prevention, compliance and enforcement is the PCE division. That information goes from that facility to the FAW.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many members of his ministry, how many FTEs, are actually involved in the prevention, compliance and enforcement portion of the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try to break it down specifically under the whole. . . . There are 144 in total, and that's broken down into the investigative crew and their administrative support staff and all of that kind of stuff. So if you need a further scrub-out, we can try and do that.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline for me where these 144 people are located. Are they in all the regions? Are they headquartered in Vancouver? That would do for now.

[ Page 4500 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, they're in all the regions. They're headquartered in Vancouver, and they're spread out in that manner.

M. Coell: As I've said, this is a crucial issue for this ministry, because it has the potential of bringing a lot of funds back to the ministry that could be used in proper ways. We talked about pilot projects earlier. Are there any pilot projects going on right now with regard to these overpayments? As I say, whether they're from just a mistake, overpayment or fraud, I'm dealing with those together. Do we have any pilot projects to retrieve that money, which these 144 people would be involved in?

Hon. D. Streifel: What we're involved with now, I suppose, is to prevent overpayments in the early detection part of the intake system. That's been very, very helpful. If you're looking for pilot projects to look at the historical figures that the member brought forward, I don't think we have any at this time.

M. Coell: On early detection programs, would the minister care to comment on the regions where these programs are and the number of staff involved in these early detection programs?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's in all the regions, hon. member.

M. Coell: I would assume that a model project might be dealing with hotels and motels where clients might claim that they live, and that the workers would be working out of the offices -- that the 138 are not in separate offices for those two questions.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not quite sure what the reference was by the member to hotels and motels. Is the hon. member suggesting that we physically visit these sites to verify where people live or something? If that's the case, I'll try and get some clarification on that, but I understand that we have ongoing policies within the ministry that require periodic review of cases and periodic verification of addresses. I think we do a certain number of home visits in the ministry; we do that kind of ongoing work.

If the member is suggesting that we should, on a blanket basis, head on out and run through the motels to look for folks, I'm not quite sure how we'd accomplish that. But we do have the mandatory cheque pickup provisions in some areas. I think we've run one or two just recently again. We do them on a spot basis as opposed to an announced basis, and that generates a tremendous amount of verification on whether or not we're distributing funds appropriately, with the number of cheques that are left behind. We do have those initiatives on an ongoing basis. If the member has any suggestions on how we can improve the system, I'd certainly be interested in hearing what he would suggest -- maybe cost it out for us, the numbers of FTEs that would be imagined by the member, where the program would go and what the return would be on the investment in the hiring of how many FTEs it would take to scan the motels, wherever they may be. I'd really be interested in seeing that.

M. Coell: I'm surprised you haven't. You have 16 projects underway, with 27 FTEs. Three models are being used, and hotels and motels are being visited. Your early results reveal the pre-eligibility investigations -- 52 percent of cases investigated are rejected, so I think that's quite significant, Mr. Minister.

The early detection projects, I think, are not being publicized. I just wondered whether you have any plans to make public some of the program results that you're having. I suggest to you that they're quite significant and would be of interest to the people of British Columbia.

[9:45]

I don't know if I want it to be, actually. I prefer to focus on the fact that, you know, we do go about our work. This is part of our work: to retain the scarce resources for those that need them the most -- and, in fact, that's what we do. What we talk about in this ministry is the really good things that we do, the things that we do as a leading edge in Canada, better than any other province. We achieve a caseload drop through incentives to work, through supports off into the workforce, through cooperation with other ministries, and through training and that aspect. And the other part of it is just about our day-to-day work that we do on behalf of British Columbians.

M. Coell: I appreciate the expanded information on the pilot project, and I'm glad to see that it was a success. I would think that with the initial success that it saw, expanding it into other offices makes good sense because it will return dollars to the government that can be used for people who desperately need them. So I agree with the minister: it's high time that this information was gathered, and it's high time that that money went to people who need it, not to those who are defrauding the system.

Seeing that it's close to 10 o'clock, if the minister wishes, we could rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: I was unaware of that, but I'm happy to do that. I'll carry on, then.

I wonder if we could spend some time talking about the use of collection agencies. There are a number of ministries that use collection agencies. I wonder when the ministry started to use collection agencies.

Hon. D. Streifel: I beg the Chair's indulgence and I beg the indulgence of the rest of the committee, but I wouldn't mind a short ten-minute recess -- or even five minutes -- and 

[ Page 4501 ]

then maybe we can get clarification on what the rest of the night is all about and the rest of us can wander on down the hall as is necessary, if that's possible.

The committee recessed from 9:50 p.m. to 9:53 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: In view of the hour, in view of the progress and in view of the camaraderie that we're showing in here, I think we should all go home for the night. I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:54 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada