[ Page 6297 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

G. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I rise on your behalf, in fact, to make an introduction. In the gallery today is John Dennison, who is a good friend of the Speaker. He is a professor emeritus from the faculty of education at UBC. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, we have a very special guest with us today, Mr. Don MacGregor. Mr. MacGregor is accompanied by his assistant, Catherine Peterson. Mr. MacGregor, as the House will know, has worked tirelessly to recover the medals of his father, Mr. John MacGregor, the most decorated serviceman in the history of Canada for valour, who served with the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles. Mr. MacGregor is here today to thank the members of this Legislative Assembly and, in particular, the office of the Premier for assisting in getting those medals, and he is pleased to announce that those medals have been recovered for Canada and are en route to Ottawa today as we speak. Would the House please make him welcome and congratulate him on his efforts.

J. Sawicki: I recognize that I've had a lot of guests come to the gallery lately, but I rise today on behalf of my colleagues from Burnaby-Edmonds and Burnaby North to welcome Tom McGauley. He's the chair of the Burnaby library board, and we have one of the best systems, we think -- in the lower mainland, at least. But he's actually here today wearing his other hat as chair of the public library InterLink service, and they've just received funding to keep that very valuable service around for many of our constituencies. Would the House please make him welcome.

I. Waddell: I said some time ago in a previous introduction that I came to Canada 50 years ago this year on the laps of two women.

An Hon. Member: I thought you were 39.

I. Waddell: I am 39. But actually, it was 50 years ago. One of these women is here today, and I've tried for a long time to have her come down. I'm very proud of this. I'd like the House to welcome Jessie Harris, who I call Aunt Jessie, who is a longtime resident of Victoria. She's here with her son Ross Harris, who is a senior executive with B.C. Ferries for the midcoast -- he's done great work there -- and his son, her grandson Matthew Harris. They're with my mother. I wish the House would give them a great welcome.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today is a longtime friend, Mr. Colin Worth. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Brewin: We are perhaps, Mr. Speaker, saving a good one for the last. In the members' gallery is a very special visitor from Finland, Mr. Erkki Tuomioja. He is chair of the Social Democratic parliamentary group in that country and is a former deputy mayor of Helsinki. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm pleased to make an introduction on behalf of a constituent of mine, Peter Robbins. I'm pleased to say that with us today is Colin Wood, who is a former federal Forestry department employee, and two guests who are visiting from New Zealand, Jane Breen and Jenny Skerritt. I'd ask the House to join me in making them all very welcome.

Oral Questions

PREVENTIVE SECURITY AT
FRASER REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Will the Attorney General tell us how he expects to stop the flow of drugs into the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre by cancelling one program that did manage to do just that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said yesterday, and I'll repeat for the benefit of all the members: guards investigating guards for criminal activity is not the proper way to go with these issues. I have said there would be a new program in place, and I have determined that it would be in place by October this year. The police will have the lead.

Some team members of the previous IPSO program who are still with Corrections will be participating in a meeting where police liaison will be discussed. They would be getting some training for drug interdiction in correctional facilities. The investigations with respect to Corrections, dealing with drugs and other criminal activity, belong solely to the police force in British Columbia, not to the guards.

G. Campbell: This has been an incredible performance by the Attorney General. We have a program which is stopping the delivery of drugs into correctional centres, stopping illegal drugs coming into a correctional centre. We have a program where 13 officers wrote to the Deputy Attorney General, and she wrote back to them and said: "You know the success of IPSO necessarily means that those staff who have brought drugs into the centre will be exposed." The success of IPSO -- nothing about: "Oh, you shouldn't be doing this. What are you doing, actually stopping drugs in our centre? We wanted someone else to do it."

The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General at least approved of this program. The Deputy Attorney General told them they approved of it. And when in fact they came forward, they were threatened.

The question to the Attorney General is: when the Deputy Attorney General says that this program is working and that she believes that drugs have been brought into the centres, why would he stop a program that was in fact stopping the delivery of drugs into one of our correctional centres?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said yesterday, and I'll say this again: the program did have some success. Some of these issues were investigated by police, beginning in September of 1995. They did a thorough and long investigation. They have investigated any allegations that have merited investigation ever since, and they have not been able to find any evidence to substantiate charges.

I said yesterday that the program is being retooled. Some previous members of the IPSO team would be participating in training with the police for two things: one, drug interdiction in that correction facility; two, then to liaise with the police so that guards do not investigate guards. It is not their function 

[ Page 6298 ]

to investigate criminal activity; it is the function of the police. So it's important for us to have the police take the lead in these issues. It will be done.

G. Campbell: Ron Leskun acted in good faith on the directions of his district director to clean up the drug problem in the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre; he acted in good faith. Today, here in British Columbia, we read that he fears for his life.

The question I ask the Attorney General is: will the Attorney General do the right thing? Tell Mr. Leskun that he will not be punished for his behaviour. Tell Mr. Leskun that he will be in fact protected for his behaviour and rewarded for the kind of service he's provided to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said yesterday that Allan Anderson has a protocol with the police whenever he's investigating independently any issues with respect to Corrections. If there is any evidence of any criminal activity, he has protocol with the police to inform the police so that investigations can take place.

I can also tell the hon. members that there is another investigation by the ministry's team, by an independent contractor into intimidation and harassment -- into several complaints on these issues. There are several investigations. The scope of Allan Anderson's investigation would be broadened. Allan Anderson has seen the letter -- had seen the letter several weeks ago, a letter that was addressed to me on April 30 this year by Mr. Leskun.

It's important for hon. members to remember that there is the rule of law in this land. If there is anyone who provides legitimate information about criminal activity to police, that individual is always protected by the police; there's no question about that. Mr. Leskun would in that regard be protected, as well.

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member certainly isn't right. I have said that inherently, this program was defective. It had some successes, but it had more problems than successes. That is why we now have the kinds of complaints that Mr. Leskun is making.

It's important for everyone to recognize that you would not have, in this House, one MLA investigate another. That's why there is a conflict commissioner in this place. It is important for people to recognize, in very simple terms, that police have the business of investigating criminal activity. I have said the program will be retooled. It will be in place by October this year. It would be beefed up. Police would have a lead role in that program, and it will be done.

M. de Jong: It's incredible how quickly the Attorney General ministry changes its story. Quite frankly. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. Order!

M. de Jong: A man and his family have been tormented for two years. The Premier thinks it's funny. The Attorney General doesn't take it seriously. The Health minister thinks it's funny. He's been intimidated. . .

The Speaker: Matsqui, a question, please.

M. de Jong: . . .and threatened for doing his job.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, we are going to get a question.

M. de Jong: You might, if I weren't so disgusted with what I'm hearing from the other side of the House.

The Speaker: Member, I'm not going to ask you again. Please pose the question.

M. de Jong: The district director wrote: "I want to confirm that I have received compelling information" -- this is to one of the guards -- "that you have been and are currently involved in the purchase of illicit drugs to be sold to certain inmates incarcerated at FRCC." The RCMP didn't find sufficient evidence to proceed criminally, but those two guards were not reinstated. Will the Attorney General stand in this place today and state unequivocally that he is satisfied that no guards have been involved in the illicit trafficking of narcotics in that institution?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said yesterday, it never ceases to amaze me. A member as learned in law as the hon. member is should know -- and should well know -- that it is the function of the police in this province to investigate as they see fit. The personnel issues, I don't deal with. Whatever personnel grievances are there are being. . . . Some of them are being investigated. There are collective agreements in place to deal with those issues.

At the end of the day -- I am saying this again -- there will be a program in place. It would not be the IPSO program as of old; it would be a program with the police taking the lead in dealing with criminal activity in the appropriate way. Police have the training to deal with these issues.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member just made a comment that families have not been talked to; they've been suffering and nobody has paid attention. I want the hon. member to know that I received a letter from the two spouses of the guards who were harassed. I received letters on February 13, 1997; and on February 14, 1997, the investigation, inspection and standards office started the investigation.

The Speaker: Minister, I'm going to ask you to wrap this up quickly, if you will, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, this is relevant information. On February 19, Allan Anderson. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 6299 ]

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, please. We are going to answer the question quickly -- if you would, minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On February 19, Allan Anderson, the director of the independent investigation, inspection and standards office -- with Don Demers, assistant deputy minister for Corrections, and Ron Williams -- met with these two women. The investigation has commenced. It's been ongoing ever since. The scope of this will be expanded, and there will be a report made public at the end of it.

PREMIER'S POSITION ON FISHING
BLOCKADE AND DISPUTE WITH U.S.

Is it the position of the Premier that the fishers of British Columbia acted in an appropriate manner in taking the action they did against the Alaska ferry?

Hon. G. Clark: I am completely supportive of the courageous action of the fishermen in Prince Rupert in standing up for Canada against the United States. Frankly, I'm appalled at the position of the Canadian government that they are not going to stand with citizens of Canada against a foreign power that is stealing our fish. I think it's unacceptable. To have the Prime Minister of Canada and the External Affairs minister of Canada not utter sympathy for the plight of fishermen in British Columbia but instead to attack the fishermen for their actions, to attack British Columbia and our government for taking action against the United States, is unprecedented. That Canada would not stand united to fight against a foreign power that is stealing fish from British Columbia is unprecedented and unacceptable.

G. Wilson: It seems that the position of the Premier is at the very least inconsistent with the position he's taken on the blockade of forest roads, first nations roads and other actions that have been taken where third-party interests become quite damaged by exercising those actions.

Will the Premier tell us why British Columbia has not pressed Canada to take this action to the international courts, where the international courts can rule and, by way of injunction, force the Americans to stop stealing Canadian fish?

Hon. G. Clark: I raised that very question with Minister Anderson just a few days ago. The position of the federal government at the moment is that the Pacific Salmon Treaty, although it is a legal document, is not enforceable in a court of law. In fact, both parties must agree before it is sent to court for adjudication. That's their position. We are doing some legal research to see whether in fact British Columbia agrees with that position. But to this date, that is the reason why no action has been taken.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Boone: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for 1995-96.

Orders of the Day

TRAFFIC SAFETY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 41; G. Brewin in the chair.

On section 33.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 33:

[SECTION 33, in the proposed section 233(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, by adding ", on the expiry of the suspension," after "the corporation must".]

On section 33 as amended.

G. Plant: There are a number of provisions that will be inserted in the Motor Vehicle Act as a result of section 33 of this bill. The amendments, I suppose, create a bit of a code for the suspension and reinstatement of licences for people who are convicted of particular offences. Where there is an issue about alcohol, I guess either the offence is an impaired driving kind of an offence or there is obvious evidence of that. I guess I want to ask the Attorney General -- ask the minister. . . . There I go again. It must be a death wish for the minister or something. I want to ask the minister to outline, in a very general way, the regime that is going to be given effect by this. I'm less interested in imposing on him the burden of explaining the procedures for reinstatement and the consequences of driving while suspended than I am in just what the basic regime is that will come into effect here.

[2:30]

The intention here is to provide a system through which those who are convicted of impaired driving offences lose their right to drive for periods of time -- initially for one year, three years for a second offence and then for a lifetime for a third offence, but reducible to ten years if the person can satisfy the superintendent with an approved course of rehabilitation that is satisfactory. There's a ten-year time frame in which any two of those three events must occur, and there's a five-year reach-back.

There was a bit of a question about how far one might reach back. The concern here, I suppose, is that there be some 

[ Page 6300 ]

recognition of people's records to date, but not go back so far that people who might not have contested in the past, had they known of these consequences, don't feel unduly prejudiced. So it's a bit of a balancing act, frankly. But after consultation with various groups, it was felt that this kind of approach was one that combined the appropriate degree of punitive action and removal of right to drive -- which is more than punitive; it's public safety -- with incentives for people to not continue to drive in an impaired state. And I hope we've set up a balance that is the appropriate one.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that helpful summary.

I want to understand if I can, then, the relationship between this and the provisions in what will become section 25.1, which we talked about already -- which is the situation where the superintendent thinks there is an alcohol problem and imposes a restriction or endorsement on a licence which then requires someone to take remedial training. Just to explain the question or make it more concrete: if we have somebody convicted of impaired driving and then there is the automatic suspension, I'm not sure when the remedial probationary stuff would actually kick in. I'm just not clear on the interrelationship between the two. If the question isn't that clear, I will try again; but if the minister has a sense of where I'm going, I'd be grateful for his response.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there is clearly some overlap between the two sections. One preceded the other historically, but the design here is intended to make them work together and be consistent. The previous section deals with more than impaired driving issues; this one deals with impaired driving issues. The powers to request and prescribe certain forms of remediation, in a sense, flow together from both sections in order to stipulate the conditions under which a person may be eligible to regain a licence. For example, the ability to award a licence in ten years rather than a lifetime will potentially draw upon some of the remediation requirements that a person who is capable of being rehabilitated might go through.

G. Plant: Is it conceivable -- and perhaps even intended -- in the case of people who receive these suspensions of one year or three years or ten years, that at the end of the period of suspension they would still have to satisfy the superintendent that they were able to drive? At that point the superintendent could say, "Well, you know, I still have a bit of a problem or a concern here, and I'm not going to give you your licence until you take this program," or alternatively: "I am going to give you your licence, but you're going to have to take one of these programs." So the two would work together in that way.

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is yes, and in two ways. First of all, a person who, say, had their licence suspended for one year would be required to undertake a course of remediation and to complete that successfully. If they did not do so, then they would not have fulfilled the condition necessary to regain their licence after one year. So the two work together in that sense. The fact that one year has elapsed is not sufficient to regain the licence if the remediation program has not been successfully completed.

In respect of the third incident, the presumption is that the suspension is lifetime, and the onus, then, is on the party to demonstrate some cause as to why it should be reduced. In that case, the form of remediation, therefore, and the burden that flows on that remediation would be in some ways greater, because it is going not just to whether you successfully completed the remediation but to whether the suspension should be converted from the presumptive lifetime suspension to a reduced ten-year suspension. In that way it works a little bit differently, but in much the same way the two complement each other.

G. Plant: Am I right that the best a third offender can hope for is a reduction to a ten-year suspension?

Hon. A. Petter: On a third occurrence within the time frames prescribed, yes.

G. Plant: The minister, earlier, talked about a five-year -- I can't remember what the term was -- reach-back. I take it that what that means is that for the purpose of calculating the various times and numbers of offences, we are going to be able to take into account any offences which have occurred within the last five years. Is that the intention?

Hon. A. Petter: For any convictions within the five-year window prior to this section coming into place, yes.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for the answer. I am still a little unclear as to concrete examples of circumstances in which the 25.1 powers would arise, given that there is a lot of stuff in this section about the power to require remedial programs. I think we established earlier that those powers might arise in the context of someone seeking to reduce a lifetime suspension and in the context of someone who hadn't yet successfully completed a remedial program at the end of either a one-year or three-year suspension. I guess the real question is: is there an area or zone within which 25.1 will operate, which does not depend on convictions for impaired driving?

Hon. A. Petter: I just want to get some fuller advice from my staff; I apologize to the member for taking a little time. For the most part, in respect of the narrow but obviously critical issue of drug and alcohol remediation, probably most of the powers that one might draw upon in 25.1 are duplicated in this more specific scheme in which people know the expectations in terms of licence suspension -- although 25.1 notionally is not tied to suspension; it's a more general power.

Where 25.1 clearly has a broader scope is in respect of associated issues that might require remediation, which may arise independently or in conjunction with impairments. You may have a situation in which a person has a record of impairment but also has a record of dangerous or careless driving -- some other indications that cause concern for the superintendent -- and therefore the form of remediation provided for under 25.1 would go beyond drug and alcohol remediation. It might involve some other forms of training or corrective counselling, or whatever it may be, to deal with that broader set of concerns that suggest that the driver is in need of remedial action before being allowed back on the road.

G. Plant: Lastly, under this general area, I have questions about the establishment of this regime, which I assume will involve designing new programs or getting people within the superintendent's office up and running to administer this system, the cost implications and also timing. What does the government see as the implementation date for these provisions?

Hon. A. Petter: I think we already discussed, in the context of the previous provision, the remediation program itself being cost-recovered from the individual who under-

[ Page 6301 ]

takes it. There will presumably be some associated administrative costs for the superintendent, but I don't expect they will be huge, especially when you consider that the programs themselves will be covered.

I want to get to the point the member raises, which I think is a very valid one, and that is: there is going to be some time required for the design and implementation of these programs to ensure that they are effective and that people who are referred to them are receiving the kind of remediation that will in fact result in the behavioral changes, and in some cases perhaps the change in terms of addictive behaviour, that will ensure that they can safely be permitted back onto the road. There is certainly some time that will be taken over the next number of months to get these programs up and to make sure they're properly accredited and that they are meeting the needs that the superintendent identifies.

G. Plant: Well, the minister has left me hanging in one respect. What is the time? Is there an action plan in place, with debt lines and expectations? Or, at the very least, is there an overall commitment to an implementation date?

Hon. A. Petter: I should say to the member that generally there is an implementation plan that was in the process of being developed for this very broad range of initiatives, which has differing time lines. The expectation here is that we're looking at a window of six months to a year to see this fully implemented. There is, fortunately, a bit of time, because even for a first suspension, the suspension is a year in duration. That gives a bit of time to get the program up and running and in place, albeit we want to make sure, obviously, that the program is available within that one-year window so that the person can undertake an effective program. The best estimate right now is six months, at the inside, to see this program up and running, probably some pilots before then and perhaps as long as a year to see it fully operational provincewide.

[2:45]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I agree. Obviously it is desirable for the person to be placed into the remediation program as quickly as possible. We are going to have to work through the transition of these programs coming on stream, but I fully agree with the member's hope and expectation.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

G. Plant: I take it that this fairly elaborate set of provisions is generally designed to deal with evidentiary issues and to expedite the use of electronic records in certain situations. I don't want to oversimplify what all this is, but is that a fair summary or does it miss something?

Hon. A. Petter: It seems like a fair summary to me, hon. Chair.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

G. Plant: Well, here I have to begin with the confession that, once again, I have not tracked this through, but the question I raised earlier about ticketed amounts and the victims-of-crime surcharge arises here. I might note in passing that -- at the risk of being facetious -- this may now be the fifth or sixth time in this legislative session that we have decided to amend the Offence Act. Am I safe in assuming that this redefinition of the word "fine" is not going to run afoul of the intention to create this new term "ticketed amount," which includes both the fine and the surcharge?

Hon. A. Petter: I am advised that you are so safe, hon. member.

Sections 37 to 42 inclusive approved.

On section 43.

G. Plant: We have, in fact, earlier in this session made some amendments to the Offence Act, which are, among other things, intended to create a process where you no longer have to go straight to a hearing, but you can have a right of first appearance and those kinds of things. I know that interwoven with those kinds of procedural changes is always the issue and the need to ensure that the person who has received a violation ticket knows that he or she is on the receiving end of a charge. I'm not clear what section 43 does or is intended to do in this regard. If I've missed the point about the section, then I'm sure the minister will correct me. But I'm sort of wanting to make sure I understand what it is intended to do in the context of those other issues.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, perhaps an example will serve. I think this is the kind of situation where, say, someone who's a member of a household, but not the owner, decides -- for helpful reasons, no doubt -- to pay a ticket on behalf of the owner. The owner subsequently finds out, feels that the ticket ought not to have been paid and ought to have been disputed. What this section then facilitates is a process through which the owner can file an affidavit in court stating why he or she didn't have an opportunity to dispute the mailed violation ticket, which then allows the judge to strike the conviction and hear the dispute. So it really protects the rights of owners, who might otherwise be prejudiced by the actions of others on their behalf.

G. Plant: Taking that example, which is very helpful, and turning it the other way round, what happens if the officious bystander -- that's the term, I think -- decides to be helpful not by paying the fine but by sending a dispute notice and then failing to appear? So there would be a non-appearance. That usually means that there would be a conviction entered, but it would have happened in circumstances where the real owner of the vehicle never really had an opportunity to know that there was a charge outstanding.

[ Page 6302 ]

Hon. A. Petter: That could be the officious bystander or the worried teenager, I suppose, trying to prevent information from seeping through to the parent/owner. Maybe I'm just reflecting my own circumstances in the world.

In any event, the section, as I understand it, covers that situation as well. It would allow the owner to then indicate why the conviction had been improperly entered and the owner had not had an opportunity to dispute the conviction.

G. Plant: What is the time limit within which this opportunity to file an affidavit exists?

Hon. A. Petter: The time is tied to the time at which the person discovered that the conviction was improperly entered. Beyond that, there is no time limit, so if it comes to light years afterwards. . . . It shows how protective we are in this Charter world of those who are incorrectly convicted. Happily, provided the person acts in a timely way once they discover, there is no time limit that otherwise constrains them from acting under this section.

Sections 43 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

G. Plant: I made some remarks about this provision in second reading, because it seemed to me that it's interesting to find a provision as broad as this sitting in the middle of a traffic safety statute. I wonder if I could impose on the minister to explain the rationale for including in this statute an enabling provision which will allow the courts to make rules permitting or requiring mediation to be included in all types of proceedings.

Hon. A. Petter: Reflecting again on the perhaps somewhat conspiratorial tone that was taken by the member in second reading, let me see if I can explain this in ways that reassure him.

This section, while it is of a more general nature, probably would not have come forward in this legislative session but for its relevance here, and that's why it's included in this act. What we want to do is make sure that we provide in this act for changes in rules of court that can require or permit mediation in a way that assists alternative dispute resolution.

Having said that, I think it's well-known to the member that there are other initiatives underway. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the province is himself undertaking consultations. Therefore it seemed wise to provide an enabling provision that went beyond the motor vehicle context, even though it is only the motor vehicle context at this time which is pressing in terms of the need for this. But to provide for the opportunity for rules of court to be made in respect of other circumstances that might require remediation. . . . Of course, the member is more aware than I am that to promulgate those rules requires in itself a fairly broad consultation process, involving representatives of the Law Society, the bench and others.

So it's true: this does go beyond the scope. But let me assure the member that there was no intention to smuggle something in here. It was, rather, an intention to provide in here for this legislation and to anticipate the fact that something broader will likely be required in the future and therefore to broaden it to encompass that possibility, should it arise.

G. Plant: I'm grateful for the minister's attempt to alleviate my conspiratorial fears. I think there is perhaps a very interesting debate about whether we should leave the issue of access to courts free of mediation as an issue to be resolved by the rules committee, rather than an issue which could be resolved or at least discussed here. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what side of that issue I'd be on at this point.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Thank you. Well, I think the decision is implicit in the presence of the amendment.

I think that the point that I'll leave with the minister, which I'm sure he is as aware of as any other person who cares about promoting alternate dispute resolution, is the. . . . Well, actually, I notice that now we may have an opportunity to hear the Attorney General's view on this important issue.

Here is perhaps the public policy issue. The public policy issue is the distinction between, on the one hand, permitting people to use mediation -- permitting, encouraging and all of that -- and on the other hand, imposing a requirement that they mediate. In some cases, imposing a requirement to mediate may be something that will not in fact save much time, energy or heartache. I'm all in favour of creating a supportive framework to encourage the expansion of the use of mediation, but I'm a big fan of allowing the parties to disputes to have the driving role to play in that determination. We are here going to allow the rules committee to make rules that could require parties to an action to mediate in some circumstances.

I guess what I would say is that I hope that in this particular case, the rules committee does in fact engage in that consultation process, which they are well known for and which is generally extraordinarily successful. That's really just my comment.

Now to the other issue. It seems to me that virtually everything the minister wants, he gets in section 44.1. I'm not clear there why, having put into this bill a power which would allow cabinet to make rules -- a court, in effect, with respect to mediation -- or rules of mediation that might bind the parties to disputes arising out of motor vehicle accidents. . . . I'm not quite sure why we need both.

[3:00]

This is an important issue, mediation. While it will never preclude access to the courts -- and I think that's an important point -- nevertheless it can have a big influence, hopefully a helpful influence, in terms of enabling the courts to regulate their proceedings and to take some of the burden away from the courts while providing a better dispute mechanism. I really wanted to leave this avenue open so that if it was considered desirable through consultation with the committee and with the judiciary to do some, if not all, of the associated rules that may be required in this context, that was open to us.

The real goal I want to make sure is provided for here is that the mediation process that relates to the automobiles fits with any other mediation aspirations that the courts may have 

[ Page 6303 ]

and, even more importantly, that it complements the ability of the courts to resolve disputes in an effective and timely way. I just didn't want to be so presumptuous as to remove what may be a very useful instrument that is relevant to the discussions that are going on right now, which the member has referred to.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Plant: Is the minister saying that it may be the case that the rules committee will design a set of rules around mediation -- and perhaps they will design it in a larger context -- but the rules will be good enough rules for the minister's purposes in relation to motor vehicle claims so that he will not find it necessary to exercise the powers under section 44.1 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act?

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's unlikely that all of the regulations that might be made would necessarily come under court rules, simply because of the fairly protracted discussions that are going on there. I want to leave open the possibility that as we move forward, there can be a division of labour or, if there are generalized rules that are promulgated around mediation in the context of the Court Rules Act, that we don't interfere in whatever complementary regulations we have.

I wish I could be more definitive, but part of the purpose in having both of these instruments is to be less definitive so that there can be meaningful consultation. On the whole question of regulations around mediation, I have indicated that there are some real sensitivities with the bar and with victims' groups and others that it be an appropriate and fair process. I want to make sure that whatever we design is appropriate in terms of effecting dispute settlement and also meets the test of working with the requirements of the judiciary and others in managing the court agenda. So I'm being evasive only because I don't know the answer, and we're trying to keep options open.

G. Plant: I understand why the minister might use the term "evasive," but I think what he means to say is that he is trying to be flexible.

Hon. A. Petter: Thank you.

G. Plant: I think it's important that if that's the intention -- if there is no sort of predetermined conclusion or outcome -- we know that going in, because that's a useful fact. If the minister is in agreement, then that would be helpful.

Hon. A. Petter: Having misused the term "evasive" and being corrected to "flexible," I'm just so refreshed, because normally the process happens the other way, of course. The member would accuse me of being evasive, and I would insist that I was being flexible. So let me withdraw any suggestion that I was being evasive. I was being less than definitive, however, because I was indeed being flexible.

Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 51 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 51, in the proposed section 19.1 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, by adding ", other than a motor vehicle or trailer," after "any object".]

On section 51 as amended.

G. Plant: I think the amendment that's just been made and the fact that it's been made bespeak a good step forward in terms of a consultation process perhaps working, so I want to acknowledge that. But I want to turn to the issues that I think probably remain uncertain.

We have here a section that is intended to limit recovery, and it is intended to limit the circumstances in which people can impose liability upon ICBC. I think the specific context is litigation where claims have been made arising out of injury and death that have occurred in motor vehicles, where the argument is made that the motor vehicle wasn't really in use as a vehicle and was just a place where people happened to be. I'm not going to try to summarize all that litigation.

I understand what the government wants to do in terms of clarifying that this limitation would not apply or be used in a way where someone could argue that the weapon would be the motor vehicle itself. But what happens when someone is perhaps caught by this exemption in circumstances where an accident takes place where a whole lot of ancillary damage is done that may arise from the use of the motor vehicle? Somebody may be shot in a car in circumstances where the Insurance Corporation coverage would not kick in, but then a person loses control of the vehicle and causes a whole bunch of other damage. Does the minister have a view about whether or not that ancillary damage would be covered? I think that is an important issue in this context.

Hon. A. Petter: This is one of these tough policy areas in which one is drawing lines along gradations of responsibility. I must say that while I struggled with the amendment and it was a process of consultation, I'm not sure I'm. . . . Like the member confessed earlier that he was on two sides of an argument, I'm on two sides of this argument.

When someone uses a weapon like a gun to injure someone, I'm not quite sure why the person so injured does not receive coverage. But when a vehicle is used as the weapon, why they should suddenly receive coverage simply because the weapon of choice happened to be an automobile. . . . But at the end of the day, I accept the argument that, first of all, the section was ambiguous. We had to make a choice, and therefore I erred on the side of saying that when the vehicle is the weapon, then coverage should flow.

We do have cases where the only relationship seems to be that the location is a vehicle and someone brings a gun and shoots someone in a vehicle, and I guess some have determined that that might be an insurable interest, and this section is designed to say it isn't.

Then we get into the question of: where do you draw the line in this continuum? You can't do it by anticipating each and every causal link or connection, so we have done it by using a term that the courts will have to interpret -- and I'm sure will interpret purposively and well -- and that's the notion of dominant cause. I'm happy to say to the member that in the example he gives, it's my expectation that where there is ancillary damage of the kind he refers to that is caused by the vehicle subsequent to injury by a weapon, I expect the courts would find a way to provide recovery, particularly given the amendment I have introduced.

In all of these areas, one relies upon the judgment of the courts to make interpretive decisions that correspond with the 

[ Page 6304 ]

underlying intent of public policy, which I think is made clear: the purpose of automobile insurance is not to insure against damage that occurs, the dominant cause of which is due to a weapon, other than -- I can now say, because of the amendment -- the vehicle itself.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that clarification.

The section that we have before us also includes provisions that limit recovery in relation to stolen motor vehicles. The only comment I have here is that while I probably have a different view than the minister does on some of the ways in which ICBC and the ministry publicize their activities and what they do, this is perhaps one of those provisions where, if there is going to be a public education campaign, this would be a good thing to include in it. I think this will come as a rude shock to a lot of people. The overall goal, of course, is not to deprive people of insurance coverage but rather to create a climate in which it becomes safer to drive. So the only question or issue I have around this is to ensure that this is something that is brought to the attention of the motoring public.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments.

Again, an example for me helps to explain the policy issue and how it has been defined here. If you have a situation where two or three individuals have, in concert, in a common enterprise decided to steal a car, and one happens to be the driver and then gets into an accident, right now the others can sue the driver, if the driver is at fault, and recover, with ICBC having to provide full insurance coverage as though the driver were being sued by an innocent party. What this does is, it says no. That person in the passenger seat who undertook that criminal activity knowingly and as a participant, accessory or what have you should be no better off than the driver -- should be able to recover the same limited benefits that are available, but should not be treated as an innocent bystander or participant as, say, a pedestrian or someone in another car.

That does send a strong signal that when people enter into a course of conduct, particularly the stealing of a car, which is the most common in the circumstance we're thinking of here, they run the risks. Whether they're behind the driver's seat or they're encouraging that activity by sitting in the passenger's seat or indeed in the back seat, they should run the same risks. They should not be able to position themselves as though they were some kind of innocent party outside the enterprise that caused the accident.

Again, these are choices that are made. But I think this is a move in the right direction from a public policy point of view -- albeit it will have some small saving in monetary terms to ICBC, as well, but in my view that's not the primary motivation.

G. Plant: I want to make one other point in this context, although it's really just by way of an observation on the challenge that will face the courts. One of the phenomena in legislation that I find most interesting is the phenomenon of unintended consequences. The operation of this limitation is conditional on a situation arising where the vehicle is being used without the consent of the owner. Of course, there already is a long tradition in insurance law, including ICBC insurance law in British Columbia, of cases around the question of whether or not a motor vehicle is being used with or without the consent of the owner. I hope this section will be construed by the judiciary purposively, in a way which does not encourage some kind of accidental new industry around litigating consent in this context, because that would be unfortunate and, hopefully, will not come to pass.

I guess the other issue is that there are two ways that you can deal with limiting recovery. One is that you can limit a person's right to recover at law -- that is, you can limit the liability of somebody altogether. The second way you can deal with it is to limit the Insurance Corporation's obligation to indemnify people in respect of those situations. That would leave the person, who for the sake of this argument I'll call the innocent victim -- although that may be an incorrect description -- with the option to still pursue the person who was negligent and to take his or her chances with respect to whether or not that individual had any assets that would be worth trying to recover at the end of the day.

It looks to me that this section makes a public policy decision to limit recovery generally rather than to limit the right of action against the corporation. But that's only because I haven't yet read my way all the way through section 19.2(2)(a). It may be that (2)(b) moves us exactly into the second category. Because this is the only opportunity I'll have to get public clarification of that, could I have the minister's confirmation of which of these two categories we're in here?

Hon. A. Petter: No, in fact the choice that has been made is the other choice that the member outlined. It's illustrated in 19.2(2)(b), where it says: ". . .a person referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to any recovery from the corporation under section 20."

So let's take the circumstance, and I'll see if I get it right. My officials will no doubt tell me if I don't. In the circumstance I outlined, if the driver were insured, the passenger would not be able to recover against that driver's insurance. If the driver were not insured, the passenger would not be able to recover against ICBC, based on the uninsured-motorist protection. That may be the confusion here. But if the driver has the means and the passenger has the will to pursue a private action, then as I understand it, there's nothing here that prevents that from happening.

What's being prevented is the kind of coverage in which the corporation would stand behind the insurance risk of the driver. In the two instances I've given, what this section says is that the corporation will not provide insurance on behalf of the driver either as an uninsured motorist or as an insured motorist, in those circumstances.

G. Plant: Picking up on that, the first question that occurs to me is: what, then, is the purpose of subsection 19.2(2)(a)? I don't want to try and unpack all of it. But am I right that it has something to do with the rules of contributory negligence around apportioning fault and ensuring that the innocent victim in this case doesn't have the ability to get through the back door that which we're trying to prevent him from getting through the front door?

Hon. A. Petter: What paragraph 19.2(2)(a) does is simply ensure that the liability is several, so that you cannot visit the liability upon -- a term the member will appreciate -- the party with deep pockets. You have to in fact visit it according to the apportionment of liability.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

[ Page 6305 ]

G. Plant: The minister has probably heard more about this section than I have. The number of voices that I have heard from is growing even as I stand in the House.

Let me begin with a question. It's sort of large, the big-picture question. The criminal law of Canada already makes perjury an offence. If you lie in circumstances where you shouldn't, you can be convicted of perjury and sentenced. The criminal law also has provisions in it around fraud and all of that stuff.

It's not clear to me, really, from a public policy perspective, why we need to duplicate here the provisions of criminal law in this area. Frankly, I have some concerns about doing that. Perhaps I could begin the discussion by asking the minister: why is it that he is of the view that the criminal law is so inadequate that it can't be used in this context?

Hon. A. Petter: The inspiration, if I can use that term, for this section, I guess, comes from some of the Ontario legislation, where in an effort to crack down on fraud and a more broad category of activity that could result in unjustifiable claims, there was legislation that in fact went beyond this. I'm sure it would have occasioned even more telephone calls to the member than he's got today, because the Ontario legislation goes beyond what is false or misleading to include the withholding of information.

After much consideration, it was my judgment that it went too far, opened the door too much, but that the inclusion of the term "misleading" -- which is a very common term, in fact, and I think there's something in excess of 100 statutes on the books that make it an offence or that in some way refer to misleading information -- was a reasonable extension to guard the public interest by discouraging people from making claims against ICBC that were not justifiable.

I'll give you an example. The Environment Management Act offences section 14(1)(b) says: "A person commits an offence if the person does any of the following: . . .supplies an environmental impact assessment under section 3 that the person knows to be false or misleading, or to contain false or misleading information. . . ." That's one such example, and there are many others that are similar.

Looking at the Ontario legislation, we decided that we wanted to send a clear message to people that ICBC was not an institution that was there as an insurer of one's credit card account, but was only an insurer of legitimate claims. I decided to draw the line, frankly, in a narrower place than Ontario had chosen to do but in a place where those who mislead the corporation -- and through the corporation, those who pay premiums to the corporation -- either knowingly or in a way where they clearly ought to have known it was misleading, would be subject to an offence.

Again, I think it's a question of judgment and policy, but clearly there's been a lot of public concern excited around fraud and regarding what one commentator used to refer to as "fraudlets" -- that is, other forms in which people unjustifiably gain benefit. In judging what others had done and what the objectives were, I felt that this was a reasonable place to draw the line.

G. Plant: The question that, at least theoretically, always arises in this context is the question of whether a province is acting within its constitutional powers by creating an offence like this. The last thing I want to do is. . . . Well, actually, in other contexts, I'm sure I'd love to enter into a constitutional debate or discussion with the minister, but I certainly don't think it's going to advance the public policy purposes that we have before us terribly if we have a long constitutional debate here.

The question would theoretically arise whether the province has acted within its powers constitutionally by creating this new offence, whether the province has inappropriately trenched on the exclusive federal power in criminal law matters, or whether the province has lawfully exercised its ability to create offences incidental to regulatory schemes.

I wonder if I could take the point this far -- and it's really only as far as I intend to take it -- by asking this question: has the minister or his staff considered that issue and, having given it that consideration, have they decided to move forward in this way? Alternatively, is the issue one that has not been considered?

Hon. A. Petter: The issue was indeed considered. Whenever one creates offences under provincial legislation, as the member indicates, one wants to be careful that they are sufficiently connected to the regulatory scheme as to not trench into federal areas. Indeed, in this case, this particular provision was reviewed quite closely. It was confirmed, in the view of those who are expert in this area, that in fact this was within the provincial capacity and was a legitimate part and parcel of this provincial regulatory scheme.

G. Plant: Getting closer to the heart of the problem -- looking at section 42.1(2)(b), we have what I think is a relatively broad statement of what amounts to fraud. A concern is that it is overly broad. To be concrete and to use specific examples -- and I agree with the minister that that's sometimes a helpful way to think about these things -- the section does not limit itself to the claimant. The section does not say that someone who seeks to recover under an insurance policy and makes statements that are false, or he knows or ought to know are misleading in that context, commits an offence.

The section goes much further than that; it in fact encompasses any person. In doing that, it encompasses a whole range of people who are participants in the system of personal injury compensation, ranging from witnesses to traffic accidents -- who are signing witness statements, I suppose, or giving statements to adjustors -- to doctors doing independent medical examinations and, frankly, lawyers. There already are, of course, a host of bad things that can happen to witnesses and doctors and lawyers and other people if they say things which might be false or misleading. In the case of professionals like doctors and lawyers, they could suffer professional consequences for their actions. It really is a legitimate question: why does this section go as far as it does?

If we come back to what I think is a legitimate statement of the public policy objective here, we're all in agreement that there has to be a way to stop fraudulent claims. Frankly, I think that most of the legal tools exist already to do that, and the problem has been a lack of will, in large measure, to actually implement them. But if we're going to create another tool, especially a tool that involves the criminal law, aren't we better off limiting the use of that tool to the person who is actually making the claim, the person who is actually asking the corporation to pay him or her money, as opposed to bringing in this very broad net of people and perhaps creating a bit of a chill around the whole business of giving medical advice and legal advice and all those other things?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to engage in a constitutional debate with the member, but I do have to point out that this 

[ Page 6306 ]

provision is not a criminal provision. It is a penal provision within provincial regulatory law and does not result in criminal consequences. It may seem like a fine distinction, but I think in fact it's an important distinction.

The reason why one would extend the reach of the provision as far as it is -- and I don't think it is too broad a reach -- is twofold. First of all, the section is not designed just to deal with claimants but also, potentially, with service providers. You may have those who provide services on behalf of ICBC -- I can imagine body shops and the like -- who then claim money back from ICBC. Clearly one wants to guard against that kind of relationship resulting in excessive claims or amounts being paid out for the service provided.

Secondly, you surely don't want to create a situation in which intermediaries or those associated with someone who may benefit directly can, by being the instruments of the information, somehow insulate themselves or the ultimate beneficiary from liability. This puts the responsibility on those intermediaries. For example, if an employer tries, in concert with a claimant -- and I hate to use these examples, because I like to believe that British Columbians generally are not prone to this kind of activity, but, of course, we're dealing here with worst-case scenarios. . . .

But where an employer would conspire with an employee, out of agreement with or in an understanding with an employee, to provide information to ICBC that created a false or misleading impression about the employment history or earning capacity -- or a spouse were to do so -- surely the member would agree that we do not want to create a situation where one can indirectly, through the use of that intermediary, bring about the result that this section is trying to guard against -- or alternatively, that those who allow themselves to be the instruments of information that is false or misleading are somehow relieved from responsibility if they place themselves in that position.

[3:30]

It is clearly not the case that we have a lot of doctors and lawyers in British Columbia who stand up and make false and misleading statements. I don't think the minister would suggest that, and I don't either. But what I'm concerned about is institutionalizing a context where these professionals -- and I think it is particularly a problem for lawyers -- will now have to constantly ask themselves the question throughout the course of the litigation: "Am I now under a duty to investigate whether I have a reasonable basis for believing the statement that I'm about to have to use in some way or another?"

I think it would be awfully unfortunate if we compromised the role and the traditions of advocates in this context, albeit in pursuit of another wise and quite admirable goal, which is to prevent fraudulent claims. Again, I must say that I think the section as worded goes too far. I think there is a risk. I certainly don't want to be an alarmist about this; I really want, in as objective a way as possible, to state what I think is a legitimate apprehension. I think there is a problem here. Let me just give one more specific example: what does this section do to the law of solicitor-client privilege?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I have thought about these issues. Let me see if I can walk the member through it, not in a way that necessarily satisfies him but perhaps at least indicates that there is a view of this that takes account of these concerns.

First of all, the starting point that I would take is that the fact that people are represented -- and they are, in many cases, by legal counsel -- is not a reason to relieve them of responsibility by allowing them to use that intermediary relationship to in some way bear less social responsibilities. So if we don't want people to mislead ICBC -- in this case -- the fact that sometimes their advocacy is brought on their behalf by a lawyer should not be a reason for us lowering the standard with respect to those people simply because of that relationship. The relationship should assist; the relationship should not be an impediment to creating the right set of expectations. That's the starting point.

Secondly -- and I know the member believes this, but let me say it, nonetheless -- clearly there is a distinction between legitimate advocacy and advocacy that would in any way transgress this section in the sense that it is advocacy that is, or ought to have been, known to be false or misleading.

Thirdly, I have confidence that the courts, in interpreting this kind of section, will take the starting point that the member has. I'll use the example of a lawyer. The starting point the member has is that when a lawyer represents a client, then the presumption is that the lawyer is acting on the instructions of that client, and the representations the lawyer makes on behalf of the client are the client's representations. And hence, if such a representation was shown to be false or misleading, then I assume the court would visit that upon the client -- unless the client were prepared to bring forward evidence that in some ways those representations had not been so made.

So I think the court can well enforce this without in any way breaching the solicitor-client privilege. I think the court will look upon lawyers. . . . The court will be even more protective than. . . . Well, it will be as protective as any institution in society -- let me put it that way -- of the solicitor-client privilege. They will interpret this section in a way that won't abridge the solicitor-client privilege. The simple way to do that, it seems to me, is that the court will assume that the statements made by lawyers on behalf of their clients are reflective of the instructions that were given. They will therefore visit consequences upon the client unless there is some external evidence or evidence the client chooses to bring -- which would be the client's choice, not the lawyer breaching any solicitor-client privilege -- that in fact the lawyer was acting outside those instructions and was, independently, misleading or in some way leading false information.

So I have faith the courts will be respectful of the relationship. I do at the end of the day believe that it's important that we not allow that relationship to undermine the ability of us, as legislators, to ensure that there's appropriate sanctions for individuals who do bring forward information that they know or ought to know is false or misleading -- and that we not allow that intermediary relationship to undermine that laudable goal and overshadow the public policy purpose.

I don't think this section does that. I think the courts will ensure it does not do that. I know there are some anxieties; there always are when one, I guess, extends the reach of provisions. But I think that in this case the public policy 

[ Page 6307 ]

purpose is overwhelming. And the solutions to the problems that are imagined are ones that the courts will resolve, both because they share the values the member is seeking and because they'll be particularly protective of the solicitor-client relationship and the responsibility of lawyers to have to be protective of the confidentiality and privileges that are associated with their role in representing clients.

G. Plant: We're not here, obviously, arguing the outcome of a legal proceeding; we are having a debate which is at the level of public policy. And so we're not going to come to a determination here of how this section will in fact be interpreted by the court. I think, at the very least, I have all the same hopes that the minister has for how the section will be interpreted.

I want to say, about one specific thing that the minister said at the beginning of his last remarks, that I certainly share his view that no one should be allowed to dilute their own legal obligations by engaging intermediaries and essentially passing off their responsibility to their intermediaries.

What we don't want to have, and I think the minister would agree with me here, is a situation where this new tool becomes, for example, a device used by unhappy clients to take revenge on their lawyers -- a thing that would perhaps ultimately undermine the integrity of the bar. If unhappy clients want to now say, "Well, these weren't my instructions; the lawyer acted without instructions," then the lawyer is now suddenly under a cloud. Of course, that potential already exists in some contexts in the law and is already enough of a problem. Let's hope that this does not create another opportunity to develop that problem or make it worse.

Let me deal with one other specific issue. The minister may have heard this concern expressed to him. A concern that has been expressed to me is with respect to whether or not this is evenhanded in the sense that it imposes obligations or creates offences directed at people who are making claims for compensation from the corporation but doesn't impose the same obligation in respect of people like adjusters. Apart altogether from the question of whether evenhandedness should be the objective here, let me just see if I can deal with a part of that by getting the minister to come down the road with me a certain way.

The section says: ". . .a person commits an offence. . . ." I think it is possible that "a person" -- by providing or causing someone else to provide to the corporation information that would be caught by this section -- could in fact be a person who works for the corporation providing that information to the corporation. If that is so, then of course it would act as a welcome deterrent to any of the very rare instances that might arise where adjusters would make false statements. Does the minister think there is some substance in that reading of the section?

Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, I would agree.

Section 56 approved.

On section 57.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 57 that stands on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 57, by deleting the proposed section 44.1(1)(b)(ii) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Act) and substituting the following:

(ii) requiring and maintaining confidentiality of

information disclosed for the purposes of mediation,.]

On section 57 as amended.

G. Plant: I take it that it is at least the intention of the government, by this provision, not to alter or remove any of the common-law principles of solicitor-client privilege.

Hon. A. Petter: Absolutely correct.

G. Plant: The provision empowers the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting mediation, and we've already talked about the interrelationship between this and other provisions in this bill. I'm given to understand that there's a consultation process underway with respect to the design of the regulations under this provision and that the consultation process is being directed under the leadership of the Ministry of Attorney General. Is my information correct?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: So the consultation process in this instance is not being driven by the corporation. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: How well the member has been briefed. Yes, that's correct. There are obviously concerns that the mediation process be fair and evenhanded, and I have undertaken that that process will be coordinated through the Attorney General's department. It will be a process that ensures that what regulations are necessary are ones that reflect the desire of all parties, including the corporation, to have an effective mediation process. By implication, that means one that is seen to be serving the interests of all parties.

Section 57 as amended approved.

On section 58.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 58.

[SECTION 58, in the proposed section 45(2)(y) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, by adding "or trailer" after "motor vehicle".]

Section 58 as amended approved.

Section 59 approved.

On section 60.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendments that are in my name on the order paper with respect to section 60.

[3:45]

[ Page 6308 ]

The Chair: Okay, and the Chair will approve that process.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry, this is a new procedure for me, so I'm being challenged here as the afternoon wears on. I'll take guidance from the Chair. I can either move, as I did, the amendment to section 60 and have the Chair then deal with that as we reach the various sections, or I can move the amendment with respect to section 60 that applies to the new section 52. Is that okay? I'll leave it with the Chair to decide which I'm moving.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. In view of the fact that. . . . We will deal with each amendment separately.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 60 and in relation to the amended section 52.

[SECTION 60,

(a) in the proposed section 52 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, by deleting the definitions of "gross income" and "net income" and substituting the following:

"net income loss", in relation to a person who suffered loss of income as a result of an accident is, for any period,

(a) if the person is a person referred to in section 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, the gross income that the person lost in that period less the amount that would have been payable on that gross income for the following:

(i) income tax under the Income Tax Act, as that Act read on December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in respect of which the net income loss is to be determined, calculated in accordance with the regulations and with reference to prescribed deductions and tax credits;

(ii) income tax under the Income Tax Act (Canada) as that Act read on December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in respect of which the net income loss is to be determined, calculated in accordance with the regulations under, and with reference to deductions and tax credits prescribed under, this Act;

(iii) premiums under the Employment Insurance Act (Canada), as that Act read on December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in respect of which the net income loss is to be determined, or

(b) for any other person, the gross income that the person lost in that period less the following amounts calculated in accordance with the regulations under this Act:

(i) the amount that would have been payable as taxes on that gross income according to the tax laws in the jurisdiction in which the person is liable to pay tax on income, as those laws read on December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in respect of which the net income loss is to be determined, calculated with reference to deductions and tax credits prescribed under this Act;

(ii) the premiums or other amounts, if any, that would have been payable in respect of that gross income according to the laws in the jurisdiction in which the person is liable to pay tax on income, as those laws read on December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in respect of which the net income loss is to be determined, for a purpose similar or equivalent to that of the Employment Insurance Act (Canada).]

G. Plant: Perhaps the minister could explain briefly what the intention is of these amendments.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there are essentially two things happening here. First of all, there was a concern raised during the consultation process that it be the courts who define the concept of gross income, so the definition of "gross income" has been withdrawn. I have no difficulty with that concern and responding to it.

The other is that then we're left with the definition of "net income loss." In respect of net income loss, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we capture not only people within the province but people who come into the province from outside. That's really what the changes here are trying to incorporate.

Amendment approved.

On section 60, section 52 as amended.

G. Plant: I want to just pause here to observe that in the definition of "designated defendants," subparagraph (c) has words that are new -- to me anyway. We're trying to describe a category of people here, and I understand why we would want to do that, in using language like "acts or omissions," but the phrase "has some involvement in the accident" is perhaps just an exciting example of the use of plain English or something. It does seem to me to be a thoroughly fuzzy term, and I wonder if the minister could explain what's going on there.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I'll see if I can explain this. It's a rather complicated provision trying to achieve a fairly simple purpose. The goal here is to try to compensate people based on their net income, which is to say their after-tax income, to ensure that the level of compensation corresponds to what their actual loss is and doesn't compensate them for income that would have previously gone to tax, given that the award is not taxable. But then one has to decide to whom that rule is going to apply. The intention is to apply it to those who are at the scene of the accident -- they, then, are the protected or, in this case, "designated defendants." Then one has to decide what happens to those people who are not at the scene of the accident and are not in that category, and they, presumably, would be subject to the other rules of recovery that apply in other contexts. Therefore, we are referring to those defendants who are subject to the net-income-loss principle here in the terms that the member has referred to.

Section 60, section 52 as amended approved.

On section 60, section 53.

Hon. A. Petter: On the advice of the Clerks, what I'm going to do is move, with respect to section 53, that the words "the date that this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" be replaced with the date, "June 17, 1997" -- for the sake of clarity for those who read the act, so they don't have to go back and research the statute books.

Amendment approved.

Section 60, section 53 as amended approved.

On section 60, section 54.

[ Page 6309 ]

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to section 54, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 60

(b) in the proposed section 54, by deleting "that the person would have earned in that period had the accident not occurred." and substituting "loss that the person suffered in that period as a result of the accident.".]

Section 60, section 54 as amended approved.

On section 60, section 55.

Hon. A. Petter: On section 55, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 60

(c) in the proposed section 55,

(i) by deleting subsections (2) and (3),

(ii) by renumbering subsections (4) and (5) as subsections (2) and (3) respectively, and

(iii) in subsection (2) by deleting "Despite subsections (1) to (3)," and substituting "Despite subsection (1),".]

On section 60, section 55 as amended.

G. Plant: There are a couple of points here that I want to mention. First, there's some confusion out there in the world about the difference between periodic payments and structured settlements. I think that the universe of periodic payments is quite large. It could be a universe quite different from structured settlements, as that term is usually used. I think there was some concern here that the corporation and the courts not have new or expanded powers in the area of periodic payments but rather that this section be a device used to enhance the use of structured settlements.

I wonder if I could have the minister's assistance in confirming for me that the intention of this provision, as amended, is really to create rules around what are conventionally known as structured settlements, rather than to create a whole category of new rules for periodic payments?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me briefly say two things about that. First of all, the answer is yes, it's our expectation that the courts will view this as they have in Ontario in the Wilson v. Martinello case: as periodic payments in the form of a structured settlement. That is our expectation.

The other issue sort of came out of the member's second reading comments, which I obviously listened to very closely. I agree with the member's comment that structured settlements work best when they are agreed to. So while this provision is here, and of necessity while it provides the authority to impose such settlements in certain circumstances, or triggers them in certain circumstances, it's certainly my hope that we've crafted the legislation in a way that will encourage the parties -- in anticipation of a decision by the court or, perhaps, in the face of a provisional decision by the court -- to go away and actually resolve the matters themselves. I think that's the way in which these settlements will work best for all.

The experience in Ontario -- and I'd be happy to share an article with the member that corroborates this -- seems to be that the section is working best because it isn't being used much in the courts. Through application, it's being used much in terms of its influence in encouraging parties to effect structured settlements. So the short answer is yes, I expect if and when the courts do apply this, it will be in the form of a structure, but the hope is that this section will do the most good in encouraging parties to themselves enter into structures.

G. Plant: That answer is helpful, and it leads me to the second issue. As part of the reason for my explaining that structured settlements work best when they are agreed to, I think it is also a point that structured settlements work best when they are in the best interests of the plaintiffs. If I can put it this way, if I had written this section now, I would probably have put into it somewhere language which ensured that if in fact the court was to exercise that power, it would only do so in circumstances where it was in the best interests of the plaintiff. It may be, again, that that's there by negative implication. I haven't read what will become section (1)(b)(ii) properly. If that's so, then the minister will correct my reading, or state his view that in fact it is important that these things only happen when they're in the best interests of the plaintiff.

Hon. A. Petter: I absolutely agree that the best interests of the plaintiff is an overriding, indeed a paramount, consideration in applying this section. In fact, I believe it's already well reflected in the section. In paragraph (1)(a), for example, the award is only to be made where the court considers it to be in the best interests of the plaintiff. In (1)(b) the award is only made in circumstances which the plaintiff triggers, and even then, only if it is not contrary to the best interests of the plaintiff. I think the member's concerns are not only implicitly but pretty well explicitly dealt with.

Section 60, section 55 as amended approved.

On section 60, section 56.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 56.

[SECTION 60

(d) in the proposed section 56,

(i) in subsection (1) by deleting "or earning capacity",

(ii) in subsection (2)(a) by deleting "that was lost" and substituting "loss that the plaintiff suffered in that period", and

(iii) in subsection (2)(b) by deleting subparagraph (i) and substituting the following:

(i) are liable, in accordance with the Negligence Act, for that portion of the difference between

(A) the net income loss that the plaintiff suffered in that period as a result of the accident, and

(B) the gross income that the plaintiff would have earned in that period had the accident not occurred

that is proportionate to the degree to which those defendants are determined to be at fault for the loss of income, and

(iv) by deleting subsection (3).]

Section 60, section 56 as amended approved.

Section 61 approved.

On section 62.

Hon. A. Petter: I notice that in this section, again there is reference to the date on which the act receives first reading. I would simply amend that wherever that appears, it be replaced with that date, "June 17, 1997."

[ Page 6310 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 62 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 41, Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

[4:00]

HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 37.

TOBACCO DAMAGES RECOVERY ACT

On section 1.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1, in the definition of "tobacco related wrong" by deleting "the exposure of one or more persons to a tobacco product that results in".]

On section 1 as amended.

M. de Jong: Just with respect to the term "tobacco related wrong," have we created a new statutory tort here? Is that what the section, in effect, does?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a tort. This is describing a tort, and it describes when an action can be brought against a tobacco company.

M. de Jong: Do I understand, then, that the right of action exists only insofar as it can be brought within the parameters of this statute?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I would just begin the debate, if I could, recognizing to the House that I am not a lawyer, so I won't be able to engage in legal discussion. I am well aware that the tobacco companies themselves will be interested in this debate, too. So I just want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not a lawyer.

I would like to say that if this is the act under which a person proceeds to court to sue the tobacco company, this is the definition that applies. It does not preclude people from suing tobacco companies under other acts -- or under common law, for instance.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

S. Hawkins: In section 2, reference is made to a minister's certificate, and the section says that the minister's certificate will be conclusive evidence of past health care costs. I wonder if the minister can tell us how this certificate will be assessed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: How we proceed to do a certificate is actually more explicit in subsection (2). If I could just use that to describe how the certificate will come about, it's that the certificate, first of all, on evidence of past costs already incurred. . . . That actually has to be conclusive. However, if we're determining a certificate that may describe future costs, that is evidence that can be rebuttable in court.

S. Hawkins: Who will have input in respect of deciding what the total cost of the minister's certificate will be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This actually is computer-based evidence obtained from the Medical Services Plan, which deals with the question of allowing this evidence to be admissible in court and not to be precluded by the hearsay rule.

S. Hawkins: The computerized information, I can see, would give us the past health care cost, because that could be substantiated in some regards. But who will have input into the future health care benefits for this minister's certificate?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the determination of future health care costs is different and is more difficult -- and probably will have to be determined in the courts by the presentation of evidence that can be rebutted, as well.

S. Hawkins: The minister is probably well aware that patients who have smoke-related diseases may very well have illness caused by other factors, such as drinking or illicit drug use or those kinds of things. I'm wondering to what extent people or patients who sue under this act will be assessed differently from those that just smoke.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The certificate will only relate to tobacco use.

S. Hawkins: To what extent must someone have to be exposed, then, to a tobacco product for an impairment to their health to have occurred?

[ Page 6311 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the point the member makes probably refers to the whole evidence needed to prove the case. That will be what the courts will determine. The certificate does not deal with that question; it deals only with the health care costs that have been determined.

M. de Jong: I think that's where some of the confusion lies here, because the minister indicated during the context of this conversation relating to the certificate that that was something that would be decided by the court. My understanding, my reading of the act, is that that is not the case; that in order to proceed with an action under this statute, you would obtain a minister's certificate, which would in effect quantify the part of the claim relating to health care costs. You would obtain that first, and it would then be presented in court as outright evidence, as the section indicates here, of the portion of the claim relating to health care costs. Do I understand the process correctly?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is it for past health care costs. We have distinguished future health care costs, which is distinguishable between (2)(a) and (2)(b). Section 2(2)(a) and 2(2)(b) are dealing with different matters.

M. de Jong: I see where the minister has made the distinction. It's certainly easier to deal with the question of past costs. But is she saying, then, that a person would commence their action, and they would have a minister's certificate relating to past health care costs and wouldn't have a minister's certificate for future health care costs until the conclusion of the action?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, I'll just say this again: the past health care costs are presented as conclusive evidence. The future health care cost certificates can be rebutted.

M. de Jong: I understand that, insofar as quantifying the claim and the ability of the defendant to respond to what the certificates say. But from that answer, it seems to me that the plaintiff would go to court with two certificates. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That could be one option. They could come with a certificate defined in two different parts, or one certificate could come at the beginning and another could come later in the proceedings. The future health care costs could come later in the proceedings.

M. de Jong: But it is a minister's certificate. It is the ministry that issues the certificate, and it is not dependent upon the proceedings moving forward to a certain stage. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour it, but it's a fascinating notion of how to quantify a claim in a legal action, particularly with respect to future costs. Does the minister agree that insofar as determining that quantification, it is far from an exacting science when we consider all of the potential intervening forces? The minister freely acknowledges that she's not a lawyer. I'm not a doctor, so I can only imagine what some of the congenital issues might be that could complicate the health of someone who also smokes.

When we talk about conclusive evidence of past health care costs, there may be a suspicion that if I smoke and I run into health care difficulties, what the ministry will do is run off my chart, and anything that's ever been charged to me in the past relating to health care is going to come up as a health care cost relating to my smoking. Surely that is not the intention. My point to the minister, which I think she'll agree with, is that it's far from an exacting science or an exacting process that is laid out in section 2.

[4:15]

M. de Jong: I took the minister's point about the conclusiveness of the various certificates. I don't know if she was considering the impact of subsection (3) when she gave that answer, which speaks of the conclusiveness of evidence for a ministerial certificate dealing with future health care costs after there has been a determination of health care benefits. At some point, it seems that a certificate dealing with future health care costs becomes conclusive evidence. Apparently that happens "after there has been a determination of health care benefits that could be reasonably expected." When would that happen? Again, it strikes me that that is not contemplated as being a part of the judicial exercise but is something different.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the member is addressing the issue of future costs. That won't be a unilateral determination by the ministry; in fact, that's why it's rebuttable evidence. It could be part of the court's determination, or it could be part of an agreed upon settlement in terms of that particular issue. There are various ways it could come before.

M. de Jong: Actually, I don't think that answer helps. These certificates, as I understand it, are designed to be submitted as evidence of costs in assisting the court, once there has been a finding of liability -- if there is -- in quantifying how much money is going to be paid to the plaintiff and ultimately back to the government. So you come with a certificate that on the one hand addresses past health care costs -- and we've talked about that -- and within the same certificate or in a separate certificate, there is an assessment of future health care costs. But both, it seems to me, are designed to be presented to the court as conclusive evidence of something. That's the word in subsection (3): "conclusive evidence." Non-rebuttable. So the answer the minister gave doesn't help me in understanding how that will operate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I have explained it as best I could. I said the first one is conclusive. The second one, determining future health care costs, can be arrived at under various methods. One could be that the court determines the nature of it. In other words, the certificate of costs for future health care costs is an item that has to be agreed upon or ruled upon, either in the courts or through settlement. Once it's been ruled upon or agreed upon, then it becomes conclusive evidence.

M. de Jong: I'll put the question this way to the minister: what is to prevent a situation from arising where the ministry, after conducting what it believes is a reasonable determination of future health care costs, issues a certificate relating to future health care costs and has it presented to the court? At that point, it seems to me that based on this legislation, it is conclusive evidence.

[ Page 6312 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the distinction for that comes under subsection (2)(b) in that it is evidence. The distinction is that it's not defined as conclusive evidence, and therefore, as I've said, now it's rebuttable, and the court will make a determination. There is a distinction. After the certificate has been issued. . . . I'm sorry, but it does seem fairly straightforward to me. You have a certificate of conclusive evidence on past health care costs; that's conclusive. The certificate for future health care costs is evidence, but that evidence is allowed to be rebutted. Then a determination will be made, if it is rebutted, about the nature of the certificate.

How will that determination be made? It can be made in several ways: merely by the defendant accepting it as presented, by challenging it and the courts ruling on it, or by agreement -- a negotiated certificate. Once the certificate has been concluded, it then becomes accepted as conclusive evidence.

M. de Jong: The difficulty is that there does not appear to be any requirement for any of those things to happen. I understand what the minister is saying about how it could be by consent. It could be by agreement. It could be following some court intervention. But none of those things have to happen. According to the legislation, subsection (1) deals with the cost of past care and, in sub-subsection (b), "the cost of future health care benefits." Subsection (3) of the section deals specifically with the cost of future care. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that the ministry could issue, pursuant to section. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hear what you're saying; I understand. Let me just try to. . . . I'm sorry I won't be able to give you any further distinction. The distinction occurs in subsection 2(2)(a). One is "conclusive evidence," and that has a legal meaning. Then in subsection (2)(b) it is" evidence," and that has a legal meaning in that all of those tests can apply. That is the distinction. But subsection (3) says once a certificate is issued, it then is conclusive evidence. Under subsection (2)(b), it can be issued only in the context of those other challenges being available. But once it's been issued, it is then accepted.

I would be more than be happy to offer a more technical briefing to the hon. member for some examples. But I think there's no more I can say in terms of how it will operate.

M. de Jong: I don't intend to beat the thing into the ground. It is an inexact process. I suppose the record will only show that I have registered some concerns about how these certificates will be calculated, which my colleague has also alluded to, and also the drafting that has gone on. But I understand that the minister takes a different view. So be it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. de Jong: I don't know if this is the appropriate section, because there is a section 10 that deals specifically with contributory negligence. But since this sets out in general the right of recovery, the question that came to my mind was whether some thought had been given to including in that section a legislated formula by which the issue of contributory negligence might be considered by a court.

Specifically, of course, someone who is smoking is adding to their own difficulties, as we all recognize. So it's a question I pose now. The minister can have me sit down and say simply that she would prefer to discuss that under section 10. I'm happy to do that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 10 is the appropriate place. But let me offer this: section 4 does not preclude contributory negligence as a defence.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

S. Hawkins: I'm just wondering what the public policy behind section 6 is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 6 permits the government to intervene in an action brought under section 5, which we just passed, which is the obligation to claim. This will ensure that the government will be able to present its interests in a benefits claim to the court.

S. Hawkins: Does that mean that any moneys recovered. . .that the government hopes to get that recovery of money back into government's coffers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Does that mean the government is going to then put that money straight back into the health care system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly legislation wouldn't in any way specify that. But you can rest assured that we're already paying these costs out of the health care system. It's an interesting debate. We're already paying the costs out. We're asking to recover the costs.

S. Hawkins: Then I am hearing the minister clearly, that any recovered costs are going straight back into the health care budget.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

S. Hawkins: Section 7 basically prevents an individual from discontinuing or dismissing their own action without consent from the government, even in cases, I guess, where government isn't party to the action. I'm just wondering what the public policy behind that is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This actually relates back to section 5, so I have to refer back to that. Section 7 actually maintains the integrity of section 5 -- the nature of bringing forward a claim and how that claim comes forward. This talks about how that claim is dispensed with. One party cannot end a claim that may harm the other party, including government. So there has to be agreement by government in terms of the disposal of the claim.

M. de Jong: When I looked at this section, the one thing that came to mind as sort of an analogous situation is in many of the proceedings that occur under family maintenance enforcement. What I thought of are those litigants who you might describe as being unwilling litigants. There's a whole 

[ Page 6313 ]

series of reasons why the state chooses to pursue spouses for maintenance, particularly on behalf of individuals who are receiving state assistance.

But does the minister agree that there will be times when a plaintiff, for a number of legitimate reasons, will decide that they do not wish to proceed with an action? They might be health related. Does the minister think it is proper that they would be in a position where they then must seek the consent of the Crown to discontinue an action that they have no interest in pursuing? As I say, it might be for a whole host of legitimate reasons.

[4:30]

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Under section 5? No. This action refers to section 5. This talks about, in section 5(1). . . . Section 7 is maintaining the integrity of section 5.

M. de Jong: I think the minister knows the question I'm going to ask. The bill later on makes provision for direct action. So do I understand, then, that if an action is commenced by the government directly or on behalf of someone, pursuant to one of the other provisions in the bill, the provisions of section 7 don't apply? That seemed to be what she was saying.

Hon. J. MacPhail: A claim for direct action is a separate issue entirely.

M. de Jong: The question, then, turns back to the issue of cost, insofar as one can contemplate a litigant or plaintiff at some point coming to the decision that they don't want to proceed because (a) the likelihood of success isn't there, and (b) there is a strong possibility of an award of costs being brought against them as a result of an unsuccessful action. Are they then in a position where they must bring an application? Or are they even entitled to bring an application before the courts compelling the Crown to join with them in abandonment of the action? Is that what would logically follow if there was a disagreement between the Crown and the plaintiff?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the assurance the member needs is contained in section 12.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. de Jong: Just a simple question: why does the government need two and a half months when everyone else gets 30 days?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The government would only be assured of the desires of the plaintiff up to 30 days. The plaintiff has the first 30 days, and we would only be notified of that at that time. So we need another 15 days in order to bring forward the appeal.

M. de Jong: Well, two things. If the government is that adamant that it wants to preserve its right of action, it can file a notice of appeal. That's not an onerous thing. But quite frankly, it's not 15 days. As I read the section, it says 45 days after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period. So it's not 15 days beyond that. I guess the question remains: why does the government need two and a half months to decide whether to appeal?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I stand corrected in terms of the 30 days. We need 45 days. But I would only offer this: there's no adverse impact on anyone because of that.

M. de Jong: Well, I suppose if you take the view that waiting for an appeal -- whether you're a plaintiff or a defendant -- doesn't carry with it some anxiety, you can say that. Quite frankly, most of the people I know that have been involved in legal action tend to worry about these things. So I'm not sure I quite agree with the minister when she says that there's no adverse effect through an appeal period. My experience has been quite the contrary for individuals.

Subsection (3) speaks to the judicial stay that automatically follows when the notice is given. That usually requires a specific order from the court if you or I were making our way through a civil action. The government here has chosen to make that automatic, dispensing with the need for that application. I'm sure there was a good reason for that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just take this opportunity to say that this legislation is on behalf of the plaintiffs. We may disagree on whether the legislation should support the tobacco industry or the plaintiffs. This legislation is clearly in support of plaintiffs, so all of these safeguards are on behalf of those who have been harmed by tobacco. As I say, that clearly is the intent of the legislation. Having said that, there could be hundreds of individual plaintiffs, and it's on the basis of us being able to properly look after the interests of hundreds of plaintiffs that an automatic stay is needed.

M. de Jong: I guess it just bears emphasizing, then, that these are special rules. They are justified on the basis, as I understand it, of the numbers of potential plaintiffs involved, and they are further justified by virtue of who the defendants are anticipated to be.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me say that they are not special rules in terms of stacking the odds. They are rules to deal with the complexities of the matter that will be brought forward for the court and with the number of plaintiffs that we anticipate will participate. As we said at second reading, it is to ensure that the playing field is fair -- given the complexity of the action -- and also that the matter proceeds to court in an orderly way.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

M. de Jong: I'm going to try to do this in two parts if I can, because I think I know what the intention of the section is. The question I'm going to ask -- or get to, I hope -- is that I have a concern that it is drafted in a way that may create a difficulty that is not anticipated. So we'll see.

When I read this section -- I should also say that my comments will be equally applicable, I think, with respect to 

[ Page 6314 ]

section 13 -- it occurs to me that this provides the Crown with an opportunity to commence an action on behalf of an individual, an insured person. I am wondering whether the government has considered the kind of scenario where the government might sue, on behalf of a child, for example, or a disabled person, a parent who it could be said has jeopardized the child's health through secondhand smoke, through some contributory negligence. I anticipate that the minister is going to say that that can't happen by virtue of the definition of "tobacco related wrong." My concern is that the way this bill, and in particular, this section, is drafted, that kind of action isn't precluded.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I personally can't see where that misinterpretation could happen. It says that as a result of a tobacco-related wrong, you are automatically required to refer back to the definition, which clearly says a manufacturer.

M. de Jong: Let me try this. If I were considering commencing an action exclusive from this statute, for damage to someone's health resulting from smoke, I would go after the manufacturer. I might also go after individuals who had been around the individual, who might have contributed to the health problems through secondhand smoke. I would name, as lawyers are wont to do, everyone I could find that might have contributed to the ill effects, the ill health, of the plaintiff.

This section gives the government the right to commence an action on behalf of someone, and the other section allows it to commence an action directly. Would the government be able to slide in through the back door -- something that I understand isn't the minister's intention but, it strikes me, could occur once the action has commenced?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The definition clearly restricts the government in what can be brought forward as an action. It says as a result of a "tobacco related wrong." A tobacco related-wrong is defined clearly as "a tort or breach of a common law or statutory obligation committed by a manufacturer. . . ." We then go the definition of manufacturer: ". . .a person who manufactures a tobacco product." I think we've got a pretty tight, little rein around it.

M. de Jong: I don't quarrel with that. The definition goes further, though -- ". . .committed by a manufacturer that causes or is a contributing factor in causing the exposure. . . ." I can contemplate the government commencing an action on behalf of an individual against a cigarette manufacturer, and at some point during the proceedings being confronted with evidence by the defendant, the manufacturing company, that says: "Hey, wait a minute; we're only the manufacturer. There are some other factors here, and we're going to bring some other parties into this action." That can certainly happen. That happens all the time. So though it wouldn't be the intention of the government to do that, by virtue of having commenced the action, you've got other third parties involved.

Does the minister at least agree that is a possibility -- that that could occur, once the action between the individual and the manufacturer has begun?

[4:45]

M. de Jong: This is not really a legal point. An action is commenced under section 9 or section 13; it names the manufacturer as the defendant. Fine, that's the kind of action we all contemplate. The manufacturer then draws in some third parties. Maybe the question is this: is there something in this legislation that would preclude the manufacturer from naming the kinds of third parties that I've alluded to?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

M. de Jong: In the scenario I've described, where an action is commenced between the government on behalf of an individual and a manufacturer, that individual plaintiff could find themselves involved in a court proceeding with a member of their family on the other side named as a third party by the manufacturer. That could take place, could exist.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm actually getting an interesting insight into the approach tobacco companies may take in court. Certainly we have no control over that. We only have control over. . . . I mean, if the tobacco companies want to bring forward a defence such as that, it will be up to the courts to determine how that defence proceeds and whether they accept it. That's not our responsibility to determine. We have very clearly said what a manufacturer is, what a tobacco-related wrong is, but I'm sure the tobacco companies will be looking to the record to see what they may be able to do.

M. de Jong: Well, I think the minister is being unfair here. We're supporting the bill. She says she has drafted and crafted this bill in a way that is friendly to the plaintiff. What I'm suggesting is that there may be a mechanism here where it ain't going to be nearly as friendly as she thinks. She's suggesting that somehow I'm here painting a blueprint by which the defendants can. . . . Far from it.

I would have hoped, and I continue to hope, that if there is any credence to what I say, she will recognize it in the spirit that it is offered. It is not my intention, nor the intention of anyone on this side of the House, to find people in court confronted by members of their own family or those that they don't wish to sue. So I hope the minister will take the questions in the spirit they really are intended.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

M. de Jong: I alluded to this earlier. The section deals with the question of contributory negligence, and I wonder if any thought was given in a bill of this sort -- where this cause of action and the manner in which you proceed is laid out -- to including some manner of legislative formula by which the issue of contributory negligence will be decided by the courts. Again, it's not an exact science; I'm not even sure that's an appropriate way to go. But I wonder whether some thought was given and, if it was, why the determination was made not to include it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The determination of contributory negligence has always been within the purview of the courts. We drafted this legislation in a very careful way -- to not have the challenge made against us that we distorted unfairly, or changed anything unfairly, to favour the plaintiff. So contributory negligence stands as being determined in the way that it has been: through the courts.

M. de Jong: I think I will only say this: I suppose an argument could be made that if evidence were led -- as I'm 

[ Page 6315 ]

sure it would be -- that a particular plaintiff has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day versus a couple of cigarettes a week, there will very quickly develop a common-law rule around which the courts will render their decisions on the issue of contributory negligence. My only reason in pursuing it was that we can all, I think, contemplate the intervening factors that would be at play there. I take it that it never was a consideration.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

M. de Jong: In terms of the direct action, I take it that the difference between this and section 9 is that section 9 contemplates an action on behalf of an individual, and this would be an action by the government.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

M. de Jong: Again, in contemplating the form the action would take, there would be the name of a plaintiff. There would be Joe Smith listed as plaintiff. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There would be a plaintiff: Her Majesty the Queen, on behalf of the province.

M. de Jong: For example, in subsection (3), the action relates to the recovery of health care benefits. That would be with respect to an individual, presumably.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The language says "in respect of treatment of a particular disease."

M. de Jong: So that would represent, then, an action commenced by the government against a manufacturer of cigarettes, within the definition at the outset, where the government said: "We have delivered this particular treatment to a whole bunch of people who suffer from illness related to smoking, and we are a Crown in right of the province of B.C. now collecting for the cost of that treatment." Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. It exists regardless of whether any other person has recovered the damages, but it will be on the basis of a particular disease being quantified as the health care costs for the treatment of a disease.

M. de Jong: From an evidentiary point of view, would it be required for the Crown to stipulate who the recipients of the treatment were? Or are we now contemplating a different kind of certificate that would be conclusive evidence, simply by virtue of the government providing evidence that we have provided this service and the courts must therefore deem it to have been for smoking-related diseases?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I don't want to preclude discussion, but perhaps this is more appropriate under section 14 in determining the evidence to prove section 13.

M. de Jong: I think I'll leave it at that.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

S. Hawkins: This section permits the court to admit evidence that otherwise was not admissible as evidence, and I wonder what the public policy behind this section is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: First of all, I'll describe what this clause does. It allows the court to establish causation and to quantify damages for tobacco-related damages on an aggregate basis, as opposed to an individual basis, through the use of statistical evidence or epidemiological information. The provision would include information that was derived from sampling, provided the information was compiled in accordance with accepted statistical standards.

The reason for this is that in the past, court cases have been rejected on the basis of technicalities, in that a particular wrong had to be proved by attaching it to one particular brand-name product. My understanding is that you would have to show that this brand of cigarettes solely caused this illness in order to prove that that company was liable. The public policy here is that tobacco products as a group statistically cause illness and death. That's what this evidence allows.

M. de Jong: Just to get a better handle again on the issue of quantification of the government's claim in an action commenced under section 13, how would that work? Would the Crown say. . . ? I think we went over this, so I think the minister knows where I'm going with it. How would that work?

Hon. J. MacPhail: My understanding of how it will work is that the evidence would be presented about tobacco-related illness on the basis that this illness -- lung cancer, heart disease, stroke -- is caused by the use of tobacco. Then, we would still. . . . I mean, the proof of the linkage still has to be brought forward; proof still has to be entered into court to show that the use of tobacco causes lung cancer -- and I use that only as an example. We would also have to then prove, through the use of statistical evidence, how much of that illness has occurred in British Columbia, but it would not be on an individual basis.

M. de Jong: But doesn't the Crown have to go further, having established those two links, and then provide evidence of the cost associated with the delivery of treating disease of that sort and some evidence. . . ? I mean, I don't think it's simply a question then of saying, "Well, there's a treatment associated with lung ailments," pushing a button and spitting out what the government spent over the past year or the past ten or 15 years on treating that kind of ailment. Surely, there is some requirement to specify how many of the patients so treated suffered their ailments as a result of smoking. Does the minister understand what I'm getting at in terms of the quantification issue again?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. That's why it says: "For the purposes of establishing causation and quantifying damages. . . ." That is required on a statistical basis.

M. de Jong: So we've established -- in this mythical case that we're talking about -- that smoking is bad, it causes certain kinds of ailments, the court is satisfied of that, and it's satisfied that the Crown has spent money on health care benefits to treat that ailment. Is the minister saying, then, that the only other evidence that the Crown would have to deliver is that, on a statistical, population, demographic basis, it is reasonable to expect that we would have spent X number of dollars on treating this particular illness?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it will be statistical evidence, but we'll put the evidence forward, and it can be probed and challenged and refuted.

[ Page 6316 ]

[5:00]

On section 15.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 15,

(a) by deleting "on or before December 31, 1998" and substituting "within 2 years after the coming into force of this section", and

(b) by renumbering the section as section 15(1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) Any action for damages alleged to have been caused by a tobacco related wrong is revived if the action was dismissed before the coming into force of this section merely because it was held by a court to be barred or extinguished by the Limitation Act.]

On section 15 as amended.

M. de Jong: I must confess that I didn't read the amendment. I presume it hasn't changed the intent of the section.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, and I'll just make clear what the amendment is. We wanted to give people a substantial time in order to bring their case forward. We weren't sure when the bill would be passed, so we specified two years. Instead of the date, December 31, 1998, we said no action that is commenced "within 2 years after the coming into force of this section." So people have a full two years. We had originally drafted. . . . Anyway, it doesn't change the intent of the section at all.

S. Hawkins: Because the government is looking at recovering the cost of health care benefits and because the limitation period here, then, is extended and looks backward quite a long ways, how far back is the minister looking at as far as recovering those health care costs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That will be part of the determination we make as we assemble our legal counsel about what makes sense in terms of how far we go back. That's not addressed, nor is it contemplated to be governed by this legislation.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 37, Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, hon. Speaker.

MEDICARE PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

S. Hawkins: This section defines the beneficiary for coverage of medicare and also makes it mandatory, from what I understand, for all residents to enrol in the MSP program as beneficiaries. I had this discussion during the briefing as well, and I'm wondering why people are allowed to remain outside the program. What is the public policy behind that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, the member is dealing with the section that allows people to elect not to enrol, and she wants a public policy answer for that. Is that the question? Okay. Maybe I can deal quickly with why it's mandatory, and then we can talk about why one may elect not to enrol.

Under the Canada Health Act, services have to be universal; there has to be universal accessibility. It was not clear in our legislation that people had universal access to services. Indeed, I think that in certain areas, the practice may have been that if you weren't enrolled and weren't paying premiums or having premiums paid on your behalf, services were refused.

When that came to our attention, we said that we must correct the problem and make sure that regardless of whether or not you're up to date on your medical services premiums, you have the right to access to services. We also knew that from a fiscal point of view, we then had to do everything possible to make sure that people paid their premiums, so we made enrolment mandatory in the Medical Services Plan. Other sections of the bill determine how we will collect premiums in an enforceable way.

We also knew that there would be very, very few but important sectors of British Columbia that, mainly for religious reasons, would not agree to participate in the medical services system, basically. This provision is to allow an individual who doesn't want to participate in the plan as a matter of principle -- it says as a matter of principle, but that principle often has a religious basis to it -- to withdraw for a prescribed period.

They actually have to renew the withdrawal every year. That's a safeguard to make sure that people actually make a conscious decision each year not to be provided with medical coverage. We went further, saying that even where a resident makes a decision not to enrol, they cannot make that decision for their dependent children.

S. Hawkins: Under the Canada Health Act, the five principles of medicare are entrenched: universality, portability. . .all those good things. They are actually entrenched as well in the Medicare Protection Act, which the government passed last year. I guess I'm having difficulty in understanding why we would leave some people out. I'm wondering where this model came from that leaves some people out or allows people to be opted-out, if you will, of the medicare system.

[ Page 6317 ]

We're supposed to have a one-tier system where everybody is covered. The federal government provides some transfer of funds to ensure that everyone in every province is covered by medicare. I'm wondering why we don't just make it mandatory for everyone to be enrolled and why we're allowing some people to be left out of the system. They won't get health care, because in this province, I understand, you can't buy private health insurance. It's illegal. You can't do that.

The people who want to be opted-out or who choose not to pay the premiums, for whatever reason -- perhaps they don't have the money -- will be left out of medicare and will have to pay the bills themselves. I suggest to you that this leads to a two-tier system, which this government is saying they don't want -- that they would like a one-tier, universal system.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe I should just repeat what I said earlier. This is a section to deal with people who, for religious reasons -- because it would be a violation of their religious principles -- choose not to participate in the medicare system. The model arises out of Alberta. We know that it will be a very, very few people that choose this option, and they will do so almost exclusively for religious reasons.

One member of the Legislature has already brought to my attention a very small religious community in his own area that is very concerned about this, for religious reasons. There has been a case in the public domain -- an Amish woman. So this clause is to allow for conscientious objectors to exercise their rights to that. We have limited it by ensuring that there has to be continuous opting out and that dependent children not be covered by this.

S. Hawkins: In other provinces where they don't have a premium-based system. . . . And when this bill was being drafted I'm sure they obviously must have looked at other provinces to see how they were funding health care and how Alberta funds health care. How do other provinces that aren't premium-based deal with the conscientious objectors?

[5:15]

In the case that I cited to you -- the Amish woman -- after opting out for religious reasons, the community made a decision that they would ask for certain medical treatment, and they fund-raised to provide that medical treatment.

S. Hawkins: Hopefully, children are universally protected in this section. Who pays for the child if the family decides to opt out but the child is still in? Is the child covered by medicare, regardless of whether premiums are paid?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Premiums are paid on the basis that they would be for any other child, whether that be through subsidy. . . . There are certain people, because of income, that don't pay premiums at all.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have two amendments. One is:

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 7.1 and substituting the following:

Consequence to beneficiary of withdrawal from the plan. The commission must not enroll a person as a beneficiary for a prescribed period from the date that the commission

(a) receives a statement under section 7(1.1) from the person, or

(b) cancels the enrollment of the person under section 7(7)(a).]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have another amendment, if I may.

[SECTION 2, in the proposed section 8.2 by deleting subsections (7) and (8) and substituting the following:

(7) On being filed, the certificate, including any amendment made under subsection (6) and interest at the prescribed rate referred to in section 8.1 that later accrues on the amount of the payment remaining unpaid, has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken on it, as if it were a judgement of the court in favour of the government for the recovering of a debt against the person named in the certificate.

(8) Section 32(2) to (4) applies to the amount referred to in subsection (1)(b) stated in a certificate as though

(a) that amount was the premiums referred to in section 32(2) collected under an agreement referred to in section 32(1), and

(b) the person named in the certificate was the person referred to in section 32 (2) who collected the premiums.]

On section 2 as amended.

S. Hawkins: I'm looking at section 7.1 where: "The commission must not enroll a person as a beneficiary for a prescribed period from the date that the commission. . .receives a statement. . .or cancels the enrollment of the person. . . ." Am I confusing that with the amendment that just passed? Yes, I'm confusing it with. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will just tell the member what the amendment did. If you could just look under your act, all it does is delete, under 7.1. . . . It says: "The commission. . .not enroll a person as a beneficiary. . ." -- because that is just repeated later on, so the intent has not changed.

L. Reid: In section 7.2, "The commission may cancel the enrollment of a beneficiary if the commission believes the beneficiary has ceased to be a resident." I need some explanation around "believes." What type of data will be supporting that documentation? Will anything be filed that suggests that person has truly ceased to be a resident, or is it more open-ended than that? I simply need some clarification.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the commission sends out bills and notices and receives no answer, we then proceed to check to see if they have stopped paying in other areas, such as hydro or telephone, etc. It's on that basis, after a search such as that, that the conclusion would be reached that they have left the country. However, if it turns out that we are wrong, their benefits are reinstated retroactively.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I believe we have British Columbians today who reside in other 

[ Page 6318 ]

provinces and other states for upwards of three months. Will this requirement allow for that three-month permitted absence? Or will it be an additional three months? Are we looking at perceiving someone to have been a non-resident after six months of non-contact with the Medical Services Plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me offer an explanation of how it currently works, and see whether this solves the problem. If someone is moving from another province to British Columbia, they have to be here for the first three months, and their premium is covered by their leaving province. This doesn't affect that period. After that, once people are enrolled in the B.C. plan, they have to spend the majority of time in B.C. to be eligible. That means six months plus one day. They have to pay the premiums for the entire year, but this doesn't affect that permission to leave the country for up to six months less a day.

L. Reid: I appreciate the clarification. So we take a person who is a resident of British Columbia and is currently a member of the plan, and let's say they go to Arizona for six months. When it becomes the position of the commission that they are now non-resident, will the commission look at that window of opportunity? Is it a three-month window, a six-month window, or is it longer? My contention is that it probably should be in excess of six months. People's permitted absence today is already six months, so it seems to me -- if there's a comment coming from the minister -- that we should look at a number that's well beyond the allowed-for six months.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, the absence criteria will not change. That absence criteria is still in effect and still permitted. So this clause applies after that absence criteria.

L. Reid: Person X has gone from British Columbia from January 1 to June 30. That is their allowed absence while still being a member of the plan. They are back for two weeks; then they're gone again -- two or three weeks or a month or so. Will they begin receiving notices after one month of absence, in addition to their six months, or does the commission have a plan? Will it wait three months? Say they've had unpaid bills for three months. At that point, would they consider the person to have ceased to be a member of the plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. First of all, people have to be in the province for a majority of the time in an annual period. So you're not allowed to come back for a day and the six-month absence kicks in again. I just want to make that clear, because that was part of the example. The absence criteria is unaffected by this. Again, you are allowed to be absent for six months, and I'm not sure if it's less a day or whatever. But you have to be in the province the majority of the year.

This talks about enrolment and de-enrolment. If, in the context of people not paying their premiums, there is evidence to believe they've left the country in excess of a certain period of time and that is sussed out, then they are de-enrolled. Remember, there is a requirement, even if you're out of the country, to pay your bills. So it would be on a case-by-case basis that that would be determined. If someone actually hasn't left the country and hasn't violated the absence criteria, their benefits would be restored retroactively if we, for some reason, had cut off their enrolment.

L. Reid: Again, I appreciate the minister's clarification.

What I'm looking for, I understand now, is the definition for "a certain period of time." The minister's response was that they'd be handled on a case-by-case basis. Are we looking to consider removing someone from the plan after not having paid their bills for one month, two months, three months, six months? If the minister could frame that in a time line for me, that would be most helpful.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. This is a change from the current legislation. Now we're going to have a registration integrity unit. You have to pay your premiums now; it's mandatory enrolment. There will be two streams for checking. Residency is one issue, and this unit will be determining residency. If you are a resident as defined -- i.e., you're in British Columbia the majority of the year -- so be it; everything continues for you. But if we have reason to believe that you're not in the province by virtue of not paying your premiums, that's when we'll go after you. That will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. Perhaps it's not possible to provide the answer, but does "on a case-by-case basis" mean that this process kicks in after the person has not paid for 30 days as a minimum, or is it going to be longer? I think there will be questions around individuals who are very, very concerned that they may miss this first notice and lose their benefit.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be a much longer period of time. I don't want to in any way say that just because you don't pay your premiums, you're cancelled. I mean, there's a huge process that we go through for that.

S. Hawkins: I have a question. If a person who is a resident in B.C. de-enrols and then wants to come back on board, what's the waiting period for that person to come back into the plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That will actually be set by regulation by the commission. I can give you an estimate. It probably will not be any longer than a year. No, I'm sorry. The period at which the opting out applies before having to be renewed will be determined by regulation. It won't be any longer than a year, but the commission will be determining that. That is the period for which you've opted out. Let me give you an example. If a person, for religious reasons, opts out on January 1, the commission will make a determination of how long that opting-out period is -- and it will be generic; it won't be on an individual basis -- and that's how long the person stays opted out before she can opt in.

[5:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I reiterate: this is a universal health care system -- absolutely. But there is a certain group of 

[ Page 6319 ]

people in society who do not want it. It is against their principles to participate in the health care system. We are offering it to them; everybody has access to it. But for religious reasons, or for conscientious objector reasons, they say: "Under no circumstances should I be forced to participate in your health care system." It is those people who can opt out.

The issue of portability and the three-month residency requirement does not apply, because these people are making a determination that no matter where they are in Canada, they don't want to participate.

S. Hawkins: Notwithstanding the religious reasons, or whatever reason they want to opt out, when they want to opt in, I'm wondering why there is such a long period of time -- a year -- when the residency criteria or the waiting period criteria in the Canada Health Act says three months. This government is going to set a waiting period of a year for people who want back on the plan. I can understand if people want out of the plan, so you opt out of the plan, but what's the public policy of setting that waiting period for a year when the Canada Health Act says the waiting period shouldn't be more than three months if people want to get into a medicare plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This has nothing to do with the residency period. These are residents of British Columbia. These are people that are residents. It's got nothing to do with whether they're. . . . They are living here. They're people who have made a conscientious, very serious decision to say: "I don't want to be part of your health care system." My personal view is that I would like everyone to participate in the health care system, but they have made a conscientious decision to not participate. In fact, we're now saying to them: "You must reiterate that commitment to not participate for a regular period that will be determined by regulation."

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of people who have chosen to opt out of the plan knowing full well that that opting-out period is one year long. Our concern, on the opposition benches, are the individuals who will change their minds. There will be those individuals who come forward, no matter what their religious belief. Given the nature of the human being, there will be people who change their mind. Our question specifically is: should they change their mind for any reason, what is the waiting period for them to resume being a member of the plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be prescribed by regulation. I said it won't be any longer than a year. The commission will prescribe that by regulation. Certainly, the regulation can be changed on the basis of experience. Frankly, I think experience has shown that it is a system that is trying to get people to opt in again by having another chance to discuss why they should opt in.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. Certainly if the regulation looks at some time period between three months and where the minister is at in terms of it being one year, I think that would satisfy the concerns. We certainly leave that with the minister.

On 8.1: "If payments under section 7(5) are not made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, the person liable to make these payments is also liable to pay the commission interest at the prescribed rate on these payments." Could the minister kindly give us some sense of what that prescribed rate of interest might be? That will be of issue to many British Columbians who will be faced with paying these bills at some point.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll adopt the same rate that is set under the Financial Administration Act for the same obligations owed to the Crown in other areas.

G. Abbott: I've been listening with interest to the minster's comments with respect to the withdrawal, and the repeated reference to religious groups who may not, for conscientious reasons, be prepared to access medical care either in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada. Is the minister advancing that simply as an example of a group that might want to withdraw from the plan, or is there another statute that is being amended here that makes reference to religious groups? Is this opting out exclusive to religious groups, or is it just an example?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's just an example.

G. Abbott: There is nothing in this act, apart from the reference to children, which would limit any British Columbian from withdrawing from the plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, any resident could conceivably make that election.

M. de Jong: On 8.2, what, if any, additional priority as a creditor do those provisions with respect to the issuance of certificate bestow on the Crown insofar as collections are concerned?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is the question, in what order can we collect this debt? Do you mean, what priority does it take? There's no additional priority given to this.

L. Reid: In that we understand that any British Columbian can elect to remove themselves from the plan, could the minister simply provide a percentage of the number of people who today are in arrears, who have not paid their premiums -- not to include those individuals who receive a subsidy or who do not currently pay premiums as a result of income issues. Of those who can and should pay under the act today, what percentage currently do not?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no mandatory enrolment now. We're making it mandatory; that's the issue.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. I'm simply wondering. . . . I believe that the commission must have a sense of how many British Columbians reside in this province and how many participate in the plan by choice or are mandatorily enrolled, and how many simply have not continued to pay their premiums. I mean, that has been an issue under discussion in this Legislature for many, many years in terms of the dollar value of the sum of money that comes in as a result of premium collection. Simple mathematics will tell us how many people reside in the province and how many are currently paying today and how many are not.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can only give you information about overdue accounts: about 200,000 accounts are overdue at the end of a month. This legislation will actually allow us to collect on those accounts now, which is excellent news for taxpayers.

I just want to try to give some. . . . I'm not even sure whether the members object to this; I'm sure they wouldn't want religious groups to have to enrol in a plan. But in 

[ Page 6320 ]

Alberta, upon which this is modelled, about a hundred people have chosen to opt out, and it's almost universally for religious reasons.

L. Reid: My question was specifically a percentage, so I appreciate that the minister's response is that there is mandatory enrolment but there's not mandatory payment. So 200,000 accounts out of a grand total of how many accounts?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get that information for you.

Sections 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Hawkins: This section allows the commission to unilaterally de-enrol a beneficiary, and I'm wondering what criteria the commission is going to use to determine whether the beneficiary is not eligible?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a consequential amendment, actually, to refer to those who would be de-enrolled because they're no longer resident, which we've already discussed.

S. Hawkins: Just a point of information. Is there any appeal for these beneficiaries who've been de-enrolled -- or ex-beneficiaries?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The legislation provides for an appeal, and that isn't changed by these amendments.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Reid: Section 5 allows the Medical Services Commission to establish formulae for increasing or decreasing its payments to specified physicians from those established payment schedules. The minister will know that I highlighted these concerns yesterday in second reading debate in terms of how sophisticated, if you will, these formulae might be. It is my understanding that this will be an issue that's agreed to by both the government of the province and the British Columbia Medical Association.

My concern, if I might just take a moment to highlight it yet again, is that this will hamper medical students and interns in this province. We have often been faced with the finest minds leaving this province. That's an issue for the Ministry of Education as well as the Ministry of Health, because there's been a significant investment in their education, usually upwards of ten or 15 years of advanced schooling -- a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, a medical degree, subspecialty training and internships. All of those are an enormous cost on the system.

What this will allow, under regulation, is for those individuals who will have the latest possible training, perhaps the finest training available, to leave this province because they will not be able to be gainfully employed here. So the concern I'm putting on the record today is that the formulae that will be arrived at under regulation have to be incredibly well done. There has to be some sophistication around not just meeting the needs of the current members of the B.C. Medical Association, but some consideration has to be given to future members -- future practitioners in this province who all of us will benefit from -- in terms of whether or not they stay in this province. That's an issue. It's not reflected in section 5 particularly well.

It concerns me that if, indeed, another agreement is reached that hinders those medical students and those interns, this province will lose. We, as consumers of health care, will lose. We will lose the best-educated, the finest minds. And I'm not prepared to rest easy unless the minister is prepared to give me some confidence that this section is understood to be incredibly weighty in terms of future health care in this province. It gives enormous powers to the B.C. Medical Association to meet the needs of their current members but places no obligation on them to meet the needs of future members of that organization, who in turn have the greatest impact on patients in British Columbia. If the minister could kindly comment.

[5:45]

L. Reid: I thank the minister. I would be pleased to receive a copy. I will simply make one last comment. I appreciate the fact that a great deal of effort has gone into the document, but from my extensive touring of this province as Health critic, there were significant areas of the province that did not have appropriate obstetrical care. Never would they ever have access to a very qualified psychiatrist. General surgery was not something that was handled well on a regular basis; it was maybe one afternoon a week that a general surgeon would come to town.

Those issues will continue to be significant issues for the rural and the northern parts of this province if, indeed, what comes from this formulae isn't very specific to addressing those needs which are still the priorities in this province: obstetrics, psychiatry, general surgery.

So again, it is simply a request on my behalf, and on behalf of the opposition, that the minister pay particular attention to those three specific needs: obstetrics, psychiatry and general surgery -- for areas outside of the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. That's a significant issue, and I only trust that it will be addressed by the continuing relationship the government enjoys with the B.C. Medical Association.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Points well taken. In fact, the document does address those specific concerns. I agree that they are concerns. The document is extremely detailed. I look forward to keeping the member informed of any changes.

I also just note. . . . I know we're only on section 5, but section 6 is a little bit encouraging for our younger practitioners, in that the field will be freed.

Interjection.

[ Page 6321 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know, I know. I agree. But it does free up and at least provide for retirement and, in some ways, for positions opening up.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

L. Reid: Regarding collection and facilitating collection of premiums outstanding, it seems to me that there will be a number of individuals who simply are not in a position to pay. If indeed that is found to be the case, will they at that point qualify for some subsidy or assistance? Or will another layer of penalty be put in place? They are outstanding for a year's worth of health care premiums not because they chose not to pay but simply because they couldn't afford to.

As much as we like to think people are aware of the services the government offers, lots of individuals simply are not. They may find themselves in that predicament, owing $1,000-plus to the government and simply not knowing that they may have qualified and been eligible for some kind of assistance plan. Is there some kind of mechanism in place that would allow for that information to be shared, without penalty to them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's good public policy, to make sure that those who can't afford to pay don't. That's why we've got premium assistance, where fully a third of the people in this province don't pay any premium. Then there is assistance after that, as well.

This is not the section by which we deal with that. But in terms of premium payment, what this says is that where you owe the money by virtue of your income, then you've got to pay.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Reid: Section 11 refers to audited claims. Will the audits be done by members of the Chartered Accountants Institute of British Columbia? Or will there be other individuals who are responsible for the audit mechanisms in place under section 11?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There will be a team of experts, including accountants. It will be very thorough.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have an amendment standing in my name on the orders of the day, section 12.1.

[SECTION 12.1, by adding the following section:

Section 39(1) is amended by striking out "Subject to section 43(4), the" and substituting "The".]

On section 14.

L. Reid: The concern I raised earlier regarding regulations, and that is where the power will lie with this particular act. . . . I'd like to put on record our concern for individuals needing to know what their options are when it comes to subsidy funding and the fact that this is now a plan that they do have the option to opt out of. Could the minister spend just a moment telling us how this information is going to be communicated to British Columbians?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I share the member's concern, in that I want this to have universality and as broad and complete enrolment as possible, so we will be having a concerted advertising campaign targeted at groups that are vulnerable to not keeping themselves enrolled -- university students -- and the campaign will be to enrol and the consequences of not enrolling from a health care point of view. We take that job very seriously.

L. Reid: I have one last comment. There are a number of individuals who currently have their premiums paid through a social services assistance grant or subsidy of some sort. Could some direction be given for some interdisciplinary, interministry consultation to make those case managers and social workers aware that they now need to share that responsibility with the consumer so that that information is not lost? I will predict that many people will come to us a year from now denying any knowledge of this new information. So if there are ways to put it in everybody's mail slot so that they understand what their responsibilities are, I would welcome that. I too would not wish to see any British Columbian ever turned away from medical care.

So my last question: if someone has not paid their premiums, is in a serious accident and arrives at an emergency room in this province, it is my fervent hope that those individuals will still receive medical care. Is that the minister's desire as well?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If that is the member's concluding comment, it's an excellent one, because that summarizes the entire intent of this legislation, which is that everyone is treated. De-enrolment occurs when you're not a resident. Lack of premium payment does not mean that you're not. . . . In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Everyone who is a resident has access to the health care system, unless (1) you consciously opt out, or (2) you're not a resident. And even then, if you're not a resident, if you're a Canadian you get covered.

So the member's concluding comment is the summary of the intent of this bill.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

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

[ Page 6322 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The house recessed at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

M. Coell: I would like to spend some time this afternoon continuing on with adoptions and changes to the Adoption Act. The first area that I would like to ask some questions on is the ministry's infant and special needs adoptions. These are often children with multiple handicaps. I wonder if the minister could tell me how many children with special needs that are in foster care are available for adoption.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure I can give you the number of infants, although I think we could probably find that for you. But at any one time, it's about 400 children who have what you might describe as complex needs.

M. Coell: These 400 children would be in foster care now and are available for adoption. Are they multi-age -- from a few months to teenage years?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are about 263 children who are currently eligible, if you will, for adoption. About two-thirds of those have what some folks might describe as complex. . .or a number of additional challenges.

M. Coell: It would be nice to see these children adopted into loving, caring families. I'm sure they are also in foster situations that are positive, as well. Can the minister describe to me the programs or incentives that the ministry offers for people to adopt these special needs children?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are actually at least two and perhaps three things that are different for people who are looking at adopting children who have additional complex needs. First is the maintenance payment, which is equivalent to the foster care payment or the foster care rate. Secondly, they have access to a wide range of services, and obviously "a wide range" sometimes depends on where you live in the province. That may be a home support worker, a child care worker; it may be speech, language, physio, specialized equipment. The range is quite broad in that respect. Thirdly, and it may go without saying, there is no adoption fee for home study or for the adoption of children with special needs.

M. Coell: I'm very pleased to hear that. That was my next question. That sounds like a very positive approach to finding parents and homes for these children.

We dealt with the change for international adoptions. I guess, for adoptions in general, I'm at a personal loss as to see why we have a charge and why there are fees for adoption. I wonder if the minister could explain to me. From my perspective, this isn't about money; this is about homes for children, and I just wonder why we even bother with fees and service charges. It just doesn't sit well with me, and I wonder whether the minister could comment on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me try and see if I have the question correctly. I'm not sure if the member is asking why there's a fee for adoption in general, or why there's a fee for adoption by the ministry.

M. Coell: By the ministry.

Hon. P. Priddy: By the ministry, okay -- that question I can answer more easily. One of the things that was very clear from the consultation is that people wanted non-profit organizations in the community to go. . . . Some people choose not to go to government -- and would actually rather not go to government to do an adoption, whether it's an intercountry adoption or whether it's a domestic adoption. So they wanted non-profit organizations set up.

If we're going to have those non-profit organizations set up in the community, why would anybody go to them if government charged no fee? All of those would, I assume, come to government, because there wouldn't have been a fee. There's always been a fee before in the community. This is simply trying to say -- for those non-profit organizations out there -- that. . . . I don't think there's any way that they would be able to function, which is what the consultation wanted, if they could come to government and it was totally free.

M. Coell: Maybe I'll explain myself: in British Columbia, if someone needs alcohol and drug services, they can go to a program; they're not charged. If your child is apprehended, you're not charged. There's a whole range of services we provide to people and children where there are no fees or service charges. I just wonder what the logic. . . . Why is the policy to have fees involved in adoptions anywhere, whether government was covering them in the community, as well as covering the costs? It just seems so inappropriate when compared to the other services that we provide. I just wonder whether the ministry has considered that policy and the ramifications.

I'd be interested in knowing how much in fees you get in a year, as compared to how much we pay staff for doing the job.

Hon. P. Priddy: There have always been fees for adoption. I don't think it's that there never were and now suddenly there are, because there certainly have always been fees in the community for private adoptions. Because there is an ability for a fee to either be reduced or waived, it doesn't present a barrier to someone. And I think there probably are other programs where people actually do have to pay a fee under certain circumstances. We expect -- it's hard to know, because the non-profit organizations are new -- close to 560 or 600 adoptions this year.

I suppose you could make the argument that we could take them all back into government -- not have the non-profit 

[ Page 6323 ]

organizations in the community, and pay all the charges ourselves. In the past, that has never been part of the government's budgeting for adoption, because most of the fees have been community fees. The number of people who come to us is very, very small. It's 50 or 60 a year.

M. Coell: I just offer that as a thought, because I've grown more uncomfortable with the idea of charging fees, whether it's in the community or in government. It seems to me it's not a lot of money for government. We're not talking millions of dollars here; we're talking thousands of dollars for government, or hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think it sets a bit of a tone for what adoption's all about, if it is something that there isn't a fee for. I offer that for comment, because it's something that I've had brought forward to me a number of times. There are so many other services that are part of health plans. . . .

Once a special needs child is available for adoption and adopted, as the minister said. . . . I want to have a look at some of the programs you've mentioned that are available afterward and at the dollar figures that are involved in those programs. As well, maybe a global. . . . I want to look at what's in the budget for the programs for post-adoption services for families of special needs children.

[2:45]

I just want to go back to another question. If you were looking at the additional cost to government of doing all adoptions at no cost, I think you're somewhere around $1.5 million. I guess some people might make the argument that you don't get to go out of the country and receive. . . . You know, you may get services here in British Columbia for free, but you may not get them in other countries, which is partly what this is about.

V. Anderson: If she has the figures there, could the minister indicate how many couples are waiting to adopt? Are there some single persons who are waiting to adopt, as well? How many would there be of each category, if there are?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are 1,257 people waiting to adopt. About 350 of those have already had home studies and are approved family homes. We have not continued beyond that, just because of the number of children. We don't have with us the breakdown between how many of those are couples and how many of those are single. I think it is available, and we could get it for you. We don't have it with us.

V. Anderson: At the moment, what's the length of wait or the average wait for people who are waiting to adopt, from the time they apply? I've heard of people waiting four or six to eight years. Is there any kind of average at the present time?

Hon. P. Priddy: For a couple who have said they want a healthy infant. . . . I always want another way to say this. Some people would describe that differently, you see, so I want to put it in quotations, I suppose. For a healthy infant, it's a considerable length of time. It's about four to six years, and that's a long time. For couples and individuals who are interested in adopting children who may have additional needs, maybe older children and so on, then the wait-list is considerably less. It's sometimes under six months.

V. Anderson: You've indicated the assessment program of houses and families that takes place for adoption, with getting to know the families and that. I understand that. What kinds of counselling programs are given to families who would be adopting youngsters of multicultural backgrounds or special needs backgrounds -- whether it's health or whatever else? What is available to help people move into this realm?

Perhaps I could give a context for that ahead of time. We have an adopted child, and in our case, it took two years to come to our home -- twice as long as the other two youngsters. During those two years, we had monthly meetings, both individually and separately. We met with other adoptive parents, those who were looking to adopt and those who had already adopted. We met with parents who had had multicultural adoptions.

We went through a whole host of meetings, individually and separately, which was a wonderful educational experience for us even though we already had two youngsters. We thought we were okay at that point. It was a wonderful experience, and one we've never regretted. That was counselling as well as an assessment, but from our point of view, it was more counselling than assessment. I'm wondering what programs of that kind are being undertaken at this point.

Hon. P. Priddy: There is both the assessment that you've spoken of, hon. member, and also counselling or education, or some combination thereof. I'm not sure what you would wish to call it. It can go five weeks, six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks or longer, depending on whether you're looking at adopting a child from another country or a child with complex needs.

Part of that will depend on whether you have already made the decision about the kind of child you want in your life, and then the training would be more focused. If you have applied for adoption but have not made a decision about whether you want an older child or a child with additional needs, or if you have not made that decision, then there's also an opportunity to get together and talk with families who have adopted from a variety of backgrounds so they can share those experiences, as well.

V. Anderson: I think that if the public is aware of these things, it gives a different status to the assessment. You're not just being checked out; you're being helped to be prepared for what is a unique and wonderful experience.

When we talk about time frames, I'm wondering about one of the things we had to learn. You mentioned the ten days and the 30 days for birth parents to make some decisions. One of the things we learned in our particular case was that the adoption took a year to be confirmed after we had had the youngster in our hands and had the court order. It took a year to have that confirmed. Is that still the case? In our case, we were on probation, if you like, for a year, and it was quite a process. Is that still the case in British Columbia? In our case, it was in another province.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Supreme Court makes the final decision. Actually, it's six months in this province.

If I could go back to the question that you asked previously, the legislation around adoption also speaks to the requirement for education and counselling for adoptive parents. So it's actually in the legislation, as well. I should have mentioned that at the time.

V. Anderson: Regarding intercountry or international adoption -- whichever is the most appropriate word at the 

[ Page 6324 ]

moment -- could the minister explain the process one goes through in that regard? It's my understanding that there is a federal international desk, and that it has been the practice, at least in the past, to go through that desk and into a relationship with other countries. Is that still the process, or do the adoption agencies or the government have the ability to go directly and bypass those routes?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is done in the same way. Either the ministry or the non-profit organizations in the community do still go through the international desk. One of the things that has changed is that the Hague convention -- and I know you're familiar with that -- has put some safety parameters around how that is done. There have been some changes with the convention, as I'm sure you're aware.

V. Anderson: One thing always seemed to me to be an interesting discussion years back. Whether it still is, I'd be interested to know. I've heard people still wondering about this. When a child is first born, there was always the question of whether the mother or the father in that case should even have the opportunity to see that child, or whether that child would have some time. . . . There was an argument about whether there needed to be some kind of bonding in order to have separation, or whether separation took better without bonding. I'd be interested in the practice in B.C. at the moment or in your comment on that. My own preference is that parents need to complete the task by seeing and doing and then making the separation, but I'm interested to know what the practice is at the moment.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will be corrected if I'm wrong on this, but it really will vary between parents. There is just a huge variety of openness in terms of whether the birth mom and birth dad see that baby on a regular basis and then arrange with the adoptive parents to continue to see that baby -- or child, now -- on a regular basis. They work that out at the time of the adoption. So there isn't any policy that says that you must do this or you must see the baby for this long or you must have the baby for this long.

As I mentioned earlier this morning, the comment I hear most frequently from people is how pleased and sometimes amazed they are with the fact that they can have that degree of openness. They can choose that degree of openness when they make the decision about relinquishing their child for adoption.

V. Anderson: Finally on this portion, I want to follow up indirectly on the comment about the fees. But first of all, could the minister. . . ? There are the seven agencies that are equipped to adopt. Is the minister saying that the government also has its own agency which is fully equipped to deal with both personal and intergovernmental adoption, as well as the seven agencies? Do we have a full system that's able to do that throughout the province?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct, hon. member.

V. Anderson: Would there be a difference in cost between going through the government agency or any of the private agencies? Are the costs standardized or are there differences? Does that include the total cost: the lawyers' fees, medical fees, all of the other fees? Are they standardized in all agencies?

Hon. P. Priddy: If someone comes to government for an adoption, the cost is slightly less, simply because some of the overhead costs and so on are already there; if you will, we exist. In the non-profit organizations in the community, you will find some difference, but it's very small. I mean, they do set their own fees, but we worked with them when they were established in the first place, and since then the differences are fairly negligible between the organizations.

V. Anderson: One final question, then. Does the government undertake to do any promotion or education of the community at large about the adoption of youngsters who are having more difficulty than others in finding parents to come forward, whether that's because of multiple difficulties or age or whatever it is? It seems to me that awareness is a big factor for people. I think there's a mood out there now that says: "Why would you even consider that? The wait-lists are so long" -- without realizing that there may be youngsters who would be just dying to join your family if you were willing to take the step.

[3:00]

We actually do two things. Let me talk first about infants. That wasn't the first part of your question, but I would like to comment on that. We have sent considerable information out -- and I have followed up recently myself -- to high schools. I'm not for a minute trying to suggest what a teenage mom or dad ought to decide; I just want them to know that they have options. I think a lot of people don't know about the openness and that they could have their child eligible for adoption and still have a really wide range of openness and visitation and so on. So I'm not taking a position either way on it, by any means, but very often that's something that a 14- or 15-year-old simply might not know in terms of the range of options. So I did want to comment on the infant part, as well.

We do send information out to our own government staff. We have sent information out through, for instance, special needs adoptive parents. We do have a number of ongoing discussions with the freedom-of-information commissioner -- even around using photographs, which we're not allowed to do -- about how much information we're allowed to make available. So we know this is important. It actually has a higher priority for us. We're working on that, but there are some real confidentiality issues to still work out. I'm old enough to still remember "Tuesday's Child." I don't know what it was in British Columbia, but that's what it was in Ontario, where I came from. Now the issues of confidentiality are quite a bit greater. So it's to all of our ministry staff and through special needs adoption parents.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up on that, I wasn't thinking about sending out pictures or individual information but more general information to the public, to say, "Here's an opportunity that you might not know about," in a more general way. I know that there are a lot of persons out there who have the ability, have the finances, have the time, if they just knew that this kind of thing might be worth pursuing and where to pursue it.

Hon. P. Priddy: I would not suggest to you that we have a regular program at this stage. In November and once again since then, we sent out the general information about adoption -- how to go about it and that there are older children -- to doctors' offices, community organizations, libraries, just about everybody we could think of. These are some examples of the newsletters that we sent out, which relate to some of the 

[ Page 6325 ]

questions that you've asked about. We have not in any way had a public campaign, if you will, with posters. We're actually now doing one with foster parents, but we haven't yet done one with adoptive parents. I appreciate the member's comments.

M. Coell: I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments with regard to international adoptions -- the government's policy and the extent of government involvement in encouraging international adoptions.

As a bit of background, my wife and I have a good friend who runs an orphanage in the Philippines. She writes to us regularly with very sad and horrific tales of young children being abandoned. There just aren't the opportunities in some countries for adoption of children into homes. They may not be from the same ethnic background as the majority of Canadians, but there seems to be a need in the rest of the world for homes for children.

I wonder what the government's policy is. Do they approve, disapprove? Do they encourage, not encourage? Are they not involved? To the extent they are involved, what sort of involvement is that?

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think it's a matter of this government having a position of either approving or disapproving. I don't think it's either one of those things. We do not have something, though, where we actively recruit in terms of trying to recruit families for children from other countries, although we work with any country that has signed the Hague convention to make sure that whenever that is done, it is done within the safe parameters of the agreed-upon convention. British Columbia does not have an active outreach. I actually don't know if the federal government does or not.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification. There are some other questions regarding adoptions -- post, the changes and prior. I know that some other members of our caucus wish to canvass those.

We talked earlier about foster care. The one area that I forgot to ask about was that the minister approved the hiring of 30 employees for the ministry some time ago -- I believe in May. I wonder whether those 30 people have been hired and whether they're on the job.

Hon. P. Priddy: At this stage, 24 of the 30 have been hired. They're on the job. We're still recruiting for the other six positions. In terms of the 24 people who are working and what we estimated would be the time it would take to get through the backlog, we seem to be on track with that.

M. Coell: The other one was the internal review of high-risk children in foster care that was going to be undertaken. I believe it was to start in this area. How far along is that at this point?

Hon. P. Priddy: The reviews are actually in place in two parts of the province, in Victoria and also in the Peace-Liard, in the north, as well. We felt that we also wanted to look at what those issues were in northern communities or rural communities, so there are two of them. The report from the Victoria area is just in. I don't know if anybody has had a chance to have a look at it, but it has been completed. The one in the north -- they are just completing writing it. They are both on track for when we expected them to be in.

M. Coell: The 24 who were hired -- what positions were they hired for? Were they social workers?

Hon. P. Priddy: Because they have a responsibility to do home studies and so on, yes, they are social workers.

B. McKinnon: I'd like to go on now to special needs children. While the Ministry for Children and Families is being developed, there is a great concern among many of the families, especially the families with special needs. They have come to talk to me. They want assurances from the minister that there will not be any disruption in services to children while this new ministry is in formation and getting it all together. Parents want to be involved in the decisions about the programs and planning for their children. They want the ministry staff to inform them on what services and support are available to them and that staff helps them get the services they need.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions on this. Does the minister involve individuals with disabilities and their families with decisions that do actually affect their lives?

Hon. P. Priddy: There has been a lot of discussion -- we had some discussion here earlier about this, as well -- around anxiety that families have. Because that has been my background for the last 32 or 33 years, I have heard lots of it, too -- at home, at work. I think I heard it in those places.

But yes, we do. Not every individual parent is going to be able to influence every single new service or every single plan. In each region the regional operating officer has advertised meetings for parents. In places like Surrey, we've had 300 and 400 people and parents come out who are family or friends of people with disabilities, to talk about what the services might look like in that area. We have said to families that there will not be a disruption in services. The provincial organization that represents the majority of local associations had an opportunity to have input into every one of the 20 regional operating plans.

B. McKinnon: Are the funds for children with disabilities separate from, say, the children in need of protection? Do you have a certain amount of money for each -- child protection, special needs, etc.?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, the money is separate. For the '97-98 year, it is $42.32 million. There has been a change of about 40 percent over the last four years, and it's separate money.

B. McKinnon: There are a lot of people out there who are concerned that it's all lumped together and that child protection services basically get the lump sum of it.

Now, this amount of money for the special needs -- does that include the at-home program, behavioral supports, infant development programs, supported child care, the associate family program, the autism initiative and child development rehabilitation services? Are all those lumped together as one, or are they all separated?

Hon. P. Priddy: Most of the programs the member listed are included in that, except for the associate family program. Thea is just checking the amount for that. The money for the associate family program is about $2.1 million.

B. McKinnon: Does the ministry have any formal structure that allows children with disabilities to continue to receive services when they become adults, if they still need your support?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we do. You may want to ask more specifically, so I can help. But we do that because adults with disabilities are our responsibility, as well.

[ Page 6326 ]

[3:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: I was checking to see whether I would miss something if I did this on my own.

For adults with disabilities, sometimes it's a residential service for whatever reason. Sometimes it's just because you are an adult and you don't want to live at home anymore -- you could send a note to my children about that! Sometimes there are residential services available, because the people are now adults and want to live with other adults, as opposed to living at home. There are services available for people who require behavioral and psychological assessment. I think that over the last few years we are certainly seeing more adults, for instance, with dual diagnosis who require significant behavioral or psychological assessment. Job training skills and on-the-job placement with supported placement are available, and what I think people would call either pre-employment or self-help skills are, too.

B. McKinnon: Is there any formal structure the ministry uses to allow a smooth transition with responsibility for planning starting, say, at the age of 16 from children's services into the adult community living services? Do you do anything like that?

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry, I wanted to make sure that I was not less than forthright about this answer. I think you find some significant inconsistency across the province around this. We do a lot of transition work between, for instance, preschool and school age, but I think the area in which there is probably the greatest gap is education. It's not a critique of a colleague or another program, but the real area of transition that I think people are concerned about is the transition from high school to post high school, whatever that is going to be -- whether that is job training, pre-employment, etc. I think that's an area that needs considerably more work. There are some school districts that actually do a superb job in planning that for 17-to-19-year-olds who are then leaving.

We certainly do it with families around where people will live and those kinds of services they might need. But in terms of the educational services, people are often 19 before we have that opportunity. So it is an area where, as I say, there are some very good programs, but it is not consistent around the province at all.

B. McKinnon: Families must be able to get the services they need and when they need them and not be restricted to one process which has been chosen for them by the ministry. The reason I suppose I ask that is I had a letter -- but I can't find it -- where a family had written the ministry for a wheelchair for their child, and they only needed it for a short period of time, I think. What happened was that when they finally got the things they needed, they didn't need them any longer. It was the process they had to go through to get this and the length of time. I was wondering: are families able to go directly to an infant development program for support? Or how do they get things that they need immediately rather than wait until they don't need them anymore?

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly, with things like infant development programs, no one needs a referral. That doesn't mean there aren't wait-lists. I have said that wait-lists are a priority for me, and there are some things that we're doing about that. Nobody needs to be referred to an infant development program by the ministry. Nobody needs a little note that says: "Yes, it's all right for Penny to go to the infant development program." I mean, they can be referred by someone, but the parents can refer a public health nurse. Anybody can. There may be an issue of whether or not the service is immediately available, but a family certainly doesn't have to have some stamp of approval from the ministry in order to access that.

In terms of equipment, actually, both the deputy and I have some stories -- we will not bore you with them at this stage -- that people have told us around the province of how hard it is to get equipment and get it quickly. That's one of the things we're working on, because there have been a number of suggestions around having some sort of central equipment exchange. You can't do this with all equipment. A moulded wheelchair doesn't work for another child, because it's been moulded for their particular body shape. But a standing frame does, and a variety of other equipment.

We're tying to look at ways we can get equipment to people faster. That's not about waiting for service, because there isn't enough staffing or whatever. So we're working on trying to get equipment to people faster, because I think you're right: they need it when they need it, not six months later. They can self-refer to any program they wish to. The ministry doesn't say to them: "I'm sorry, you can only go to this one and not that one." At least, if there is one of those, I'm totally unaware of it.

B. McKinnon: There's a great concern out there, and it is a tremendous concern of families with special needs children if they move. The new ministry has set up 20 different regions in the province and has 20 different rules. There's a real concern among parents with special needs children that if they were to move from Vancouver up to Prince George or somewhere like that, they would have to maybe go on the waiting list up there and would not have any priority, or that their needs getting met right now would be taken away from them all of a sudden and they would have to start all over. I'm just wondering if the ministry has addressed this.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, we're in the process of trying to do so. The issue of portability of a service is absolutely critical for all parents, I guess, but certainly for parents with young children. We currently have a project to look at not only our wait-lists, not only where they are, but the issue of. . . . If you've waited three years in Saanich for a speech program and then suddenly, for whatever reason, your family is transferred to Castlegar, you should not have to go to the bottom of the list again and wait for another three years in order to get speech therapy.

The issue of portability is critical, particularly around early intervention services for young children. I do not have a solution at this stage. We've recognized that it's important and that people should not have to wait. In our project, we're looking at not only where the wait-lists are but what kind they are -- whether we have too wide or too narrow criteria, what the rest of the country is doing and what is the best practice in the rest of the country. There's a variety of criteria in the contract that we've let. Portability is actually one of the ones that we said was the most important to look at.

B. McKinnon: Does the ministry or the province have a requirement that people working with and for individuals with disabilities have the required training and expertise to work in this area? Do they need any special certificates?

[ Page 6327 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, this has more detail than I probably would have been able to provide, so I thank you for that.

In terms of qualifications -- I think we canvassed this a bit last night -- for training, for instance, of group home staff, which would be one of the examples that people frequently ask about, the Community Social Services Employers Association, or what people call CSSEA, has set standards for training for each employee group in the social services sector. Depending on where people are working, they have actually set standards for training. So future training for group home workers will comply with these standards.

I acknowledged last night that at this stage, you would not have trained staff all over the province. You would likely have mostly trained staff in urban areas and less likely in rural areas. We have, I think, one, two, three, four -- I taught one; I should know -- college programs called human service worker programs that graduate about 25 people a year. They truly can pick and choose from a variety of jobs. So at this stage, I certainly could not say that that was the case. But future training for group home workers will comply with these standards.

The standards would be at least a ten-day orientation, a three-month introductory course and then a ten-month community support worker program that people would be expected to do either on a part-time basis, because those courses are always offered on swing shifts. . . . Also, a supervision course at the Justice Institute for group home supervisors is being developed. One of the real challenges in this field has been to get trained front-line workers, who are actually very good at what they do. . . . But then, when you go to look for supervisors, there aren't people who have that next level of training. It's been a real challenge, at least in my experience, in hiring.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Currently, a large number of group home workers have taken, as I said earlier, the community support worker program through a community college, but that really does tend to be more urban rather than rural. In addition, there are in-service training opportunities available for staff, particularly in homes for people with complex needs who may have medical health needs and personal care needs that staff will need additional skills to be able to provide.

There are a few places -- there are not very many -- for folks from either Woodlands or Glendale, particularly Fraserview, as I guess the member across from me knows, where there is actually a staff nurse on duty at all times.

B. McKinnon: Now that all the ministries have sort of come together in the new Ministry for Children and Families, have all the links been put together on the computers across the province? Is everybody now linked up, and is all the information for children, whether it's special needs protection or whatever, on computer and up to date? No.

K. Krueger: We've had some discussions -- and I really appreciate both the minister's time and the time of her staff who came in to help out in those discussions -- about the needs of adoptive parents of special needs children, particularly with regard to children who are victims of fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effect. In those briefing meetings, I learned that there is a fairly substantial disparity in entitlements between adoptive families where the adoption took place before 1989 or after 1989. I wonder if the minister would comment on how that came about.

Hon. P. Priddy: When the member uses the year 1989 -- and I appreciate the reason for that. . . . Prior to the Adoption Act and what is currently in place, when a child was adopted they were considered "as if born to." So your responsibilities are your responsibilities. If you've adopted a child with special needs, then it's no different for you than if you had a child with special needs. There's no additional kind of consideration.

When we did the consultation across the province -- and it was very difficult, because there were a variety of positions put forward -- the difficult choice that had to be made was: do we expand the program so that at any time up to the age of majority someone is assessed as having a special need, and then services and supports can be provided. Or do we go retroactively to those people who, after adoption, discovered that their child had a special need? The decision -- and again, as I say, it was a very difficult one -- was to broaden the designation for children who were waiting to be placed, and that was the decision to then allow that designation and the support for that to be made right up to the age of majority, whereas previously it could only be made at the time of adoption. A difficult situation, and we wish we could have done both, but we couldn't.

[3:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me try, and you'll let me know if I haven't been able to answer the question.

Certainly, pre-1989 there was simply no assistance whatsoever; there was no designation; there was no additional support. From 1989 on, when a child was identified as having a special need, then support was provided. Now, of course, we have extended it to the age of majority.

K. Krueger: Part of my question, I think, went missing during the consultation, and I just want to assist the minister in that regard.

What I was asking was. . . . Clearly people who make a decision to adopt any child are taking on a tremendous responsibility; people who make a decision to adopt a special needs child are taking on an even larger responsibility. If people did that prior to 1989, knowing that they were adopting a special needs baby or child, that's one situation. If they adopted a special needs child without knowing that the child had special needs, prior to 1989, that's a different situation.

So my question was whether the ministry has any different policy for those parents who discovered that their children had special needs after the adoption had taken place.

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the people you're talking about, who I think are the sort of. . . . You know, reusing the year 1989, there really wasn't any difference between. . . .  

[ Page 6328 ]

I mean, if they knew at birth they were adopting a child with special needs, there still wasn't any support available. Or if they found out two years after, there still wasn't any support available.

So whether they knew it at the time of adoption or did not discover that until the child started school or didn't meet certain milestones, there was no support for either set of parents. There were no different criteria, because there was no support for either of those. But as I say, there is also not a retroactivity clause in place.

K. Krueger: That's very clear, then. I wonder if there is any consideration currently, in light of the fact that the ministry -- and I appreciate that no doubt the ministry felt some date had to be chosen when this policy was set -- has shouldered considerably more responsibility for the expenses and so on of special needs children adopted after 1989. . . . Given the obvious problems for families that unknowingly adopted special needs children prior to 1989, I'm wondering if the minister has ever considered the question, or is presently considering the question, of whether it ought not to reopen that question for those people who adopted pre-1989 and then found out they had special needs children -- using the same sort of compassionate logic that led the ministry to accept those responsibilities for post-'89 adoptions.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, the review that we're doing is not covering that. I think that if you were looking at age of majority, you'd actually have to go back to 1978 and all of the children that have been adopted since then who may have been identified as children with special needs. No, our review is not looking at that.

As I said, we had a very tough decision to make, which was: do you do all of the retroactivity, or do you say that anytime between now and the age of 19, we will able to support you? Whereas two years ago, if it wasn't at birth, you didn't get any help. As I say, it's a tough decision, but that was the one that we made.

K. Krueger: Would the minister please explain how the 1989 date was selected as the border?

Hon. P. Priddy: This is one of those things one tries never to do in estimates. The former government did it. [Laughter.] I don't know. . . . That's the answer.

I don't remember this particular debate. I remember other debates around children with special needs at that time, but there was a lot of debate going on at that time around support and what kinds of support should be available for parents with special needs children, and that was simply the year chosen by the former administration.

I have no other rationale beyond that, except that I think that's when a lot of parents really got very active and lobbied very hard to government to say, "We do need some support," and in 1989 I guess the government said: "Okay, okay. We'll start now."

K. Krueger: Could the minister briefly outline, then, the difference in services available to special needs adopted children and their families post-1989 as compared to pre-1989?

Hon. P. Priddy: In describing pre-1989, I guess it's not hard, because they got nothing. I don't mean that in any kind of disrespectful way, but the answer is that they got nothing. Post-1989, when the government agreed to start to provide support, what they got was maintenance -- and I think we canvassed this earlier -- or what somebody might call a foster care payment, and they got access to services. Again, they only got that if their child was identified at the time of adoption as having a special need, as opposed to now, when it can happen at any time. If you adopt the child at six months and somebody discovers at six years that there's an issue, they still have access to all of those services until they reach the age of majority.

K. Krueger: If the government was to make a decision that that same opportunity ought to be extended to special needs children who were adopted pre-1989 -- obviously we'd only be dealing with children born between 1978 and 1989 -- how many such children would there be who were adopted in British Columbia between those dates and are special needs?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's 3,500 children.

K. Krueger: If the line that was drawn in the sand, so to speak, by the previous government was drawn in an almost artificial way, as seems to be the case from the minister's previous answer -- they had to pick a date, so they picked that date. . . . I see that the minister is indicating she's really not sure, and of course, I'm a lot less sure than that.

It seems to have been that a date had to be chosen, so that date was chosen. No doubt there was a lot of debate at the time, but to us looking back in 1997, it looks like perhaps an artificial line. Then isn't it true that that line could be redrawn by the government of the day and drawn in 1978?

Hon. P. Priddy: I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the previous administration simply picked an arbitrary date. I doubt if there was debate that said 1989 versus 1985, although I certainly wasn't at the table during the debate. That was the time that the pressure was very intense for government to take action. So I don't think it was an arbitrary date, like: "We'll pick a certain year." I think that's when the pressure built high enough or hot enough that the government felt they would take action. So I'm not sure that it's an arbitrary date.

Could we go back further? Yes, I suppose we could, but as I say, you're talking about an additional 3,600 families, and we had to make some decisions about where we were going to be able to spend our resources. Tough as it was, our decision was that anytime between birth and majority that a diagnosis was made, the parent would have that accessible to them.

K. Krueger: If the government was to make such a decision, to change the date retroactively and go back to 1978 or any other date, is it correct that the change could be made through order-in-council and wouldn't require legislation?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

K. Krueger: I heard the minister's answer clearly -- that presently there hasn't been consideration of that. In light of the fact that a review is ongoing, might that consideration be included in this review now that we have discussed it in estimates?

Hon. P. Priddy: At this stage, I don't think so. There is an ongoing review to look at people who have currently been receiving assistance and whether people are worse off as a 

[ Page 6329 ]

result of a change in policy. If the question is whether we would then add to the review the potential of adding 4,000 more families, I think that at this stage the answer is no.

[3:45]

As I understand it, the child's brain doesn't grow at the same rate that it would have without that effect, and therefore their skull doesn't grow at the same rate, either. But their jaws do, and problems are created with their teeth that are tremendously expensive. That's one issue.

Respite care is not available to those families, but it is available to families with adoptions post-1989. There is a whole host of disparities in entitlements. Does the minister think that this is a fair situation, where simply because of the date of an adoption, one family will be entitled and another won't?

Hon. P. Priddy: Under the CF&CS Act, the family is eligible for respite regardless of the date. I don't know how many respite families there are, and I don't know what the respite wait list is, but they do have an entitlement for respite. They also have an entitlement to apply for support under the Child, Family and Community Service Act for dental assistance.

K. Krueger: So in the case of special needs adoptive children, pre-1989, the minister is saying that those entitlements do exist. Is it the same entitlement for respite care and dental care as for special needs adoptive families post-1989?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is the same entitlement as for somebody who was adopted in 1990, 1991 or 1992. There may be some other differences in terms of entitlements, but certainly not around the two you have raised.

K. Krueger: Does that involve a means test, or are the entitlement criteria simply the fact that these children were adopted and that they have these expenses because of their special needs?

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer to your question is yes.

K. Krueger: What is the means test?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of respite care, it would be the same eligibility that 33,000 families use for day care subsidy. Is it 33,000? We'll probably get to that later. In terms of dental care, it is both an income and an assets test. Our B.C. Healthy Kids program, which is also for low-income working families, has an inclusion for dental care, so they would also have access under that.

K. Krueger: For my personal benefit, because I'm not clear on this, is the minister's answer that special needs adoptive families, post-1989, have no better entitlement than any other family that doesn't meet the means test? My understanding is that the special needs adoptive families have substantially better entitlement than other families.

Hon. P. Priddy: I was not trying to suggest that it was the same. I mean, there are differences, but there were not in the two references you made. I think that there is eligibility, but I'm not suggesting that pre-1989 and later have exactly the same entitlements; they do not. Children who have been adopted later do have enhanced maintenance and access to equipment.

K. Krueger: I hope I'm not being obtuse, but on the issues of respite care and dental care, is it true that pre-1989 adoptive families have to meet a means test to get those benefits for their adopted children and post-1989 families do not have to meet a test to get those benefits?

Hon. P. Priddy: There is actually no difference in terms of how respite care services would be accessed. They would be tested regardless of whether you're talking about the family that you're involved with or whether you're talking about a family that adopted more recently. In terms of dental care, they would have the same access that any family does, so there's no difference there, either.

They would have the same access under the Child, Family and Community Service Act that any other family would have. There are some differences where there are more enhancements, but around respite, they would still have to have a means test, whenever the adoption was. It is the same means test that we use for the day care subsidy. For dental care, they would be treated as any family would be, whether or not the child was adopted.

K. Krueger: That wasn't my understanding, and I thank the minister for clearing up my misunderstanding.

Does the ministry accept fetal-alcohol-syndrome and fetal-alcohol-effect children as the same category of other special needs -- muscular dystrophy and the other things that happen to children -- particularly with regard to adoptive children? I see the minister is puzzled, so I will try to make it clearer. Are children with fetal alcohol effect or fetal alcohol syndrome accepted as special needs children?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they are considered to be. I mean, no disability is the same, so you can have a fairly long list.

But yes, it is considered a disability or a special need in the same way that many other kinds of special needs would be, particularly fetal alcohol syndrome. I know that with fetal alcohol effect we often don't see that or don't identify that until much later. Fetal alcohol syndrome is very noticeable at birth, and there's not any mistaking that. Sometimes we don't see fetal alcohol effect until that child is older. Yes, they are both identified as special needs.

K. Krueger: I will move on to the issue of identification of birth family once a child reaches the age of majority. One of the issues that's been brought to my attention on behalf of children with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect is that they have impaired ability to make decisions and learn from evidence presented to them, or even from previous experiences. Therefore their ability to make a decision in their own best interest about whether or not it's going to be good for them to meet their birth parents is impaired, according to what people tell me. If the adoptive parents are convinced that it would be a bad experience or potentially threatening experience for their adopted children to meet their birth parents upon reaching the age of majority, what can they do to prevent that from happening?

Hon. P. Priddy: It would be no different for somebody whose child with fetal alcohol syndrome has reached 19 -- or 

[ Page 6330 ]

with Down's syndrome or. . . . You could name the list. If they think it is not in their son's or daughter's best interest, the only way that someone would actually be able to "prevent" that is the same way they would do it if they thought that they were not competent to make a variety of other decisions. They would apply for committeeship or guardianship.

M. Coell: I would like to move on to day care support programs for teens and teen parents. Yesterday we dealt with a program in Victoria for teen moms and children. If we looked at those programs that are offered by the ministry now, I suspect -- and I may be wrong -- that they were all offered by the Ministry of Social Services and/or the Ministry of Education in the past. I wonder how many day care support programs we have for teen parents in the province.

Hon. P. Priddy: Somebody said we're going to wave those numbers like you do when you have flags.

Since 1992, if I'm correct, we've had an increase of 180 percent in the number of teen parent programs available for young moms or young dads. We do, by the way, see some young dads in teen programs around the province, so we have to be careful to always remember that. There's been an increase of 180 percent in the numbers, and I think I would have said, 78 had I been asked. But the number is not here, and David is about to come and tell me that number. There are 34 programs throughout the province, if you're talking. . . . And the final number is 43. In 1992 there was a fairly small number, and that's sort of what I'd call, if you will, the typical teen parent program where you have day care on-site, access to additional counselling plus the ability to finish school, which is so important.

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me what the global funding is for that program and how many FTEs we have involved?

Hon. P. Priddy: The figure is $1.23 million. There are 1,500 teens served. I don't have. . . . This would be a number that I don't actually know if we could find, although we will try -- or what that means for FTEs, because that often involves public health nurses who come in part-time, or a counsellor from the school or a nutritionist who comes in part-time. So I'm not sure, hon. member, whether I can actually provide that number for you, so I'm not even going to try to promise if I can't. I'm told I cannot.

M. Coell: Are these programs spread throughout the province, or are they more in urban areas? I'm trying to get a fix. If you have 20 new regions, is there at least one in every region?

[4:00]

M. Coell: The other aspect -- and it may be in conjunction with that program as well -- is the residential living for pregnant and young mothers. I'm wondering how many facilities we have in the province for that program and how many beds within those facilities, as well.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: We will have to find out for you the actual number of facilities. But the budget is $1 million, and there are 400 pregnant and young moms who are served in those residential facilities.

M. Coell: Would that be the average per year? As of today, are there 400 pregnant or young mothers living in residential care in government facilities?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I understand the question correctly, that's an average. That is the estimate for 1997. Obviously there's a turnover, because young moms do not stay there, but I think the average is about 400 a year.

M. Coell: Do you have an answer at this point on the number of facilities and beds?

Hon. P. Priddy: I have a number for beds but not facilities. The number for beds is 400. That's the number served, not the actual number of facilities. I will have to check for you. I apologize, hon. member.

M. Coell: If the minister takes that on notice, that's fine.

With that, I would be interested in knowing what kinds of programs are offered in those facilities and whether they are ongoing afterwards. What I'm looking for is: is this program now integrated, and how is it integrated into the ministry for tracking of young moms and sons or daughters?

Hon. P. Priddy: I have two answers, if I might. You were asking about what actually happens in the residential programs. Aside from school, which usually happens outside of that kind of program, there are prenatal programs for moms, programs around nutrition, pre- and post-natal care, instruction in natal care and in being, if you will, a new mom, and counselling and preparation for independent living.

In terms of when they leave, which I think was the second part of your question, certainly for the early part of that time, we would consider that mom to be. . . . I guess the phrase people would use is high-risk; I'd like to use one that's a bit more respectful -- someone who is in need of ongoing support, and therefore she would be someone who was followed quite closely by the social worker who was assigned to her.

M. Coell: How would a young mom go about getting into a facility like that? Where would they go? Why would we suggest a facility that obviously has possibly 24-hour care, 24-hour supervision, as opposed to an apartment or their own home? What's the purpose of that?

Hon. P. Priddy: They would get there through the local ministry office, but the reasons for being there, as opposed to what you have listed -- either home with family or in their own apartment, in their own living situation -- are exactly the flip side of the question you've asked. It's because they have no network at all, they can't be at home, or people have refused to allow them to be at home. They have no network or circle around them, and I think they also tend to be a younger 

[ Page 6331 ]

mom. You may be talking about a mom who's 14 years old. The situation where they might be living independently is pretty risky, as well. We're talking about some teen moms who either have no place else to go or are at somewhat higher risk, either because of health or because of age.

M. Coell: One of the areas that I've had brought to my attention is the Vancouver area, dealing with street kids who may find themselves pregnant and needing a place to go. I suspect that these are the facilities that would be available to them. Are there any in the downtown Vancouver area?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there is. Obviously they would also have the option of going to a safe house, but I would not call that their first and most ideal option. Yes, there is a facility called Maywood Home in Vancouver.

M. Coell: Could the minister outline the number of beds at that facility and the programs that are offered?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'll have to take that on notice.

B. McKinnon: I'd like to talk a little bit about some day care issues. Before the Ministry for Children and Families was created, single parents in financial need attending post-secondary or adult basic education received allowances that covered part of the cost of day care from the Ministry of Social Services. The Ministry of Education, Skills and Training also provided a child care subsidy to these parents to top up the difference between the cost of day care and the child care allowance received. Since the creation of the Ministry for Children and Families, the Ministry of Human Resources has decreased the child care allowance that a single parent receives, and the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training has eliminated the day care top-up.

Many parents were dependent on the day care subsidies received. The current allowance received is not enough to pay for day care. These students cannot raise the difference themselves, as any money that they make from employment is deducted from the money they receive. The result of this situation is that many students who were previously attending university or college are finding themselves forced to withdraw from school.

The new Ministry for Children and Families is responsible for child care in the province now. Will the minister be able to tell me if she has any plans to create programs to assist young single parents with the cost of day care so that they can attend school?

Hon. P. Priddy: I recall when this came about this year, and it has actually prompted some. . . . I will not, I promise, get into a philosophical conversation, but we've had some around this one.

The only people that were receiving what's called an overage -- the difference between what you get in your subsidy and what your day care costs might be. . . . Not everybody has an overage. For some people, depending on where they live in the province, their day care subsidy actually will cover the cost of day care. But the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training had been providing the difference between the overage only for a certain group of people, only for those people who had left income assistance and had gone back to school.

My direct answer is no, but we have been having conversations both with the Ministry of Human Resources, whose major responsibility it is, as well as with the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, to see if there is any way to be able to meet that overage. What's important is the discussion that has to happen around whether it is only if they have left income assistance that they then get the overage. Or what about those students who have saved up their money to go back to school and whose overage doesn't get paid because they weren't on income assistance before? The top fee in the province for an infant is $590, so some students, actually, are able to cover the cost of day care without there being an overage.

I don't have a permanent solution at this stage, no. We are in discussions with those other two ministries.

B. McKinnon: I understand that all students don't need assistance, but single mothers and their children need all the support they can get so we can get them out in the workforce, get them educated, get them off. . . . I really do believe that we have to find a way to help the people who need the help. I'm not concerned about the people who don't need the help; it's mainly the people who do need the help. A single mother or a single father needs the help to get that education. It's less costly to us if we can somehow find a way, as a government, to provide that help to them.

I have another question here, as soon as I find it. A constituent of mine wrote me a letter about a person who they were working with. This is another single mother, and she was working the week, then the weekend, and they would rotate that. All of a sudden the boss decided that they would be stationary, so she's continually working the weekends -- part of the week and the weekends. What she's finding is that it's very difficult to find any day care at all for a weekend. I was wondering if there is anything that the ministry is doing in the child care field or the day care field to see that there are day cares available for people who are working on weekends. We see more and more people working both Saturday and Sunday, and this again seems to apply to single parents. Usually if there are two working parents together, there is one parent home to look after the children. Is there anything the ministry is doing to have day cares on weekends?

[4:15]

We have been encouraging family day cares who are registered with our child care support programs, and actually more and more are offering child care on weekends. The last time I checked through my own child care support program, there had been a significant growth in the number of family child care providers who were providing care on weekends and on shift, as well.

But there's no question; it is a challenge. We all still sort of have this vision that everybody works Monday to Friday from eight to four. I'm not suggesting that that's your vision or mine, but it often is. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, right.

[ Page 6332 ]

That is still one of the issues in child care, and it is the reason that we have spent a lot of time encouraging family child care providers with training, resources and support through our child care support programs. We know that for less than typical hours -- which you might want to call irregular, although they're not -- that's the best option.

B. McKinnon: This morning I happened to get from my constituency office 20 letters either addressed to me or to be passed on to you. So I have 20 letters here asking for your help.

Apparently the Cloverdale Heights Day Care Centre is closing down at the end of October, and Cloverdale has a high rate of people who want day care facilities. We don't have them in the area, so they're very concerned about this particular day care closing down, and they were wondering if there's any way the government could help them keep it going with a subsidy.

I don't know how many day cares you subsidize or anything. But I would just like to pass these over to the minister for her perusal, and she could just comment on whether they do help day cares.

Hon. P. Priddy: In point of fact, I think that in a variety of ways we probably support almost every day care in British Columbia that is operating. I think it's clear that parents still pay about 80 percent of the cost of child care, at least in this province, and government pays about 20 percent. We've actually looked at what it would cost to have universal day care -- it's something like $2 billion. But we still have what is the most supportive day care subsidy program in the country.

Aside from the subsidy for families, which is not what you're asking about, the other kinds of supports normally available -- and I don't know the situation at this stage, obviously -- in terms of subsidies for child care centres are that we provide infant and toddler incentive grants to encourage child care centres to take children who are infants and toddlers, because those are harder spaces to find sometimes.

We provide. . . . This is not insignificant at all, and I could find the numbers, if you were interested, at another time.

Okay, I could probably actually do that now. The infant and toddler grants throughout the province are almost $3.5 million. We also provide a wage supplement to child care societies in order to address the low-wage redress of workers, which actually is $13.5 million. Four years ago, that didn't exist at all, and child care workers throughout this province with degrees or certificates were making $7 an hour. There are almost 14 million new dollars just to address the wages, which many are eligible for. Facilities and equipment grants, either to build or expand, are about $2.5 million. We also have emergency and repair money. So I don't know what the particular issue is here.

We also fund an organization called West Coast Child Care Resource Centre, which actually will work with child care centres around the province who may be having difficulties -- whether that's around staffing or financial issues. They will actually go in and try and provide some support for them, because often people running child care centres are moms and dads -- which is great, because that's what you want. But running a small business isn't everybody's area of expertise.

B. McKinnon: I thank the minister for her comments, and I hope that if she can give them any help. . . . I would certainly appreciate it, because the facilities in that area are few and far between. It is a fast-growing area with a lot of people working, so I would hope. . . .

I have spoken to a private day care that I'm sure the minister has also spoken to. It's called Weewatch. I'm sure that they have met. They're from Ontario. They have told me that they've approached the minister to add more children to their day care. The people that do the day care -- their facilities. . . . I think they can have two children at once right now, and they would like to go up to three. They feel that this would be a great help to the ministry in finding spaces for children, because there's a big shortage of day cares for infants, toddlers and after-school children's needs. Has the minister heard of this group?

Hon. P. Priddy: I just wanted to check on the current status. Yes, I am familiar with them. I think they have four child care centres here in British Columbia. I think there are two challenges in this one. One of them is that what they want to be able to do is have more children and fewer staff. What that would take -- and I'm not saying that I support it, by the way -- is a change to the Community Care Facility Act licensing, which is the Ministry of Health. The Community Care Facility Act, in putting together its regulations about the number of children -- the age of the children and the number of staff you have to have -- based it very much upon consultation with child care people who also work in licensing in the Ministry of Health -- what they believe to be a safe ratio in order to keep children safe. What they're asking for is a change in that licensing act in order to be able to have more children with fewer staff, and at this stage we are not contemplating doing that.

M. Coell: I want to talk about the provincial safe houses which were mentioned previously -- what our budget is for safe houses and how many beds we have in the province, and if the minister does have a breakdown per region, that as well. I suspect I know where most of them are, but maybe there are some in the rural areas as well.

Hon. P. Priddy: People are just checking for the global budget for it, but I can tell you where they are and how many. In terms of safe housing -- which, by definition, provides short-term emergency accommodation and support and counselling and referral for youth who are at risk -- in greater Vancouver, there are two seven-bed safe houses for 16-to-19-year-olds. There are three safe houses with three beds each for children 13 to 16 years of age. There are also emergency safe house beds available in Prince George; I think there are six beds in Prince George. There are six beds in Richmond, ten in Victoria, eight in Kelowna -- which is a wonderful sort of co-project we have with the Boys and Girls Club, which they were kind enough to call Penny Lane, that has just opened. It has made a huge difference to youth in Kelowna. So that's sort of where they are and the numbers. People are checking for what the global budget is, but that's the distribution. My sense is that we'll have to get back to you on the global budget.

M. Coell: Can the minister tell me whether there is going to be any increase in safe house beds in the province this year over last year?

Hon. P. Priddy: In the fiscal year that we have just finished, eight have just opened in Kelowna. In terms of the upcoming year, we will be looking at plans from our 20 regions when we consider our capital plan in the fall, when it 

[ Page 6333 ]

goes to Treasury Board. I know that there is still a need in other parts of the province, and I expect we will see proposals come in.

M. Coell: The programming that is offered at the safe houses. . . . I'm looking at the connection with the rest of the ministry with the child protection workers. I would imagine that a child or youth could get to a safe house via the police, via a social worker, via a child protection worker or by themselves. Is there a maximum stay, and what are the obligations of someone who goes into the facility?

Hon. P. Priddy: I know a couple of the programs, and I was just trying to test a bit whether there were differences. I think you will find some difference, particularly around length of stay in safe houses. I have seen as much as three months, which is fairly long, and the average I see is about a month. And yes, there are conditions. Those conditions have to do with hours -- like a curfew, if you will -- no alcohol, no drugs and participation in counselling programs. So it's not just a place to be, but there is participation in counselling programs and some planning for what will happen after people leave.

M. Coell: Are those programs offered in the facility or coordinated by the facility so that the youth would go to those programs in other offices or other areas?

Hon. P. Priddy: You will see both. In the one in Kelowna that just opened, most of the programs are offered in the home. In others, they are coordinated and offered outside the home. So I think you will see a mix.

[4:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: The total cost of the Vancouver action plan for this year is $1.7 million. I want to give you some additional information about the programs. One of the programs, for instance, is the youth detox program, which I think had its budget almost doubled in the last two years. Some other things are happening as part of that Vancouver action plan, and it's interesting, because last night the member talked about Cherry Kingsley and the input she had into some of these issues. As part of the action plan, social workers are working on two teams serving downtown Vancouver to reconnect children or youth who are connected to that action plan with their families and communities.

The Vancouver action plan also provides child protection services and access to safe houses, because many of those young people are not from here and don't necessarily know where to go to get help. The action plan also provides health care, because that's a real issue for young people who are on the street and don't have that. The adolescent services unit of the Vancouver regional operating agency offers direct services to youth living on the street. That's their purpose. I already mentioned the youth detox, and I think the budget for that has almost doubled in the last two years.

I think that's all I have at this stage, unless you have more questions. Now that Vancouver has looked at that whole issue of sexually exploited children and youth, as I go around the province I see in different municipalities that there are task forces which are also assuming that it's not only in downtown Vancouver where you see youth at risk who need those kinds of supports. I'm now starting to see that happen in other parts of the province.

M. Coell: The action plan supports and develops detox facilities for youth. How many beds for detox do we have in the province for youth and how many in the greater Vancouver area?

Hon. P. Priddy: If you look at the Vancouver region, the Vancouver region funds detox services for about 15 youth over the course of a month. There are 12 detox centres throughout the province that will admit youth, and the alcohol and drug services budget for youth-specific treatment is about $5.209 million.

V. Anderson: There are three kinds of programs I'd like to ask the minister about. She's probably aware of one, Picasso Cafe. This is a program which was started originally by David Dranchuk who, while working as an Anglican youth worker on the street, discovered that for many of the young people on the street in prostitution, there was no place where they could get the kind of skills or opportunity in order for them to get off. So the Picasso Cafe was started. It has gone very well and has been a very successful program.

Another program that was started was the ASTEP program, also by David, which is a mechanics training program. I've been down there, and I've been at the graduations of those students the last two or three years. They've run into a difficulty now, because they had a program there, which was recognized, that was six months training for a preapprenticeship program in mechanics. They've had an excellent graduation from that. Under the new Skills Training categories of 1, 2 and 3, they were recently cut back to a four-month program, which doesn't allow you to do the kind of work that needs to be done to make you qualified for the training. It cuts down the quality of the program and also the quality of the students who are able to come into the program. I wonder if this is the kind of program that fits in there, because it has brought people out, and whether the Children and Families minister is cooperating with the other ministries in this kind of program. Is she aware of this program and its difficulties at this point?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, I'm not aware of the current difficulties that you describe in the program. We are building bridges with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, because all of those programs didn't automatically come over to us. We still have some programs that are funded in different ways in different places.

We have been working very hard around pre-employment kinds of training to be able to get youth off the street and gain useful skills so they can stay off the street. One of things that we've been doing and will continue to do -- and I know that you know -- is the Reconnect program. Often the Reconnect program is the first step off the street for youth all around our province, because there are Reconnect programs almost everywhere.

I will check into the program that you've raised with us. I'm not aware of that particular difficulty.

V. Anderson: You should hear about it fairly soon, because I did ask David to make sure that you were aware of 

[ Page 6334 ]

it and to bring you up to date on it. It's a program that we shouldn't lose. I have met the graduates. They have gone on and have been excellent, both young men and young women. One aboriginal girl was in there taking the mechanics course. The experience has worked out very well. It's qualified and has strong support from the community and from skilled mechanics who are helping out with that program.

Another one I want to comment on is Peak House, which is a Children and Families youth alcohol recovery program that was begun a number of years ago. It had, at one point, two sets of programs: a short-term program for assessment and evaluation of young people who voluntarily wanted to come off alcohol or drugs and start a new plan for themselves, and then a long-term program where they could really go into more depth and deal with it.

There were about 40 youngsters involved in this program at one time, funded by Alcohol and Drugs. I was chairman, actually, when it started, so that's how I happened to be involved in this. For some unknown reason, at one point in its history they cut the program in half. They cut half of it off, even though it was fully booked from around the province. The theory that we were told at the time was that they were going to develop similar programs throughout the province, which, to my knowledge, have never appeared.

The scaled-down program is still operating, and it is an excellent model. I would hope that if the minister's aware of this, she would look at it for extensions in other parts of the province or to re-establish. They have a long waiting list both for the voluntary beds that are paid for by the government and for some other self-paid beds that aren't paid for by the government. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of this program or if she has been down to see it.

Hon. P. Priddy: I have not yet been to see it, but I am aware of the program, hon. member, thank you.

When there was a reduction to Peak House, some of those resources were taken and spread to other parts of the province. For instance, in the Fraser Valley there's a nine-bed residential treatment program for young males who are involved with the justice system as well as with alcohol and drug programs, which is day treatment and individual, group and family work, outreach, etc. The resources were also put into the Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenays area through Access, which is a youth outreach program. Some of those resources also went to services in Kimberley and to Breakaway in Penticton, which is a sort of medium-intensity programming for youth. Some went to Changes in Kelowna. Some of the resources went to Vancouver Island, particularly to the Upper Island Youth Services; some to Nanaimo; and some to Victoria.

V. Anderson: One of the difficulties we found in establishing this program was finding social workers who had youth experience and who had opportunity to work with young people. They were used to working in adultexperience-oriented, one-to-one programs, rather than family-oriented programs. The family stress of the program was something new to a lot of the social workers. They had to retrain themselves in order to do this. I'm wondering if, in these other programs, the family orientation is also a fundamental part of their programs, as it is with Peak House.

Hon. P. Priddy: In almost all of the programs that I mentioned, the services to youth are offered whenever possible within the context of the youth and their family.

M. Coell: I'd like to move to the program for independent living for youth. This is a program which provides independent living for youth 17 to 19. If they're obviously not able to live at home, they're on the street -- for whatever reason. The ministry sets them up in an apartment and plugs them into some programs. I wonder what the budget for that program is and how many youth would be involved in that during a year.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are approximately 280 youth in care who are on the independent living program. What Thea is just checking now for you is the global budget -- which we haven't quite found, but we're going to find it in a minute and give it to you. There are 280 youth on the program.

If I could return to the global budget figure for you in a bit, I'd appreciate that. Oh, it was a quick bit. The total budget is $3.66 million.

[4:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that for the 280 youth in care who are on the program -- obviously those numbers could change because some of those people might move off the program -- many of those youth are, if you will, the responsibility or ward of the ministry. Therefore, other than living maintenance, we also take responsibility for other kinds of expenses. It may be tuition; it may be treatment; it may be other kinds of expenses, as well. It's not simply the living part, if you will, but it's the other expenses that they incur in their life, as well.

M. Coell: I'm interested in how a youth would get enrolled in such a program. What would be the criteria for the province to almost take care of every aspect of life? What's so special about these 280 as compared to many other children?

Hon. P. Priddy: The reason those youth get on our program is because those are youth for whom we are already responsible. So somebody doesn't come and knock on the door and say: "Excuse me, can I have X or whatever?" These are youth who are already in our care, and for whatever reasons, they have not found other living environments that work for them or for the families where they may be and they are mature enough to be on their own. They do have certain responsibilities they have to meet in terms of being involved in programs or education or schooling or whatever that might be.

M. Coell: Maybe I could give the minister an example, and she could tell me whether this group would fit in it. A 15-year-old and a 17-year-old find themselves going to have a baby. They're both known to the ministry, or they would be on assistance through their families. Would the ministry set up an apartment for them with obligations to continue school and continue. . . ? I'm thinking of fairly high-risk children who may have been on the street and who may have been involved with the court system. Is that the sort of person you're helping? It appears to me that this may be fairly expensive. These are probably pretty high-risk youth in a number of areas, and it's kind of a last chance: "Try this. We'll support you. Once you hit 19, you're on your own, but you've got a window of 18 months to two years." Is that the sort of person?

Hon. P. Priddy: I've actually got staff checking numbers, because they're not making sense to me. They may actually be 

[ Page 6335 ]

correct -- the numbers I've given you and someone has given me. So we will be just checking those numbers because they sound high to me, and I want to make sure that we're correct on that.

For the example you used, this would have to be a young mom who either was currently a ward of ours or was -- you're quite right -- at very high risk of simply not being able to cope in any other way.

M. Coell: I can wait for the numbers, and you can correct them for me later on.

The other area is services to young people who were in continuing care. We touched on that, I think, a little bit earlier. If someone had been a ward or in care of the ministry up until they turned 19, I believe that from 19 to 24 there are other services available for those young people. I just wonder what those services are. Have they changed this year? I know the member for Vancouver-Langara may have a couple of questions, as well, along that line.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are not any changes, to my knowledge. It is still our program. I know that you know that, but it's called the post-majority services program. These are youth who were wards of ours before they reached the age of majority. In order to receive any assistance, they again have to be enrolled in some kind of education, skills upgrading, apprenticeship -- whatever kind of program. I'm not aware that there are any changes to the program this year.

V. Anderson: I want to ask the minister if B.C. is involved. . . . I came across the information on a study program being done in Canada by Memorial University of Newfoundland, called Looking after Children. They say there are six provinces in Canada that are involved in this study program, which is evaluating children on the impact of the in-care experience with children. The minister is nodding. Are we involved in that, and what is our involvement?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we're aware of the program. Secondly, we are involved in it, and we are actually one of the provinces in Canada that holds one of the licences for the program. It is an important part of the component for our plans for the next few years.

V. Anderson: One of the questions I want to ask the minister is. . . . She stressed prevention programs from prior to birth working up through. . . . I'm wondering if she might be able to share a little bit about the kind of program it is. There's preparation with expectant parents, which we've been discovering somewhat, but then there are new kinds of integrated programs that deal with infants and then with toddlers -- one-, two-, and three-year-olds before they get to school. What kind of process does that take? What kind of programs are we developing prior to school-age programs that fit into those blocks with some kind of integration? There have been health, education. We've taught a lot of separate programs. What kind of integration is coming in those areas now?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member is correct. It has not been well coordinated. It's also fairly inconsistent between infancy -- once you don't see the public health nurse all the time -- and when children start school. It's very inconsistent around the province.

Some of the things we're looking at in terms of the project proposals that are coming in around Healthy Beginnings, Healthy Lives are things like -- one of the ones I really quite like -- lay visitors, trained parents who will visit with new parents on a regular basis and will have backup from other people on the multidisciplinary team. That may be the public health nurse; it would depend what that family might need.

Because I think one of the critical issues is whether you're urban or rural, hon. member, this will also help that family build a bridge of support within their own community. So our hope and expectation is that our lay visitor program would actually involve staff who would actually be parents from that community, who would have their own connections and could help new parents. Even in urban areas, new parents are often very isolated.

So what you would have is the lay visitors, but they would have a backup from the entire multidisciplinary team. If this was a family that had alcohol and drug issues in their lives, then there would be backup there -- backup from the public health nurse. They would have that whole professional backup to do that. I think that's probably one of the best ways.

The other thing that we are seeing, although not consistently, is programs being run in schools through community schools programs. A number of community schools programs that I'm familiar with have drop-in programs for moms and tots or caregivers and tots, where it's really comfortable to come, but at the same time there are parenting skills taught. We've talked about that before. Not everybody comes equipped with the same kinds of skills.

V. Anderson: In the Education estimates we discussed community schools. I think this is one of the most important opportunities we have by working together to use community schools.

Let me give an illustration of a few years ago. In downtown Vancouver, when they were meeting with the council to develop a community centre program, the professionals, the youth workers and all the other people had come -- to the advantage of the community centre development -- seeking council support. When they had finished giving their presentation, then the parents who were there said: "That's fine. If you want to have a community centre, we'll probably use it. But the centre of our community is the school."

I'm wondering if the ministry is doing any discussion with other ministries to coordinate the use of community schools as a key point for bringing families and children together in a very resourceful way, so they can be together in many of these projects.

[5:00]

V. Anderson: You're talking about working with community groups. I'm wondering if the minister has been working with a group like the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups, which has been working very well and has low-income groups throughout the whole of the province, self-help advocacy groups. They have strong concerns about working together and have a clientele among the low-income, self-help advocacy people that a lot of the lay visitors might not have, who are working with middle-class people or others. There is a different culture in the low-income group that needs to be taken into account. Have we any strong connection through your ministry, at the moment, with the FAPG and its network?

[ Page 6336 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: No, we do not. Although they certainly have participated in some of the forums we have done, we don't have a strong working relationship with them. Their working relationship has traditionally been more with the Ministry of Human Resources than it has been with our ministry. I appreciate your comment about who the folks are that they know. That's certainly the case in my community.

But also I do not want to mislead around Healthy Beginnings, Healthy Lives. It would not necessarily be for every family. I wouldn't suggest that only certain families need that kind of support, either, because there are families that are low-income -- and there may be families that are middle-income and high-income -- that may need support. But I don't envision a lay visiting program that would only be supportive of, if you will, "middle-class" families. We would do that in the context of a neighbourhood and families that need that support.

No, we do not have at this stage a strong working relationship with poverty groups.

V. Anderson: I actually am surprised and amazed by that, having worked with those groups for over 20 years. They have had a strong relationship with all of the elements that have come together to form the Children and Families ministry, because they work with health care, with education -- all of the elements that form the ministry. In the past, the Social Services and Health ministries have always been present at their annual meeting, which will take place in Naramata again in the first week of October. There have been representatives from the government ministries at that. They have been a strong element in the council that has advised Social Services over the years.

So I hope the minister would make sure that it is developed, because it's a very important self-help link in the community that is in touch with children and families who are very much in need. I hope the minister might develop that even further.

Hon. P. Priddy: My answer to the question is not a lack of interest in doing so. It's been, you know, 302 days. We've done as much as we can do in 302 days. We actually have had. . . . I don't know if we've even had a letter from. . . .

I've worked with a lot of the people who work with ELP. Those are people who've been part of my life for a long time. The Healthy Beginnings, Healthy Lives community schools projects, which have just come over to us, are only just beginning to come together in our ministry. So we will certainly be expanding that circle. So it wasn't that we are not interested in doing that. It just hasn't happened, to date.

V. Anderson: I'm not sure if this is the right spot in the discussion. You talked about community advisory committees. Could you describe the nature of those community advisory committees -- what their function will be, how they will be established and who will be part of those?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it may be a bit different from community to community, but let me say that these are mandatory. So every region must have at least one; they may have two or three, depending on the geography of their community. They will be made up of. . . . I'm going to start with what I think is the most important. I shouldn't say, from the most to the least, but I'll start with the people I think are the most important.

On those committees will be parents, youth, service providers and other interested people from the community. It's quite a diverse group of people. It's not intended to be. . . . We have had groups in the communities that have been advisory groups that are mostly professionals who get together and talk to other professionals. It is not intended to be that. There have to be parents; there have to be youth -- and there has to be more than one. I hope we've long passed the stage of, "Oh, we'll have a parent; we'll have a youth," because that's very uncomfortable, and I think speaks of tokenism, significantly. Aboriginal people -- in some cases, in some communities -- want to have their own advisory group to the regional operating officer, and that's fine. In some cases, they want to participate in the larger group, and that's fine, as well.

Some of the responsibilities. . . . We'll be looking at service needs in the community, looking at whether any changes that have happened are working -- what's working, what isn't working? What's the feedback from their organization, from parent groups they're involved in, from youth? What difference is the service change or the organizational change making? We say it's multidisciplinary -- is it really working in that way?

It's intended to be an active, interactive advisory committee in each community. As I say, each one may do it a bit differently, but it is mandatory, and it has to have everybody on it, and they have to meet regularly.

V. Anderson: Will it include people from recreational aspects of the community, from the social aspects, from the cultural aspects? Sometimes the orientation is: how do we deal with the problems, then how do we deal with the fun, positive kinds of things? One's a part of the other, so I'm just trying to get the flavour of that.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there will be people. . . . Actually, depending on the communities, some have extremely active people from parks and recreation departments who are already part of working with the regional operating people and will be part of those groups.

While I mentioned first nations people, I didn't talk about multicultural groups. Obviously that depends on where you live in the province, but. . . . In Richmond, for instance, they've decided to use the multicultural advisory group that already exists that advises the health board, which is going to make sense for them. In small communities -- although Richmond is hardly small -- you can't keep setting up advisory committee after advisory committee after advisory committee with the same 20 people, because people get really tired. So in some cases, they will actually use another reference group that perhaps the regional health boards are using. Richmond is doing that in terms of input around multicultural issues -- but absolutely, multicultural and parks and rec.

M. Coell: There are numerous programs that the ministry offers for children and youth that I think I will maybe canvass another year.

I'd like to move on to services for adults with mental handicaps. That's probably a subject that the minister and I could talk about for many days on end. I'll try and be quite directed so that we keep on track.

I must say I'm pleased that this is with this ministry, in that services for adults with mental handicaps could have gone to Health or they could have stood on their own. But from my perspective, it will probably have a very warm home in this ministry, and a home that understands the needs of many people with mental handicaps. So I'm pleased with that.

[ Page 6337 ]

We've seen the total downsizing, I guess, in all of our institutions. I think that's been a very good thing for people and a good thing for our society, as well. There are a number of areas where we find that people with mental handicaps haven't fitted into group homes and have ended up on the street -- not a lot, compared to some of the folks that come out of Riverview, Eric Martin and those other institutions, but there have been some.

I want to talk a little bit about services for those folks. A lot of them may have dual handicaps, too. They may have some psychosis as well as mental handicaps. They're probably the ones that haven't fitted into the group home setting, as well. One facility I don't know very much about is Willow, and it is part of the ministry. It is a 25-bed-capable facility. I just wonder whether that is scheduled to be downsized, as well. Or does the ministry intend to keep that facility?

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, we intend to keep Willow Cottage. There is some discussion about whether it will get some renovations where it currently is or whether it moves. But we do see that there may be an ongoing need for assessment, because the intention of Willow is primarily to be used for assessment of people who cannot be assessed in their own homes or in the group homes. So maybe they are there for three or four months in order for assessment and planning to happen. We see that there will be an ongoing need for that kind of facility, but it's not seen as a residential facility by any means. It's seen as an assessment facility for people, where it's just not possible to do that at home. Actually, just in this last fiscal year, we've spent about $2 million on renovations for Willow.

M. Coell: Are there people living there longer than the four months? I suspect that it's probably the case that there are people who go in for assessment and spend a longer time while looking for a placement.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. There are some people who have been there longer. That was not the intent, but that's what has happened. What we are doing for those individuals is developing a permanent residential facility which will be home for them. We're currently looking at some lands to do that with.

M. Coell: With the community residents -- and I suspect most of them are in group homes, two to four people per residence -- how many people do we have in group homes now? I know the numbers that we used to have in institutions, so I suspect that it's probably the same.

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of adult residential care, you're right. It's generally two, three or four per home. Sometimes some are co-ops, and there are some interesting new things happening in terms of residential. There are 4,016 adults currently in residential care.

M. Coell: That's actually a much smaller number than I would have thought, and that's pretty positive, as well. That means there are a lot more people living independently than there were, let's say, 30 years ago. Can the minister tell me what the global budget is for those 4,016?

[5:15]

M. Coell: Does the minister have a number of staff that would be involved in that? I know that some of those are contracts, but I just wonder, within the contracts. . . . Do they stipulate how many staff have to be in each facility?

Hon. P. Priddy: The number of staff working in residential facilities. . . . I think I'm correct when I say about 4,600, and I say that because I had to check for a particular reason one day. And obviously, depending on the independence level of the folks there, the staffing ratio will change. But there would be very few places that you would not see generally one person on overnights, usually two on evenings -- at least until 10 o'clock -- and then people are outside the house during the day.

M. Coell: Would those 4,016 people include the community residents' intensive care adult residence, as well, and the semi-independent living, where you may have people in apartment-style clusters with some supervision? Or are those over and above that?

Hon. P. Priddy: We're trying to check the numbers around those folks in semi-independent care, but in terms of the intensive adult services that you refer to, there are 134 adults served under that category.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry. I don't currently have the number for semi-independent.

M. Coell: Does the ministry still have any hospital-type facility for people with multiple disabilities and mental handicaps, as Woodlands used to? I can't remember the name of the part of Woodlands that was. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: Fraserview. Has that facility also been phased out totally at this point? Those people who were requiring almost 24-hour care, whereabouts are they in the system?

Hon. P. Priddy: The folks who were at Fraserview -- there were similar folks at Tranquille and Glendale, as well -- actually are, unless I stand to be corrected, all in the community. Now, they require different levels of support, and interestingly enough, of course, sometimes when you move out of a facility like that and into the community, you start to require less support, too. It's a different kind of environment. So all those people are actually living in the community in some kind of supported-living environment, often with intense staffing, because people need a variety of different skills. There is not a facility like Fraserview, Tranquille or Glendale.

I also need to be honest enough to say to you that unless it's changed, and I'll stand to be corrected, there are. . . . I don't think it has anything to do with our placements, because I don't think that they are actually wards, but there are some youths who are living in nursing homes throughout the province. There are not many, but there are some, and I think it's an issue that does need to be addressed. It's not an appropriate place for those folks to be.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could explain what she means by nursing homes.

[ Page 6338 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry; it's obviously age. As an example, I want to say Queen Elizabeth, but I don't think I'm quite. . . .

An Hon. Member: Queen Alexandra.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, it's the facility just above Woodlands. There's that nursing home facility or. . . .

M. Coell: For seniors.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. It's just above Woodlands. I'm sorry, but the name has just temporarily gone from me.

The last time I was there -- which hasn't been recently, I must admit -- I think there were two or three youth living there. They were mostly youth who had not so much a mental disability but multiple sclerosis, or who just require really intensive levels of nursing care. They are, unfortunately, living with seniors. I should say fortunately, but I do think it's unfortunate. They are not people with mental disabilities. All of those folks are in the community.

M. Coell: I think that's a tremendous success. I know it has taken close to 20 years to accomplish it, but I think that in the accomplishment, there are a lot of happy people.

The other area with regard to mental handicaps is brain damage, and I suspect that those youth who are brain-damaged in a car accident or in whatever way would be within your ministry. Or are they in the Ministry of Health? I'm thinking of some people who might be at Gorge Road Hospital.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's the Ministry of Health.

If I could go back to another question for a minute, though, there are 149 people in semi-independent living and about 100 people who are living in their own apartments, for a total of about 255.

M. Coell: If a person is in a car accident and has brain damage to a severe point, they would be within the health system for a while. Once they're discharged, they may be physically healthy but mentally not able to cope. I would imagine that they would come into the Ministry for Children and Families, and I wonder what the transition is there. How would they be placed? Would it possibly be in a group home, or are there a number of homes for people with brain damage? I guess what I'm interested in is how that meshes with Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: Particularly for children who are brain-injured as a result of an accident, a fall or whatever, for the rehabilitation part of their time, they may be at Sunny Hill, they may be at QA, they may be at. . . . There's one other place; I can't remember. Maybe it's just the two of them; maybe it's just QA and Sunny Hill. Primarily, the services will be provided by the Ministry of Health.

However, what sometimes happens is that that youth or child becomes ready to leave hospital. The family cannot manage at home on their own and comes to us, often voluntarily, and says: "We still really love this child. We just cannot manage on our own at home." We will sometimes voluntarily then take that child into care and work on a one-on-one basis with the Ministry of Health to prepare a plan of care that not only meets their health needs but their rehabilitation needs and their school needs.

V. Anderson: A case that we're dealing with right at the moment is a young lad that was hit in a car accident. At the time this happened to him -- a youth, about three years ago. . . . Since then, the family -- a single-parent mother with two other daughters -- had been living in hell trying to deal with this, because at one time he'll be fine, and the next time he won't be. They haven't even been able to get a good diagnosis or get a brain scan to find out. He's now 20 years of age, and because he's 20 years of age and the services weren't provided while he was a youth, the mother can't even get information about his diagnosis, because he's an adult. They won't give it to her because she's not his guardian.

The whole family is caught in between, going around in circles a number of times. Mental Health were visiting yesterday or today, so I'm not sure what happened, but this has been going on for three to four years. It has caused disruption within the family, and what's happened so often is that when they come to the home when he's acting out, they just put him in handcuffs and take him and throw him in a closed confinement room. Then when he comes out, he won't go near anybody again. So there's this whole kind of. . . . And they phoned me again just this week. They're saying: "What do we do? We've tried to go everyplace. We've tried here and we've tried there, and where do we go next?" This is somebody who crossed that barrier of 19, but what took place happened when he was a youth.

How does the family deal. . . ? Is your ministry able to help in that situation? And if so, how would people approach that?

Hon. P. Priddy: I've checked with people. . . . Given that it's the Ministry for Children and Families, and this is a 20-year-old with a brain injury, I struggle to know what this ministry ought to be able to do or should be able to do. I think the answer may be that there isn't much we can do. I assume they've worked with the neurotrauma association, getting them to act as an advocate for the family and doing those kinds of things.

The only other thing that occurs to me -- and it's not something the ministry can do -- is that you can sometimes get partial committeeship around. . . . For someone who's competent in most areas but may not be competent to make medical judgments, you can get limited committeeship. But that's not something that the ministry. . . . I fail to see how the ministry would be able to help.

[5:30]

[ Page 6339 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Just let me clarify, member. Are you talking about somebody with a mental handicap, as you and I might define that?

V. Anderson: Yes.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess I fail to see why somebody should be eliminated from a program when they reach 19. I mean, there are thousands and thousands of adults in this province who have mental or multiple handicaps who are in pre-employment training, day pre-employment skills programs and so on. So I'm puzzled as to why somebody at the age of 19 would suddenly not have access to those services when we have thousands of people around the province who do. It is very hard, obviously, to debate individual situations, but there are work programs all over this province full of people who sort of fit the description which you have given to me, which is someone with a mental handicap or a multiple handicap. So it seems to me that even without the new ministry, they would have been eligible for those kinds of programs in the past. I'm sorry, I don't know how to help.

V. Anderson: I will get some of that information to you so you can look at it, because there's a whole host of these families out there in a similar situation who are desperate. Some of them are now elderly parents who are wondering what will happen to their children. Within the last couple of years, there was a program established where they could set aside some money, and that money could be held in benefit for them. That was a step in the right direction, but there still isn't the opportunity for them to participate, because they're not at the level where they can work in normal job situations. They have to be in sheltered job situations and sheltered programs. Those just haven't existed, once they have crossed that magic age of 19, in the way they did before.

M. Coell: I'd just like to spend some time talking about assessment of the programs we've been talking about -- assessment of community, residence and group homes; assessment of the intensive adult day care; assessment of Willow -- and how that's done. We're looking at 4,000 adults in group homes, so you're probably looking at a minimum of 1,200 or 1,500 group homes, would be my guess. How are those assessed for whether they're providing proper nutrition and proper supervision -- risk assessment and those sorts of things?

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, there a number of ways in which that happens. I think that one of the real advantages of having the ministry constructed in the way that it is is that we have an audit and performance management division which actually can pull together those kinds of performance audits and track that kind of information and know what the markers should be, to look at progress, to look at whether services are performing in the way that they should be. I'm not sure that that was available in nearly the same way before. I think that that will give us a much better umbrella way of being able to do it.

In terms of specifics, there are several ways that that can happen. One of them is the provincial review team. The provincial review team is what some people call the PRT team. It's an independent external monitoring team which formally monitors residential and training support services -- so not just residential, but also training support services -- for adults with mental handicaps and then records whether the organization, the group home or the training facility is actually meeting the mandate of the contract that we have with them or the contract standards that we have with them. So that's one way.

Secondly, we have an advocate for service quality in this government, who was for several years. . . . She is still Pat Vickers, but she is no longer with us. Pat has left, and the new service quality advocate is Jane Holland. A staff person, a friend, a family member or a handicapped person who is struggling with the service, who thinks the service isn't respecting their rights, isn't serving them well or isn't giving them access to a different kind of service, can also call the service quality advocate, who will work with them to try and resolve that. So there's that, as well.

When you look at the nutritional part, the Community Care Facility Act mandates that the licensing people have to come in with a nutritionist, and the group homes have to actually demonstrate what their meal plan is for the month. They have to submit them; they have to have them approved, and so on. So there's that part to the Community Care Facility Act, as well.

There have been about 1,000 reviews that have been done in about the last six years. They must occur once every three years. If people are concerned, they can actually ask for the review team to come in and do a review, and that has happened in a number of circumstances.

M. Coell: Does the minister feel that that's enough for a review, if you're looking at once every three years? Someone could ask for a review, but most of the time when we've had problems. . . . I don't know whether that has been the case. It just seems like that's a long time between reviews.

Hon. P. Priddy: As a matter of interest for you, on an annual basis the provincial review team, with the reviews that it does, spends about $2.2 million. I don't want to underestimate this responsibility, but the organization that sponsors the service has an obligation to assure that evaluations are done, as well, of the staff, of the service and of the progress of the person living there. The social worker as well has an obligation to document progress and whether standards are being met for the person living there, as well as the family and friends. One of the things that has happened over the last few years is that people have built many more networks of family and friends. I was thinking, earlier when you were talking about it, that Plan is one of the organizations that actually supports parents who will do that kind of planning. For most of us, safest in our lives are those people who are not necessarily paid to look after us, but who are friends and people who love us. Building networks of support. . . . We have a number of organizations throughout the province that actually build networks of friends and support around people who also take on that responsibility.

My personal experience in terms of doing evaluation is that once every three years. . . . You might wish to do it more than that. At least in my experience, it has been a fairly standard time. But we'll continue to look at that. That's why I think that now, with the new audit and performance management division of the ministry, that is one of the things they'll be looking at. Is that frequent enough? Does it give us enough information? Are the markers we're looking at good enough, etc.?

[ Page 6340 ]

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear some of the comments. I guess the reason I'm thinking of it is the one we were discussing last week, this Skeleem Village up-Island. Eight months had gone by and quite a bit had happened in that facility that I'm sure neither the minister nor I would want to see. And that's why I'm saying that I don't know whether there needs to be another mechanism in there somewhere when changes occur in facilities -- you could have quite a turnover of staff in two or three years. I don't have an answer for that, but I can certainly see the potential for some problems. I don't know whether the minister wants to comment on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think I have anything to add, except that the more mechanisms you have, the better. So the more family and friends you have, the better. The formal review teams are important to have; the service quality advocate is important to have. The more people in people's lives, the safer people are. I'm not sure that the circumstances we've talked about would have necessarily made a difference -- I mean, I don't know -- even on an annual basis. So I don't think I have anything else to add to that.

I would at this stage, hon. Chair, if I might, move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

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