[ Page 6341 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 51, and in Committee A, the estimates for Children and Families.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1997

On section 1.

G. Wilson: Point of order. If we're not going to go through this bill section by section, if there's some kind of agreement that's been made, I wonder if the members could be told what that agreement is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's not really an agreement; it's a request. If I have to deal with section 1 and sections 22 to 24 inclusive. . . . Those are the sections I'm dealing with, and I'm asking if I could deal with them first, stand down the intermediate sections and then come back to them.

G. Plant: I want to highlight, I suppose, what I think is happening here, and that is that there are situations in which the child advocate perhaps feels the tug of competing interests, as between the interests of the child, for whom he or she is the advocate, and the interests of other family members. What this section is intended to do is ensure that the advocate always resolves that tug in favour of the best interests of the child and to ensure that conflicts, in fact, don't arise.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Wilson: I understand the language of what's here; I wonder if we could flush out a little bit what may be seen as a conflict of interest, because that's the key. It reads: "If the advocate identifies a conflict of interest between a child or youth and an adult family member. . .the advocate must give precedence to and promote the interests of the child or youth" over that of the family member. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's more or less what it says. I wonder if we could flush out a little bit what the minister envisages as a conflict of interest. In the practice of the existing act, are there some areas where the conflict that we're trying to clarify with this new language has already been demonstrated?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This act was, of course, done before Judge Gove completed the inquiry. Judge Gove saw this gap in this legislation and indicated that we should do this to make sure that the child's interests are always paramount.

Let's say, for instance, that you have a child who is gay and the child requires some counselling, wants some counselling, but the parents are opposed to that counselling. That's just an example. There are many, many examples of that. In those kinds of situations it's the interests of the child that override those of the parent or the family.

G. Wilson: So the conflict of interest, then. . . . I guess the next logical question is: who determines the "best interests of the child," then? I can understand if it's an adolescent; then you might say that if the adolescent is in their teen years, that adolescent actually has a right to sort of put forward their own point of view. However, it would seem to me that the law has not provided for young children to have that same level of personal say in what they do and that the parent and/or guardian presumably would have some say over what is in the best interests of the child.

I guess what I'm getting at here is. . . . At what point does the advocate make the decision on what is in the best interests of the child if that varies from the wishes of the parent of the child?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The advocate has certain powers in various sections of this particular act. In the context of those powers and in the context of exercising those powers vis-�-vis all of the functions of government under various pieces of legislation, that conflict could occur at any stage, and the child advocate would have to make those decisions from time to time at any stage. It is difficult for me to pick an example and say what could happen in a particular instance.

G. Wilson: I understand that it is difficult to try and pull an example out of the air. In fact, it's probably not useful, because it just leads often to more confusion or to other things. I'm simply trying to get a determination on what, in broad perspective, would be seen as a conflict of interest -- I think I have some idea -- and to what extent the advocate has latitude in making that determination.

I know that within the act there is, at the moment, a restriction on age with respect to when a child actually can have an advocate. I wonder if it's the intention in this provision that if a child seeks advocacy, even though the child may be below the age of 12 years old, I think it is, whether or not the fact that a child would seek directly to have an advocate in a situation. . . . I wonder whether or not this portion of the act would pertain to that child, even though the child may be below the age of 12.

[6:45]

Section 1 approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Could I ask that sections 2 to 21 inclusive be stood down and that we move to section 22?

The Chair: All agreed? Okay.

On section 22.

G. Wilson: Just a very brief explanation for amending the definition. I wonder what the reason for that is -- if I could just get a very brief explanation of the reason for the amended definition.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There has been no definition of legal aid before. This is the first time this term is used in the act, and we need to have some definition of that term.

[ Page 6342 ]

G. Wilson: So as I understand it, this means that any services or information provided for within the Legal Services Society Act will constitute the definition of what legal aid means. Is that right? It will include all services and information provided for in the act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Obviously there are many functions that the Legal Services Society has to go through to be able to provide legal aid, and all of that bundle of services that go toward providing legal aid as the ultimate objective would be considered legal aid.

G. Wilson: But that excludes legal representation. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Legal aid would definitely include legal representation.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

G. Plant: Two questions, and I'll roll them up.

The first is: does the limitation on the term of the board of directors apply to all the appointees to the board including, for example, the Law Society appointees?

Secondly, I haven't done the research into this. I know there's been an issue around transition for some members of the board over the last little while. Are there any members of the board now serving who have been serving for longer than three years? And if so, what provision or arrangements will be made for them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is: current appointees have been appointed for two years each. That's been the case, and this is to allow us to stagger the appointments. There is no one on the board who has been there for more than six years.

G. Plant: It sounds like there are members who have been there currently longer than three years but as much as six. I guess the question is: is it expected that those members will continue to serve out their terms?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, they have just been appointed, many of them.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

G. Plant: Here are the provisions that would allow the cabinet to appoint an official trustee to manage the society if the cabinet thought that it was in the public interest. When the minister introduced this bill in second reading, he outlined and made reference to the fact that there had been a management review conducted recently and that on the list of recommendations were recommendations around accountability in governments, including recommendations that have led to this very provision. I wish here only to record the comment, which I think the Attorney General will agree with, that this is clearly not the only tool which the minister should have at his disposal as far as improving the relationship of accountability and all those other good things between the government and the society.

I know the minister said in second reading that this particular tool could only be used -- should only be used -- in extraordinary circumstances. What I hope is that the government will continue to realize that there is an ongoing need to assist the society in a wide variety of ways to manage its way through the current fiscal crisis. I won't take advantage of this opportunity to elaborate my views on the fiscal crisis, but the key here being focused on this provision is to realize that it's only one part of the task which the government has to ensure that there is a better relationship -- or more accountability -- between the minister, the ministry and the society. I hope the Attorney General has the same view.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I agree.

G. Wilson: I think I understand what is proposed, but I have a couple of questions with respect to the autonomy that this trustee will have, once appointed, in terms of trying to act in the interest of making sure that the public is properly served.

I notice that under section 24, section 19(7), it says:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may remove or replace an official trustee before the end of the official trustee's term if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is of the opinion that the official trustee is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with his or her responsibilities under subsection (3)."

It seems to me that we have to be a little bit careful here, because, as the Attorney General has told us many times in debate over the last few days, the government does not have authority with respect to the Legal Services Society and the provision of legal aid. What this does is give the government direct authority, it would appear, so much so that if the trustee acts in a manner that's inconsistent with what the government wants, the trustee is going to be out.

Is that a fair reading -- what I'm saying here? And if not, maybe you could explain.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that's not a fair reading. A fair reading would be that if the trustee did not comply with the legislation, didn't perform the duties mandated for him or her under this legislation, at that point, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the authority to remove or replace an official trustee before the end of the term. And that would, of course, happen only if the trustee did not live up to the mandate provided to the trustee within this legislation. We are governed by this legislation, and part of the reason that we have no mechanism to deal with these issues is that this legislation has no provisional ability for government to do anything in case there is an emergency -- there is a disruption in the continuing delivery of legal aid services. This would provide us with that mechanism, and in essence, we would be able to deal with the trustee on the same terms as we're able to deal with the board in general terms.

G. Wilson: With respect to the government's ability to appoint this trustee, I have two very quick questions. Under section 24, section 19(1), it makes it clear that "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint an official trustee to manage the property and conduct the affairs of the society if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the appoint-

[ Page 6343 ]

ment is in the public interest and is required to ensure a continued and effective delivery of legal aid." What I'm concerned about is whether or not this is strictly an arbitrary decision, or if there is going to be some level of notice and some level of consultation with the society prior to the government's action. It would seem to me that otherwise we have a very, very large hammer held over the head of legal societies, which they may not appreciate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of the issues that I'm very cognizant of is the issue of independence and the integrity of the society, particularly as it deals with legal representation of the poor. We don't want to be interfering in that independence and that integrity. We want to make sure that the provision of legal aid continues uninterrupted and in an efficient fashion.

We have consulted with the board from time to time. I met with representatives of the board recently. I met with representatives of the poverty law section of the legal services community. In any situation where the government might be forced to act, I can assure the hon. member that there has to be consultation -- there has to be notice before this kind of drastic action is taken. In my view, the appointment of a trustee is drastic action. It would not and should not be taken without due notice and due consultation.

G. Wilson: My last question on this section. . . . I offer this in a constructive spirit, and I hope it's received that way. The very fact that this section has been put into this miscellaneous statutes act has been read with some suspicion and concern by some people in the Legal Services Society, in the sense that there is concern, given that there have been funding problems in terms of finding the adequate amount of money to be able to do all of the things that the Legal Services Society may want. Given that within that society there are some differences of opinion with respect to what the priority of funding is going to be, there is some concern that the society may make choices that are not to the wishes of the government and that one of the reasons this is in here is to essentially enforce compliance or have the threat of a trustee. I give this opportunity to the Attorney General to respond to that, because that is the concern that has been expressed to me.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this provision has been discussed in Victoria and around for the last three or four years. It's nothing new. I also know that there was a review of the society's management done by the auditor general. The auditor general indicated that, like other government agencies, there has to be consistency in this and there has to be some accountability -- that we should deal with that. I also understand that the Tim Agg report on legal aid also recommended that this be done.

There is no hidden motive behind this. I have spoken at the Canadian Bar Association annual general meeting -- over 150 lawyers. I said to them that I would be doing this. I met with the Law Society benchers, and I indicated to them that I would be doing this. Yes, some of them are concerned. But I did tell them that I have no difficulty. . . . This is not indicative of any lack of faith in the current board. The current board is trying to manage these issues under very difficult circumstances. But if these services are disrupted and the poor are not receiving the services that they deserve, at the end of the day we have to have some mechanisms where we can at least ensure the continuance of those services. That's the essence of what we're trying to do.

[7:00]

On section 2.

G. Plant: I want to put a general comment on the record to see if I am understanding this. It is actually a comment that applies to sections 2, 3 and 4, all of which, taken together, appear to me to be simply enabling provisions to allow the recognition in British Columbia of this new category of corporate entity called the "limited liability company," which is, as I understand it, an entity that is becoming used in other jurisdictions in North America and is not the same as an ordinary company, so it would not ordinarily be registered here extraprovincially. So by these amendments we're allowing these new creatures to come into and be registered within British Columbia. Is that a relatively accurate summary?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is enabling. But we are also requiring them to register, as any other extraprovincial company.

G. Plant: In the sense that if they wish to do business in this jurisdiction, they must register in accordance with the provisions that we have now before us. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's an amendment standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Finance, and I would move that now.

[SECTION 3 (b), by deleting proposed subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) Nothing in this section or in any order approving a compromise or arrangement made under this section binds a member to exchange shares of a reporting company held by the member for property, money or other securities of the reporting company or for property, money or securities of another corporation unless the compromise or arrangement has been approved in the manner described in subsection (8).

(8) A compromise or arrangement is approved for the purposes of subsection (7) when it is approved by a majority of the votes of members of the reporting company cast at a meeting referred to in subsection (2) other than the votes cast by

(a) affiliates of the reporting company,

(b) a member who will, as a consequence of the compromise or arrangement, be entitled to consideration for each share greater than that available to other holders of affected shares of the same class, and

(c) a member who alone or in combination with others effectively controls the reporting company and who, prior to receiving a notice of the meeting referred to in subsection (2), entered into or has agreed to enter into an understanding to support the compromise or arrangement.]

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Plant: Am I right that the registrar did not have the power up until this point to shut down the registry? Is this a new power?

[ Page 6344 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's a new power.

G. Plant: Am I right also in assuming that the reason that this is going to be made retroactive is to essentially validate or -- I don't know what the term would be -- cure any problem that might have arisen as a result of last New Year's snowstorm and to ensure that no one could say that on December 29 or 30 of last year the registrar lacked the power to shut the registry down? Is that what we're doing?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure of the exact dates, but you certainly have this period and the storm right. I just don't want the record to show that it's those. But yes, you have the intent exactly right.

G. Plant: I wonder if the minister can say what, if anything, the consequences are for that. I suppose I'm asking: is there a big problem out there which this is going to fix? If so, what is the nature of that problem?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we're not aware of any problems, but we wanted to make sure that no innocent third parties were harmed as a result of that.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

F. Gingell: When the government first announced their ten-year plan, including the fast ferries, the special work that was required at Nanaimo and the new dock at Duke Point to take the truck traffic from Tsawwassen, there was a great deal of concern from members on this side of the Legislature about how this was all going to be paid for.

So we were not surprised but concerned when we received a copy last year, through FOI, of the briefing notes to the minister, an issue summary dealing with the funding of the ten-year capital plan. The bureaucrats within the ministry have expressed a great deal of concern that with the year-after-year deficits that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has been sustaining, the lack of growth in fares, inflation and the utilization of the ferries, the financing of B.C. Ferries is becoming an issue of great concern. In fact, the senior civil servant's own briefing document to the minister said that things are becoming such that the value of the assets will not be equal to the amount of debt owed. In effect, B.C. Ferries is finishing up being owned by the bank. I appreciate that that's not a technical truth, but this is certainly no way to run any navy, and this navy is important to the operation of British Columbia.

I don't think anyone in any way has concerns with or argues with the need for B.C. Ferries to be kept modern, to keep the levels of service up and to do a first-class job, but they're going off and borrowing a great deal more money without the ability to repay that debt and to service it. The feeling and the concern I have about this tells me that I'm going to vote no on section 11, purely and simply because I don't think this government is running this corporation well. I don't think they know what they're doing. I think they've gone off into a major expansion without a carefully developed, thought-out plan on how they're going to service this debt, pay the interest costs and retire it over a reasonable period of time.

The last thing we need is for the creditors to come in and seize our vessels as though they were part of the American salmon fishing fleet. That would be most inappropriate. I'd be most interested in a response from the minister as to why he believes that the way B.C. Ferries has been managed and the way they've been going and their financial results indicates any confidence, and why this House should agree to increase their level of borrowing from $730 million to $975 million, almost a billion dollars of debt -- a billion dollars that will incur annual interest costs in the region of $70 million or $80 million a year.

Hon. D. Miller: Look, we did canvass ferries issues in the estimates of my ministry. There was ample opportunity, and those questions were raised and dealt with. The facts are clear that about $520 million of this incurred debt is a result of decisions made by governments prior to our party coming to office. I assume that they had somewhat of a vision -- which I applaud. We're continuing that in perhaps a more exciting way with the fast ferry program, which I'm sure all British Columbians are looking forward to. I know I certainly am, and I know that the men and women who are working -- the people in the shipyards who are engaged productively in family-supporting jobs and the suppliers who supply those. . . .

It's not just the shipyards in Vancouver and the lower mainland; it's Port Alberni and Point Hope, here in Victoria. It's clear that the direction we've taken has created a situation where those individual companies are now able to go out and compete for other work. Alberni Engineering, for example, obtained the contract to supply six small aluminum vessels to the Coast Guard. The opportunities, both domestically and offshore, have been enhanced, and it has contributed significantly to the economic life of the province.

There certainly are challenges with respect to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, but the answer to those challenges is not to stop dead in the water; it's to move ahead, it's to pursue and find solutions to those challenges. So I'm somewhat disappointed and perhaps perplexed at the line of questioning. I would have thought that all British Columbians would be supportive of the general direction we've set.

I know that whenever we have an opening, the members opposite turn up. When we launch a little ferry in North Vancouver, the hon. critic. . . . In fact, there were three or four members from the opposition party there. I'm sure I saw them applauding the announcement. I know that when we opened the new Duke Point terminal, there were members opposite there. In fact, one of them complained to me that they didn't get an engraved invitation. It wasn't enough that the Premier mentioned their name from the podium; they didn't get an engraved invitation and a speaking role in the announcement. Here they have the same group criticizing the very things that they've turned up wearing their best bib and tucker to attend the openings of. So I'm somewhat mystified.

Really, this allows the corporation to get on with an exciting future for British Columbia, both internal to our economy and in the opportunity to pursue external or export opportunities. So I would hope that on reflection, the hon. member might reconsider his position and be prepared to support this exciting development.

F. Gingell: Thank you for this response. It's of great interest. The government didn't need to go into fast ferries for these particular routes to create jobs. Everyone agreed, I think, that the movement of passengers from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay required some revision; we needed to find some different solutions. This side of the House has always said that we believe that for that run, fast ferries are the wrong solution.

[ Page 6345 ]

I was pleased before you came in, because I thought the Minister of Health was going to respond to these issues -- because I believe the Minister of Health has a great interest in this subject. If I may, Mr. Chair, I will direct my remarks through you to the Minister of Health. It is a fact, hon. Chair, to the Minister of Health, that for every unit of passage, whether it be a passenger or a vehicle, fast ferries will put into the lower mainland airshed three times the toxic emissions of a conventional ferry -- not one and a half times, not double, but three times. All of the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. . . . I know you're going to use low-sulphur diesel fuels, but you can use low-sulphur diesel fuels in any engine, and you can use them in conventional ferries. The most sensible and the easiest calculation is the weight of fuel you expend to move one unit of passage from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay and back again. In a fast ferry it's three times what it is in a conventional ferry.

[7:15]

The majority of the B.C. Ferries debt, I agree, was incurred to build the superferries. I think the superferries have been a great success. It's a pity that this government doesn't have the capability of selling superferries throughout the world, because they are as good as you see anywhere. But the fast ferries are the wrong solution for this particular trip.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Order? What does the Minister of Transportation and Highways wish to order?

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that government members don't like me standing up and going through my set piece on fast ferries, but I believe what I say to be true. I think you made a mistake -- it occurs all the time -- and now we're being asked to increase the B.C. Ferries credit limit by $245 million. I think they're going in the wrong direction. They're making a mistake, and I'm going to vote against this section. I know my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast wants to say a few words, too.

G. Wilson: I agree with the comments of the member for Delta South, but I have a question specifically to the minister with respect to this increase of $245 million. Without getting into a long discussion about the ill-advised direction of B.C. Ferries, which is costing us a huge sum of money, I'm curious to know whether the move toward this increased credit limit -- a $245 million increase, to a total of $975 million -- is somehow going to slow down or alter the time in which the B.C. Ferry Corporation is supposedly going to be cut free and be made a stand-alone, for-profit Crown. Can the minister tell us whether there's a change in direction now? Does this mean we're going to have a rethink?

If you look at the annual report and the funding programs there, and the decisions the B.C. Ferry Corporation seems to be headed toward with respect to the timing of commercial Crown corporation status, it would seem to me that this is going to further indebt that corporation should it ever achieve that status. I'm curious to hear from the minister on that question.

Hon. D. Miller: There are operational questions relative to B.C. Ferries -- its future, its construct and those kinds of things -- which are properly the subject of estimates, and they have been discussed in some detail during the ministerial estimates process.

This section of the bill simply relates to the ability of the corporation to borrow to achieve the objectives that were discussed in that other forum. I don't want to show any disrespect at all to the member's question, but I do think it's inappropriate in the context of the bill. In my view, this is not an opportunity to reopen the estimates debate on B.C. Ferries.

I appreciate that there are different opinions, and I don't quarrel with that. But, seriously, members should be aware that that's the purpose of the bill. While it took place in two separate Houses, if you like, with the estimates debate in another House at another time, I believe I'm correct in the way I characterized the bill we're faced with here today.

I'm happy to get into a discussion, but I think it would be somewhat of an abuse to get into an in-depth discussion of the operational side of B.C. Ferries at this point. I'm always happy to talk about that with the member privately, and we did talk about it in the estimates debate. I think it's more in order for members to express their opinion but not engage in any extensive debate about the operational side.

G. Wilson: Well, fair enough. I'm not going to press the minister on the finite details of how this money is going to be extended. We'll see, but I question whether or not, in the decision that was taken to put this bill forward in this form as a miscellaneous statute. . . . Was there ever any discussion or consideration that, rather than increasing the borrowing from $730 million to $975 million, the government should look at the re-establishment or reinstatement of an annual subsidy from the government for operations, so that the government could keep a much closer rein on the debt that's being incurred by that corporation?

Hon. D. Miller: The operational strategy of B.C. Ferries, with respect to both vessel acquisition and operations, is ultimately approved by government because it is a Crown corporation. Those other questions -- which I again submit are legitimate questions -- are not for this forum. There are arguments that the implicit subsidy ought to become an explicit subsidy -- the transfer of seniors, school children, medical transfers and those kinds of things.

I submit that that debate is not for this forum. I think it's clear for anybody who looks at the corporation that they understand the challenges that have to be met, and we are doing that in some ways that are current and are public: the stakeholder process in the Gulf Islands region, for example, looking both at rationalization of the service -- in other words, should we always maintain what we have, exactly? -- and at fares. Those are ongoing issues that we deal with among myself, my ministry and the Ferry Corporation and, ultimately, publicly in this chamber.

F. Gingell: I have just one last question further to the remarks of the member. Was the reason that you didn't go for an increased subsidy because it would then have appeared in the consolidated revenue fund and increased the amount of the reported deficit?

[ Page 6346 ]

Hon. D. Miller: As to motive, the member might want to ascribe any that he chooses. We know that he has very strongly held views about the course of the corporation, which we disagree with. Nonetheless, this is a simple device to enable the corporation to achieve its objective through borrowing -- nothing more, nothing less.

Section 11 approved on division.

On section 12.

J. Wilson: This amendment to the funding formula for FRBC has some interesting things here. Could the minister lay out for us what he sees as coming from this? I refer to when it will be used and the amount of money that will be held back from going into the forest renewal fund.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can give you an example of how the formula works, if that's what you're looking for, but you're asking about future policy. There haven't been any changes yet, though there are a number under consideration. Under the current Forest Renewal Act, any changes to stumpage after April 30, 1994, affect both FRBC and the consolidated revenue fund. Stumpage increases were put in place on May 1, 1994, and those increases fund both FRBC and the CRF.

For example, if those were $100, then $80 would go to FRBC and $20 would remain with the CRF. If a policy change were made that reduced the $100 by $25, the remaining $75 would be distributed as follows: $60 to FRBC and $15 to the CRF, reducing those by $20 and $5 respectively. The amendment would allow the $5 reduction to the CRF to come from the FRBC revenue instead.

J. Wilson: We've just come through the second quarter of this year. Actually, it would be the first quarter of the fiscal year. Would that allow an adjustment for each quarter of the 1997-98 fiscal year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This will only come into effect when the bill comes into effect, and it is sunsetted on January 1, 1998. As we are into the last two quarters, the change would be effective for the quarter after which it was made and then subsequent quarters.

J. Wilson: Are the quarters that the minister is referring to on a fiscal calendar? Is it March, April, May, or is it January, February, March? What quarters are we looking at here? Are we looking at calendar quarters, or are we looking at fiscal quarters for the year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What I explained was that if a change is made, then the change carries on. It's a rolling change. It carries on into the future until another change that affects it is made. But this amendment says that changes made within this time frame can be designated to have a different formula for them.

J. Wilson: I read here that April 30, 1994, was the starting point and that any procedure approved by the minister before January 1, 1998. . . . Now, the minister could approve a procedure, but I see nothing in here that says it could not be made retroactive or it could not be carried forward into the '98 year. It doesn't say that the procedural approval will end as of January 1, 1998. It says that any decision made by the minister must be made by January 1, 1998. That leaves a fairly broad window here, if you want to use your imagination a little bit. I would like the minister to clarify for me, if he would, whether any policy or procedural approval that is made in the year 1997 will end as of January 1, 1998.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't make retroactive changes. We're not allowed under law to make stumpage changes retroactive. So with respect to the future, if a change is made between now and January 1, 1998, under this section the effect of that change will carry on into the future, but we can only apply this formula during this period of time to designated changes.

[7:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the member's certainly free to do that. Let me tell you that the example I gave you amounted to 5 percent, that's all, and it's only for that designated portion. In other words, it only affects the change. The example I gave you says that it's 5 percent of the stumpage that's affected there.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister explain to me a couple of comments that he made? First, he said that, by law, you can't go retroactive. That's happened before. Can he explain to me, then, why you have the date April 30, 1994, in subsection (3)(a)? Second, you refer to this section as having a sunset clause as of January 1, 1998. Well, it's certainly not worded that way. There's nowhere in subsection (3)(b) where you say anything about a sunset clause. Any legislation with a sunset clause I've seen go through this House has a specific clause stating that this legislation will have a sunset clause -- in this case, as of January 1, 1998 -- by section. I just don't see that in here. So I'm a little bit confused by those two statements from the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Can I refer the member to page 6 of the bill? It's a little bit confusing, but the sunset clause is in section 3(b) -- January 1, 1998.

With respect to retroactivity, I'm advised that if there have been things in the past, they have been challenged, and the rulings we have from the courts are that we can't make stumpage retroactive.

R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm having some difficulty with your explanation. I am reading the section on page 6 that we're discussing at the present time. I see nowhere in print a section that says: "This has a sunset clause of January 1, 1998." The only thing that talks of January 1, 1998 is the whole section, and I'll read it. It says:

[ Page 6347 ]

"(b) any reduction in the amount of the government's royalty and stumpage revenue under the Forest Act for that quarter that is attributable to a policy or procedure approved by the minister before January 1, 1998 under section 105 (1) of the Forest Act, that is expressed to be for the purposes of this paragraph."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The effect can carry on, but the time during which a change can be made is sunsetted. It says: ". . .policy or procedure approved by the minister before January 1, 1998." So the formula only applies to changes made up to that point. That's what the legal meaning of this wording is.

J. Wilson: That more or less verifies what I thought I heard the minister say, which was that procedural approval has a sunset clause, and that ends on January 1. Any policy or procedure that is put in place by January 1 will remain in effect. The formula will remain changed from now until sometime in the future beyond January 1, when the government may see fit to change it again.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, but just for those changes made in this period and those changes which are designated under this section. There will doubtless be other changes made for which this formula doesn't apply.

Section 12 approved on division.

On section 13.

F. Gingell: I now realize that what I should have done when I first got elected to the House was to sit down and read every single bill all the way through. Then I wouldn't have to stand up on these occasions and ask the Minister of Transportation to explain something in this bill that was in the act before it was changed.

The new section 29(2) says: "The ministry may build, rebuild, repair or protect a bridge on a highway if the cost of the work is provided by a specific vote of the Legislature." That wording is exactly the same as it was in the old section. I just make the assumption that this is one of the Transportation and Highways votes -- one of the many votes that make up your own budget. When it refers to a specific vote of the Legislature, that doesn't mean that a vote is for this particular project only. Does it or doesn't it?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I'm just trying to figure this out. The member seems to be talking about section 29, and we're on section 13 right now.

F. Gingell: Section 13 of Bill 51 deals with section 29 of the old act.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay. I've got it.

I'm just trying to remember what the question was. If the member was asking what vote it comes from, it comes from within the ministry. If that was your question, it comes from within the Ministry of Highways vote.

F. Gingell: The reason I rose to my feet and asked what may be a very simplistic question is that it deals with a section or a wording that I've never seen before in any act. Every ministry runs a whole series of programs, spends a whole bunch of money -- between you all, you spend over $20 billion a year. This just seemed unusual wording. It referred to the ministry being entitled or enabled to do work only if it's covered by a specific vote. One of your votes will have the heading of maintenance and reconstruction of highways. That is a specific vote for doing that kind of work. But this provision, I presume, allows you to do work when you think it's appropriate on highways that are not under your direct jurisdiction, like a municipal highway.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you are correct. It does enable us to do work on roads that are within municipalities. A lot of this work is now done for provincial emergencies in the case of floods, etc. But it does enable us to do work there.

F. Gingell: So the minister's vote -- this year it happens to be vote 55 -- deals with all the usual stuff: highway planning, major projects, highway operations, highway maintenance, highway rehab, highway capital construction, etc. There isn't a classification there that says: funds to be spent on municipal highways that are not provincial highways. So when we talk about a specific vote, I would have thought that there would have been a separate vote. Vote 55 would have covered all these things, and there would a separate vote that would have been needed to cover work to be done under the new section 29(2). But it's just been normal practice that you've done all this work, and it's just been charged to vote 55 this year, or whatever vote number it had in prior years.

Hon. L. Boone: We haven't done much of that work in the past, as I said, because it was done under provincial emergency, but if it was done, it would have just been done under rehab or such a thing as that. It wouldn't have been a specific vote stating "municipal" or anything.

F. Gingell: Now that the ministry has forced back a whole series of roads onto unwilling municipalities, which I'm sure the members are going to discuss, you will see a greater need in the future to have the ability to move in and do work that is necessary, because the municipalities won't have the kind of funds that they will need to maintain some of these roads, which lead from one municipality to the next -- or in my case, from one country to another country -- and all the extra traffic that's caused by that. So does the minister anticipate more work in the future being done under 29(2)?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

B. Barisoff: I have some grave difficulties with this section, because it strikes me that we are downloading further onto municipalities. What's taking place, it seems to me. . . . And we argued this point quite fully in Bill 2 earlier on: when we're going from secondary highways, we seem to be downloading onto municipalities more and more. I think the member for Delta South indicated that it seems like a way that you're finding, in different sections, to alleviate some of these bills that might take place after you've downloaded the secondary highways. Could the minister explain to me exactly what she sees as the meaning of a secondary highway?

Hon. L. Boone: A secondary highway is a municipal road of generally less importance than an arterial road. There's some confusion there with the member. You may be thinking that we have downloaded the arterials. We haven't; we're discussing that. The secondary highways are municipal 

[ Page 6348 ]

roads that we have done some work on in the past, but it usually hasn't been too much. I think that last year we spent approximately $1 million on work on some secondary highways.

[7:45]

B. Barisoff: I guess I gathered that secondary highways will cease to exist, and I'm sure it's going to be quite a heavy burden upon municipalities. I think I covered in estimates with the minister the difference between the cost of roads at 12 years old versus the cost of roads at 18 years of age. I'm just wondering whether the minister has any figures that would indicate the age of some of these secondary highways that they're off-loading onto municipalities -- what age they might be and what kind of costs municipalities would be faced with on an individual basis.

Hon. L. Boone: We are not off-loading these onto municipalities. They are municipal roads already. What the province has done is share some of the costs of those roads in the past, and we are ceasing to do so. They have always belonged to municipalities and will remain there. They're not roads that were in our jurisdiction at all. And no, I don't know what the age of these roads are or anything like that, because they are not our roads.

B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister could indicate what contributions the ministry made to municipalities -- what the ratio was -- prior to instituting this bill, where they're going to eliminate secondary roads.

Hon. L. Boone: Maintenance was 40 percent; on approved capital -- and it had to be approved capital -- it was 50 percent; and for areas with a population size of 1,000 or less it was 75 percent.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister maybe define for me the difference between a secondary highway and an arterial highway so that municipalities know exactly what they're faced with?

Hon. L. Boone: I think the municipalities generally know. An arterial highway is a provincial highway of importance that is within a municipality. A secondary highway is a highway of less general importance than arterial roads, and they are under the possession of the municipality, not just within a municipality. They are actually owned by the municipality.

B. Barisoff: It strikes me, then, that the government will be able to off-load different highways at just the stroke of a pen. They can decide which roads happen to be arterial roads and which roads happen to be secondary roads. By the stroke of a pen they can download all kinds of other highways onto the municipalities, just simply by saying that that's what they feel the designation should be. Could the minister explain whether there's any protection for municipalities such that they wouldn't be put into a situation where, at the whim of government, they can have an off-loading that is far greater than what meets the eye?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said before, the secondary highways will cease to exist, so there will not be a designation for secondary highways. Those have never been owned by the province or been our responsibility. We have in fact assisted with the maintenance and with the capital on those, but they were never owned by us -- the secondary highways.

For the arterial highways, we are currently going through a process with regard to determining some criteria around what an arterial highway is. As the member knows, we're working through the joint council, the UBCM, on that. But you are correct, the province does have the ability and the right to unilaterally declare whether they are in fact arterial roads or provincial highways. In many cases, they're roads that were previously the main highway and through the introduction of new roads have become of lesser importance, and in many cases not the main provincial road. So in fact, they are not considered part of the provincial highway system.

I've met with many of the councils in the last little while, some of whom are concerned -- I met with one yesterday -- about one road, but who clearly admit that another road should in fact be within their jurisdiction because it has a much more municipal bent to it. So we're trying to work within the joint council to determine which are arterial roads and which should justifiably be in municipal jurisdiction.

B. Barisoff: I actually take a little bit of exception to what the minister just said -- that we have roads of lesser value. In the province of British Columbia, considering that we focus so much on our tourist industry, I think that not only are our main highways of value but all of our roads are of value. I don't think that we have a lot of roads of lesser importance.

Looking at what's taking place, now that we've got further into it. . . . I had my doubts looking at the downloading part of section 13. I think that I have more doubts after listening to the answers from the minister on what could take place with a designation process between secondary highways and arterial highways. It gives me great concern to think that we're going down this road -- no pun intended -- to what's taking place here.

I'm very concerned, too, about whether the minister has. . . . I know we spent hours and hours of debate with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on whether there was consultation with the municipalities. I hope we don't find that we're in the same consultation process that the member for Peace River South indicated, where we're consulting in a telephone booth. I think it's more important that we're looking at broader consultation with all the municipal councils throughout the province. I'm just wondering how many councils and cities throughout the province the minister has consulted with, because this is certainly going to affect a lot of dollars within the province of British Columbia and a lot of councils.

Hon. L. Boone: The consultation that's taking place is on the arterial highways. That has nothing to do with this section of the act. This act merely deals with the secondary highways. We are not consulting on that; that is taking place. We are removing the secondary highways from the Highway Act. We are consulting on the arterial highways, but that is not a part of this section.

B. Barisoff: I think it does concern. . . . When you look at the designation between an arterial highway and a secondary 

[ Page 6349 ]

highway, I think that the consultation has to take place, because what you're doing is giving cabinet the ability to redesignate these roads. So I think they all should be of concern because of the fact that you can redesignate at the slash of a pen. So I think that it's more important, when we're talking to councils, that we're talking about not only secondary but arterial highways, just in case we're looking at redesignating some of them. If we put them into the category of secondary highways, it actually puts the onus of responsibility on councils to maintain them.

Hon. L. Boone: I want to go through this once more.

The secondary highways are the part of this act that is being removed. There is nothing in this act that changes our ability to change the status of the arterial highways; we've always had the ability to do that. In this section we are removing the mention of the secondary highways.

The consultations that are going on with municipalities do not. . . . We are not consulting on secondary highways. I never said that I was consulting on secondary highways. We did not take that back in January, when we said we were going to talk through the UBCM. The process taking place is dealing with arterial roads only, not secondary roads. I made it clear, and in fact the UBCM never requested that we review the secondary-highway issue. They actually requested that we review the arterial roads, and that is what we are doing. But there is no change with regard to our ability to declassify arterial roads. We have always had that ability, and this act doesn't give us any more rights than we had before.

R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions, but I think the consultation started with municipalities shortly after the minister started downloading highways last year, without any consultation. So I guess the process now is that she is starting to meet with some of these municipalities to find out how they're going to go about this.

Was I correct in understanding the minister to say there are 360 kilometres of secondary highways within British Columbia? And if I'm correct in that. . . . Am I correct in the 360 kilometres? The minister nods. Do all 360 kilometres fall within a municipal boundary?

Hon. L. Boone: They have to, because they are in fact municipal roads; they are not provincial highways. They are municipal roads, and they're called secondary highways. They are municipal secondary highways; they are owned by the municipalities.

R. Neufeld: I know this is an ability for the ministry to unload all kinds of costs onto the municipalities, so it's no secret. But if the 360 kilometres are all within a municipal boundary, could she give me an example if any of that road happens to be in my constituency? And if so, which one?

Hon. L. Boone: We can find no secondary highways that are in your area, hon. member. We're checking through Fort St. John and Fort Nelson -- I don't know which other one. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: We've checked Hudson's Hope and can't see anything in any of those areas where there's a secondary highway.

[8:00]

Secondly, in section 28(2), where you talk about consultation with the municipal councils, if the municipality has some disagreements with you, is there some process through that consultation that there can be some mediation brought in to try and deal with those issues? Or is the ministry just going to bring down the heavy hand?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be working through the joint council which was recently established. That's where we're currently working on the arterial highways, and we will continue to work through the joint council on any difficulties we have.

R. Neufeld: The first part of my question wasn't answered. Of the 360 kilometres, do any of them fall within a regional district?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they're all within municipalities.

K. Krueger: The minister has been saying throughout this debate that the secondary highways are all within municipalities. The definition of secondary highway under this same numbered section in the existing Highway Act doesn't say that. I submit to the minister that it says: ". . .'secondary highways,' comprising highways of less general importance that, on the recommendation of the minister approved by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are classified as secondary highways." It doesn't say anything about them being within municipalities. Does the minister have some reason to be using a different definition than this section used in the existing Highway Act?

Hon. L. Boone: I have to go back to the old act, because the definition is struck from the new act. But under the old act, under the classification of highways, it says under section 28(2)(b): ". . .secondary highways, after agreements made with and ratified by bylaw of the municipal council of every municipality through or within the limits of which the highway runs or is intended to run, approving of the proposed classification and route of the highway." It must be approved by a municipality, therefore it must be within a municipality.

K. Krueger: I submit that what the minister just read is from section 28(2)(b) of what the minister is referring to as the old act. But it's not the old act; it's the present act. It's the one the minister wants to amend. It's the existing act, the current act, not the old act. And if she flips back one page and looks at section 27, she'll see the actual definition of secondary highway, which she sets out to delete in the preamble to section 13 of this so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. As usual, these aren't miscellaneous things at all. They are very important things -- poison pills buried within an omnibus act that are very offensive to the municipalities and taxpayers involved.

So I say to the minister again: this is the definition of secondary highway according to the existing act -- not some old act, the existing act -- and it says nothing about municipalities. I ask whether that isn't a fact.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's a fact. It says it there. I'm not going to argue with the member as to what it says with regard to the definition. But if you read through it, you'll find clearly that it has to be approved by a municipality. It has to go through a municipality; therefore it's a municipal road.

[ Page 6350 ]

The amendment that we are dealing with removes this from the act. I don't intend to get into an argument with the member about a definition in the previous act, because this amendment is removing that definition and removing the whole section that deals with secondary highways.

K. Krueger: I understand very clearly that things are being deleted and definitions and so on, and in a rare flash of honesty this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act actually says on page 6 in the explanation of section 13: "This means that, beginning with the 1997-98 fiscal year of the government, part 3 of the act will no longer provide a mechanism for the ministry to share with municipalities the costs of the construction and maintenance of 'secondary' municipal highways." In other words: "Gee whiz, municipalities, even if we'd like to help you we can't, because we removed our ability to do that with Bill 51 in 1997, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, so you're stuck. And not only that, we the almighty province get to decide which are arterial highways. And if we don't designate the highways that run through your municipalities as arterial, then you're just out of luck. You've just got to pay the bills yourself" -- which is really the intent of this downloading portion of this act.

The act that's being amended isn't a particularly old act. It's already been amended in the past by this same NDP government, and curiously, this section doesn't include a definition of what is meant by a municipality. That's a pretty key omission, because if you look at section 29 of what the minister has called the old act, which is actually the existing act; it's not old at all -- in fact, the ink isn't all that dry on it. . . . If you look at subsection (2) of section 29, which this so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is deleting, it says: "If a secondary highway runs in or through a municipality with a population of less than 1,000, the minister may, in his or her discretion, contribute not more than 75% of the costs of construction and maintenance of the highway."

That may be a pretty significant little deletion, and it's not even referred to in the explanations of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, so that may be pretty alarming to a lot of small municipalities in British Columbia or a lot of small communities that wouldn't even call themselves municipalities and probably wouldn't meet the definition under other acts. So how does the minister explain that curious deletion?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think it's curious at all. You've already said that it clearly states in the explanation that: ". . .beginning with the 1997-98 fiscal year of the government. . .the act will no longer provide a mechanism for the ministry to share with municipalities the costs of construction and maintenance of 'secondary' municipal highways."

That's what it does, and we're deleting this section. I already stated earlier. . . . My critic asked me how much was shared, and I explained to him that it was 75 percent for the smaller municipalities, and I gave the rates. So there is nothing secretive about it. It clearly states that we are no longer going to be sharing, and I clearly stated that last year, '96-97, the amount that was approved for maintenance costs was a little over $1 million. That's the amount that we paid in maintenance costs for '96-97, which we cost-shared with the municipalities. In fact, in '96-97 we paid nothing for capital. So we approved no capital improvements for secondary highways.

You may say that it's a huge off-loading. It's a minor off-loading, but it is a downloading. It is removing costs that we have shared with the municipalities. I recognize that, and so do municipalities. When I have met with them I have been very clear and very upfront with them that we are in fact reviewing the arterial roads, but no, we are not reviewing the secondary-highway section.

K. Krueger: In the case of communities such as Barri�re, Clearwater and Blue River that wouldn't refer to themselves as municipalities, and considering the lack of a definition of what the revised act will refer to as a municipality, will there be any off-loading -- or downloading, as the minister has put it -- of costs to those communities or any others like them in my constituency or anywhere near Kamloops -- or for that matter anywhere in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: No, there are no secondary highways in Blue River, no secondary highways in Barri�re. What was the other community, hon. member?

K. Krueger: Clearwater.

Hon. L. Boone: There are none in Clearwater.

K. Krueger: What will the cost be to the city of Kamloops in this downloading? What costs will the city of Kamloops have to pay in the coming years that the province has borne until now?

Hon. L. Boone: Kamloops has no secondary highways.

K. Krueger: I didn't hear that very clearly, and I ask the minister's indulgence to repeat it. I think she said that Kamloops has no secondary highways.

Hon. L. Boone: That's correct.

K. Krueger: The minister said that they have given some additional dollars to the municipalities. I wonder if she would repeat the amount and explain whether that was a one-shot deal or whether that will be done in future and consecutive years.

Hon. L. Boone: Those were done through the equalization grants that were announced last fall. Those were done through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and I really can't comment as to whether they will be ongoing or not. Each budget is approved every year, and I can't comment on his budget.

K. Krueger: Just to make things very clear for my constituents, the minister said that Kamloops has no secondary highways, and I take that as a commitment from the minister that there will be no cost to the city of Kamloops as a result of the changes introduced with these amendments in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. L. Boone: Because Kamloops has no secondary highways, there will be no cost to Kamloops.

T. Nebbeling: A quick question to the minister. When a municipality and the Ministry of Highways agree to a cost-sharing project, part of the right that the Ministry of Highways also has is the approval right for an official community plan for a community -- subdivision approval and so on. This particular approval right has often added costs to a project, because the Ministry of Highways would say, "Okay, a road 

[ Page 6351 ]

should be at least in the form that we dictate," or: "We would like to see an added element on that road." If the municipality would go along with that, then cost-sharing was part of that secondary road. Now that the grant money is no longer available -- the cost-sharing program no longer is available -- does that mean that the ministry no longer has the right of approval for secondary roads?

[8:15]

T. Nebbeling: I speak for my own community, and I remember very well that the requirements under the subdivision were very stringent. If the minister is saying, "Yes, we will remove the cost-sharing funding that was available in the past to build these roads, but we will still keep the rights to look at the secondary roads to the arterial roads," then. . . .

Often the reason that secondary roads were built to a certain standard that the ministry wanted to see happen was because the cost-sharing money was coming towards the project, thereby it was affordable. If we remove the grant money, then I don't think it is right -- and it would really be a concern for municipalities -- if the ministry still has the power to indicate construction requirements and other elements that add costs to secondary roads that are totally under the control of the municipalities and at the cost of the taxpayers in those communities.

Hon. L. Boone: There are no secondary roads in Whistler, so you would not have been getting approval. There is controlled access from arterial roads onto the highways, but they're not secondary roads.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the label is wrong, but that is because of the way Whistler is. It's a valley floor, and there is one highway and one road to the left and right, and that's it. So every road in Whistler is a road off an arterial road.

The problem still remains, Madam Minister, that the costs of these roads that come off the arterial road are exorbitant or excessive to roads that do not have the need for subdivisionary requirement. Would the minister consider that that can put, again, an extra burden on municipalities that are in that situation -- in particular, communities that do go through mountain areas, where the valley floor does not allow roads that are not coming off arterial roads?

Hon. L. Boone: Nothing has changed with regard to that. The only thing that is changing right here has to do with secondary roads -- secondary highways -- not arterial roads at all.

T. Nebbeling: Just to finish it off, then. Not arterial roads, but roads coming off arterial roads -- are they not considered to be secondary roads? And are they not the roads that we have in Whistler?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they're not secondary highways under the definition in the existing act.

B. Barisoff: Could I get a list from the minister in the next couple of days of all the secondary highways that will be deleted, so that I can look at them? I have another concern. If there are any secondary highways in the South Okanagan or the Boundary country that are being deleted -- in OK Falls, Oliver, Osoyoos, Kaleden, Keremeos, over towards the Grand Forks area. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: We'd be happy to get that list to you. There is a lengthy list of the various roads here. Is it okay if I get that list to you within the next couple of days?

B. Barisoff: That would be good. I was just concerned about one thing: whether a particular road in Oliver was considered a secondary highway and what takes place when the main road -- the arterial road -- has closed for some reason like an accident or whatever it might be. When they're going to use some of the secondary roads that they're now turning responsibility of over to the municipalities, with heavy trucks and stuff going over, would they be stuck with some of the cost of the damage that would be done?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, we're not turning the responsibility over to the municipalities. They've always been the responsibility of the municipalities. We've just assisted them with some of the costs. But they've always been the responsibility of the municipalities.

G. Abbott: It's a wonderful night to be a Municipal Affairs critic, because my colleagues have pretty well asked all the questions that I intended to and asked them with much greater brevity than I would ever be capable of. So I just have a couple of brief questions.

Just to be sure I've got this right: I think it's clear that effective the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1997, any and all agreements regarding secondary highways across the province that have been developed between the province and municipalities will cease to have force and effect. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. What I further understand from this bill and from the minister's comments is that there is currently a consultative process -- I gather through the joint council and elsewhere between the province and municipalities -- with respect to maintenance of all arterials. The thing that puzzles me at the moment, from section 29(1) -- it's under section 13, but in here it's 29(1) -- is: "Subject to subsection (2), the cost of construction and maintenance of arterial highways must be borne entirely by the ministry." I guess that what puzzles me from that is: what, then, is there to negotiate?

Hon. L. Boone: We wouldn't be negotiating any of those things. As you remember, last fall we announced that we were declassifying some of the arterial roads. We are negotiating -- not necessarily negotiating. . . . We are discussing this with the municipalities to get their feedback on concerns they have about the arterial roads and which ones they feel have a clearly provincial responsibility and should remain in the provincial domain, as compared to ones that are strictly municipal roads and should turn over to the municipality. So that's what we are discussing. Arterial roads are clearly our roads, and we are still responsible for them.

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned, fairly early on in the discussion, that at least in some municipal cases, some of the cost of maintenance was to be offset in some manner. I would just like to be clearer on what that mechanism was. Was it an addition to the equalization grant? What was the mechanism used to offset the additional costs that arose?

[ Page 6352 ]

Hon. L. Boone: It was within the equalization grants. The equalization grants that were presented last fall offset some of the costs here to the municipalities. . .as some of the other items that the Minister of Municipal Affairs dealt with.

G. Abbott: The issue of secondary highways and secondary-highways grants has been an important one to municipalities. Last January the Union of B.C. Municipalities got an opinion from a legal firm which stated, in part:

"You have asked for my opinion as to whether section 32 emphasizes the method of sharing the cost of secondary highways, or if municipalities tender a sum and in doing so have a legitimate expectation that the province will match that amount. In my opinion, there is a mandatory obligation upon the ministry to contribute 50 percent of the cost of construction of secondary highways and 40 percent of the cost of maintenance."

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.

Section 13 approved on division.

On section 14.

R. Neufeld: In this section I have just one quick question, I believe, that deals with arterial highways. It says, under subsection (1): "The control of the construction and maintenance of every arterial highway is vested in the ministry." Would that mean that the total cost of construction and maintenance of all arterial highways that go through municipalities or regional districts will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- 100 percent of the cost?

Hon. L. Boone: There are no arterial highways in regional districts. They are in municipalities. As you can see up above there: "Control of construction and maintenance of highways in municipalities." Yes, we are responsible for construction and maintenance in municipalities, but only the actual road. If the municipality wants to put in sidewalks, then they are responsible for that. We are not responsible for the sidewalks.

R. Neufeld: I find it hard to believe that an arterial highway will only go through a community, not through a regional district. It has to go somewhere and come from somewhere, so that part kind of baffles me a bit.

But secondly, I guess what I'm asking the minister is: the arterial highways. . . . For instance, I would assume the minister is talking about the highways through the community of Fort St. John, 100th Street and 100th Avenue. Will they now become the total responsibility, 100 percent, of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways? That's what I would read section 30(1) to say in this section.

Hon. L. Boone: Nothing has changed. They have always been our responsibility. In this section that you're talking about here, the only thing it does is remove the reference to secondary highways. This section is the same as it was previously. There are no changes whatsoever, other than removing the reference to secondary highways.

R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult. But I guess there was a cost-sharing arrangement. I'll take it that way.

I'll try this way. It was a cost-sharing arrangement with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for 100th Street and 100th Avenue through Fort St. John -- between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the community. Am I to read this section that those two specific roads will now be the total responsibility, and the ministry will pay the total cost of any construction and maintenance of those highways? That's what I'm asking.

M. Sihota: While that conference is going on, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

M. Sihota: I know it's 8:30 p.m., and it's not every day that we get visitors here. But in the gallery today are a number of people, only two of whom I will introduce. The first is Mr. Ralph Moore, who is a writer, publisher, editor and occasionally a Marxist, he tells me, who is here today to watch the proceedings and learn a little bit about how the Legislature works. I'm sure if he stays here till 10, he'll have learned much.

Joining him is Chris Gainor, who is communications director for our caucus, whose claim to fame is that the last time he was introduced in this Legislature his name was spelled wrong. So I thought I'd introduce him now and advise Hansard that it's Gainor with a G. I ask all members to give them both a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: The actual road construction -- the base, etc. -- for those roads is our responsibility, but there are times when there is cost-sharing. If there's curb and guttering, if there are sidewalks, if there's some drainage that they want to connect up to some side streets, if there's some lighting that deals with the side streets as well, then some of those items are in fact cost-shared with the municipalities.

[8:30]

R. Neufeld: I understand very well the part, subsection (2), about drainage or sidewalks and those kinds of things. I guess what I'm trying to ask the minister is: is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways going to take over complete responsibility, 100 percent, for total maintenance of the arterial highways that go through the city of Fort St. John -- 100th Street and 100th Avenue -- as it says in the bill? They will take it over 100 percent.

Hon. L. Boone: I think the member is trying to trick me into something there, and I'm not quite sure what. As I said, there is nothing changed in this section. The same responsibilities exist there.

But there are things that are cost-shared. When we plow the roads in the wintertime, we plow them. The municipalities apparently are responsible for picking up the snow and taking it away. So there are some cost-shared items there. But this section doesn't change anything from what it was in the past. The only thing we have changed is taking out the reference to secondary highways.

R. Neufeld: I certainly wouldn't want to trick the minister; that's not my intention. But the minister can hardly blame me for trying to get a few more dollars into the north on some of our terrible roads. I was just hoping against hope that the 

[ Page 6353 ]

minister would finally stand up and say yes, the share that the community of Fort St. John has put in -- the hundreds and hundreds -- will be taken over by the ministry, as it says in this section. But I'll leave it at that.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

G. Abbott: I have a question on section 17. The understanding I have from this is that the discretion with respect to the setting of remuneration for the directors of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is being transferred from the board itself to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- i.e., the cabinet. Is there any particular reason why the government has undertaken to make this change? Shall we await the necessary minister?

Hon. L. Boone: It was simply to put it in line with other Crown corporations for the accountability.

Sections 17 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

G. Wilson: Section 25 has received a good deal of publicity over the last couple of days. It deals with the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act. I want to put a couple of issues on the record as we go through this section in committee.

Before I do, for clarification -- because there has been some commentary in the press, particularly in the Vancouver Sun, where my name was printed, with a huge amount of money that I would be in receipt of after this has passed. . . . In fact, I should put on the record that I am not now, nor have I ever been -- this sounds like a bit like a period in American history -- on the pension plan.

That is an option that every MLA has when they are elected into this parliament. If they choose when they're elected not to join the plan, they don't have to join the plan. It's not like other pensions where, if you are employed, you're automatically a member. So for those people who have suggested that once you're an MLA you're in the plan, they're wrong. Those people who say they are strongly opposed to MLAs having a pension can simply choose not to join it. If they choose to join it, then one assumes they have read through what that pension plan is all about.

Having made a judgment on its value and whether they should be a member of it, one assumes that they then sign on and join it with the conscious decision to become a functional part of an MLA pension. So I find it perplexing in the extreme for people to take such a strong moral position on whether these MLAs should have a pension, when they have selected themselves to join it. I find that perplexing in the extreme.

The other point I want to put on the record is that I believe that no matter who is employed in this province, whether they're an MLA or anybody else, they essentially have an accrualment. They can accrue benefits, and it strikes me as really peculiar why a rather large and somewhat vocal group of watchdogs out there would think that pensions for MLAs are something that shouldn't be. I just find that very hard to understand.

Most people in business I have spoken to understand that MLAs should have a pension option available to them, and I think most rational people believe that a fair market-driven pension -- one where there is an employee contribution -- is something that is acceptable. So I really don't understand why there is this rather peculiar position taken that suggests, even for a minute, that because you happen to be an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly, you should somehow void or give up or nullify your right to have an option on a pension just like any other British Columbian. I find it very difficult to understand.

When I reflect back and read in Hansard the debate in 1995, my comment at that time was this -- and if I can very briefly read it, I said: "I think it's time that, as elected members, we challenge those people to come forward and explain to us why an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly shouldn't have an adequate, properly funded pension, like any other working person in British Columbia." I reissue that challenge tonight, because it strikes me that this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

This is not something that is gold-plated. This is something that simply, in the language that's written here, captures people who, it can be argued, legally have an accrued benefit from 1991 to 1996, and it provides them the option for that accrued benefit to be acted on. If people who didn't join -- and I'm one who is now eligible -- wish to go and pay out of their own pockets to buy up those pension benefits, spending their own money to buy them up, they should be allowed to do so. That's not dissimilar to any other pension option out there in the market. It's pretty straightforward and pretty standard.

What I find really a bit hypocritical is that people who have signed onto the plan, people who consciously have joined the plan, now stand in opposition to others who didn't join but who may now wish to buy into it. I find that really a bit hypocritical.

I think that when we look at this section, the one thing we have to be absolutely clear about, on the first point, is that this is essentially acting on accrued benefits. It allows people to recapture those benefits from 1991 to 1996 that have been lost. That's number one. Number two is that you don't have to join once you are an MLA, and if you are on the plan, it's because you elected to be on it and not because somebody put you on it. You made a conscious choice to be on that plan, which obviously says you must have approved and accepted it.

The third point that I think is important to make is that if we are to attract intelligent people into this profession, people who we want to provide the best service for British Columbians, then we are going to have to recognize that a proper remuneration package is essential. You simply aren't going to get people into this profession to do what we do if you do not adequately and properly provide them with remuneration.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Let me say that I assume that those people who feel morally and strongly opposed to this will today stand and speak against it. They will stand and vote against it, because this is, in my judgment, a pension that simply says to British Columbians that we're going to treat the profession of legislative member as one that will be equal to and conceptually the same as anybody else working in British Columbia.

I simply don't believe that we should cater to a vocal minority who do not understand fully the compensation package of MLAs and who whip up the hysteria of the taxpayers, thinking that somehow this pension plan is something we should not accept. That's been my position all along, 

[ Page 6354 ]

consistently. So if we pass this, I think all we are doing is saying that we are putting in place a benefit package which is fair, equitable and provides opportunities for people who give up their abilities to earn -- considerably -- by coming in to act as MLAs.

Let me close my comment on this section by saying that if we're expecting MLAs to divest themselves of investment, to register the moneys they have with a conflict-of-interest commissioner, to make themselves less able to have a secondary income or earning power -- if we're expecting all those sorts of things when we look at this section of the act, we are presumably also saying that we're going to treat MLAs with some level of respect and dignity and suggest that that pension benefit should be available to them.

For those people who think that this is somehow a breach of public trust, I would expect that this is their opportunity tonight -- in fact, I would encourage them -- to stand up and speak against it and, when it comes time to vote for this section, to stand up and vote against it.

[8:45]

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

Section 29 approved on division.

Sections 30 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have an amendment to section 40, in your possession, hon. Chair, I believe.

[SECTION 40, by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

(a) in subsection (4) (a), by striking out "where a grievance has been taken in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement by the member and the grievance procedure has been included", and.]

Section 40 as amended approved.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure that we've canvassed this enough, and we've argued the point through and through. But I have to get up and express the fact that I feel very strongly that this downloading shouldn't take place and that I will be voting against this section simply because of the fact that the downloading onto municipalities and the lack of consultation are consistent with what has taken place with section 13 and Bill 2. I don't think it's warranted that we go through every bit of it again to argue the same points over again, so I will be voting against it.

Section 42 approved on division.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

On section 45.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 45 on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 45 (2), by deleting "11 to 16" and substituting "13 to 16".]

Section 45 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 51, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 19.

FISHERIES RENEWAL ACT

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. van Dongen: I just want to get a better understanding of what is envisioned in this section under "purpose." First of all, is it envisioned that Fisheries Renewal B.C. would be strictly involved in program delivery? Or would it encompass other possibilities?

Hon. C. Evans: Just program delivery.

J. van Dongen: Given the purpose set out in section 2, could it also get involved in regulatory issues or policy development? Could the minister comment on those specific issues?

Hon. C. Evans: Not regulatory issues and not policy development.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the purpose -- and I don't know if this is the right section to ask this question -- the auditor general divides Crown corporations into three categories: one with an economic focus, one with a social focus and one with government service focus. Would the purpose of fish renewal be considered primarily an economic focus?

[ Page 6355 ]

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

J. van Dongen: Would Fisheries Renewal have any sort of advocacy role for the fishing industry or the fishing sector?

Hon. C. Evans: It is not going to be a lobbying organization. We won't find them here asking us to pass bills and the like, so they won't be advocating in that manner. But it is my guess that they will attempt to portray the fishing industry as a good opportunity to the general public.

J. van Dongen: Would it be fair to say that it will be patterned after Forest Renewal? It could be promoting its initiatives within the sector -- that kind of thing. We'd see newspaper ads and that kind of thing. So we'd see a form of advocacy from that perspective.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I think so.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. van Dongen: As I said in my second reading comments, I find that section 3 is a very critical section of this bill. I think that the success or failure of Fisheries Renewal B.C. is very dependent on the successful selection of directors and the successful commissioning of the board of directors to make this organization work effectively. I have a number of questions, and I have an amendment that I'd like to propose.

First of all, just by way of clarification, could the minister tell us, in terms of the representation under section 3(4) -- and this would be the non-government directors. . . . Under section 3(2) there would be one or two directors representing the provincial government, and under section 3(3) there would be one or two directors nominated by the federal government -- or at least that possibility. But under section 3(4) there would be, as I understand, eight to ten directors. Does the minister or the cabinet have in mind any specific way of nominating those directors?

Hon. C. Evans: The membership will be chosen by cabinet, and we'll try to pick reasonable people with various hats, who can see the industry from various perspectives, as opposed to people with a narrow perspective.

J. van Dongen: Let me ask the minister this question: would sectors like the commercial fishing sector or sport fishing sector have specific representation on this board of directors?

Hon. C. Evans: I would hope that there would always be people on the board who would understand those sectors. I think that's a perfectly reasonable expectation, but there will be no seat reserved with the name "commercial sector" or "sport sector."

J. van Dongen: Will aquaculture be considered part of fish renewal? Will it come under the purview of fish renewal?

Hon. C. Evans: It could if the board so chose.

J. van Dongen: So what the minister meant by his last answer was that if the board of directors so chose, Fisheries Renewal B.C. could get involved in issues affecting aquaculture. I'm wondering if the minister could be a bit more specific about that.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister confirm my previous question that the board of directors could choose to get involved in issues involving aquaculture? Can they do that within the mandate of the board of directors?

Hon. C. Evans: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the questions sort of relate to the mandate section -- section 5 of the bill -- and it would be up to the board to describe their business plan at any given moment. And should they so choose, they will describe that.

[9:00]

In terms of selecting the people to the board of directors, will there be an attempt to distinguish between what I would term direct stakeholders -- i.e., people who make their living in the fishing sector generally: commercial fishermen or sport fishermen or whatever -- and indirect stakeholders, say someone representing a community? Will there be any attempt to distinguish between those two and look at a ratio of people within that group of eight or ten that represent direct stakeholders and represent indirect stakeholders?

Hon. C. Evans: No.

J. van Dongen: So in terms of the way the legislation is written and the government intends to implement it, it's conceivable that there may only be one or two people who have a direct interest in the fishing sector from an economic perspective.

Hon. C. Evans: It's conceivable, although I would consider it highly unlikely. There might be people who had a direct interest and are now retired. There might be young people who aspire to a direct involvement.

My answer to the hon. member's question about a ratio is: no, there is no ratio built in -- nor intended. However, it is expected that these folks will in the main be people with a life experience in fishing or coastal communities or biology -- keeping in mind that it always makes sense to have somebody on a board with a distant perspective. And there is no fixed ratio of any sort.

J. van Dongen: I think this may be an appropriate point to ask a question on one of the issues that I raised in second reading. This deals with the issue of what interests the directors represent, and I think the minister has partly answered the question. But I take it that the board of directors will not be representing specific sectors or a specific interest. They will be charged with making decisions that are in the interests of fisheries renewal, following general government policy and what would be considered public interest. Would that be a fair assessment of what the board of directors, individually and collectively, is expected to do?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister outline the selection process as he sees it? There are some criteria listed under 

[ Page 6356 ]

(4)(a), (b), (c) and (d) for these eight to ten directors. Could the minister give us a little bit more detail in terms of the process of identifying and selecting those individuals?

Hon. C. Evans: It's not a real big board, so I'm going to repeat myself a little bit. The process will involve looking for people who can maybe represent a broader perspective rather than a narrow one. I will prepare a suggested list, offer it to cabinet, and cabinet will choose.

J. van Dongen: How would you identify the list -- through the normal process of your staff identifying people? Is that how you'd identify the list? Is there any sort of formalized selection and identification process?

Hon. C. Evans: It might interest the hon. member to know that 50 percent of the mail I get is from people who would like to be on that list. So it's not hard to get names, and I would like to invite any hon. member present in the chamber or reading this on the record: if they have suggestions they would like to make, they can make them to me.

We have various interests in the province, and they send in names. We have excellent staff and they go out in the community, and they come back with names. And then there's even thoughts of my own.

J. van Dongen: Well, I can see that the minister's a popular guy.

Maybe on that note, I'd like to table an amendment, if I could. I have given a copy of this amendment to the minister a day or so ago.

This proposed amendment to subsection 3(1) basically involves an addition to what's in the subsection right now. This amendment is based on recommendations out of the auditor general's "Crown Corporations Governance Study," where he identifies a need to have a more formalized process of establishing criteria for people to be appointed to a Crown corporation board such as this. He also recommends that in the course of that process, the selection process and the proposed appointments involve, to some degree, the Legislative Assembly.

In my amendment, I've suggested that the process and the proposed appointments should be passed through a select standing committee with a responsibility for fisheries. That basically sums up my amendment, hon. Chair. Maybe you can give me some guidance as to how to proceed. I'd like to move this amendment.

The Chair: Hon. member, listening to your argument and comparing it to the bill, in my view, it looks like it imposes an obligation on the Crown, including expenditure of dollars. That's only the prerogative of the Crown. So I'm going to rule your amendment out of order.

F. Gingell: I was a little surprised, hon. Chair, by your ruling. I guess it isn't. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, comments on rulings of the Chair are not permissible. The question at hand is section 3 of Bill 19.

F. Gingell: Am I allowed to comment on the proposed amendment?

The Chair: It's been ruled out of order.

F. Gingell: Okay. Then I will comment, if I may, on section 3, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Good.

F. Gingell: This government continually talks about accountability. This government continually suggests that processes have to be more open. The auditor general, selected by all members of this House on both sides, has come forward with proposals that make these appointments more open.

They can be done, I suggest, at no additional cost to the government. You just do it differently. Here's an opportunity to do it differently, in a manner that, I suggest, will give Fisheries Renewal B.C. -- an important organization -- greater credibility in the eyes of the public. Greater credibility in the eyes of the public is important. So here is a suggestion that it just be taken away from behind closed doors, done in a more open and more forthright manner. No one's got anything to hide.

I hear the minister actually saying there's a process that is very similar to the way this amendment is worded. I don't think it is very different.

The Chair: Hon. member, I think we just ruled the amendment out of order. So discussion on the amendment is also out of order. Proceed.

F. Gingell: But hon. Chair, I'm just speaking to the issue of how the directors are appointed.

That happens to be a useful piece of paper. I will fold it down so that amendment doesn't appear. I'm not talking about the amendment.

Hon. Chair, here is an opportunity for the minister to ensure that processes that he will do in a proper, forthright and open manner will continue to be done in a forthright, open and proper manner by whatever government happens to replace this government at the next election. It would give you the feeling of comfort that it won't get changed and that the appointment of directors would continue in the open, forthright and sensible manner that you propose to use. We were just trying to help by solidifying a little more, making it a little more clearly understood.

So if the minister would like to make this amendment, which we have sent over to you, as I understand it. . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I. . . .

F. Gingell: . . .so you have a chance. . . .

I'm sorry. This piece of paper that we've sent over. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that also was ruled out of order. The member, I think, will now take his seat.

F. Gingell: Sorry?

The Chair: The member will now take his seat, please. Thank you. Any reference to the motion, any reference to the amendment, is out of order.

J. van Dongen: I still would like to ask the minister about this issue, and I refer the minister to page 24 of the auditor general's "Crown Corporations Governance Study," where he sets out a four-stage process for identifying directors and 

[ Page 6357 ]

selecting them. Basically I'll sum them up by saying: identifying the skills and experience required; seeking expressions of interest for these positions; evaluating the applicants against those objective criteria; and selecting from the applicants the person most likely to be an effective member of the board. I'm wondering if the minister would undertake to review that section and page of the report and consider informally putting in place such a process.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd be pleased to review that section and to consider how I might live up to the intent the hon. member would like me to consider.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the accountability of the board of Fisheries Renewal B.C., who will that board of directors report to?

Hon. C. Evans: The board will report to the minister. However, there are sections of this act that require the board to be public, in terms of transparency, in ways that will have it also accountable to the general public. I'm sure the hon. member recognizes that these ways are somewhat novel and are perhaps models for accountability of a different sort than we're used to.

J. van Dongen: The minister is correct, in that I think the section that establishes a public process is an innovative one and one that is interesting to me. I think it's critical that there is a clear, formalized understanding of accountability from the board of directors to, I would assume, the minister. Is there any intent or policy in terms of whether the minister would meet with the board of directors on a quarterly basis or twice a year? Is there anything in the works in terms of a formal relationship between the board of directors and the minister?

Hon. C. Evans: No, there is nothing structurally built in, and, yes, if you're asking me my personal intent, it would be my intent to work with the board, especially in its early stages, in a fairly close relationship.

[9:15]

Hon. C. Evans: Actually, unlike MLAs, there are training programs that are quite standard for boards of directors in Crown corporations. It's only folks in this chamber who come in without any skills and don't get taught any.

J. van Dongen: Well, that probably explains one of our problems. I have just one other question -- well, a couple of questions. I don't see anywhere that it rules out that MLAs could sit on this board of directors. Could there possibly be one or two MLAs on this board of directors?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

J. van Dongen: Now, in terms of subsection (2), one or two directors may be individuals who represent government. Could that be either a staff person from the ministry or an MLA, or would it strictly be a staff person?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I would ask the minister to clarify his last answer. I don't know what he meant by yes.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it could be either.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the federal-provincial agreement, if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council chose to make an amendment in terms of the board of directors under 4(a), "respecting the appointment or composition of the board," could I have the minister's assurance that that would only happen with respect to a specific agreement or a part of an agreement with the federal government, that that would be the only circumstance under which section 3 could be modified?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. van Dongen: Subsection 5(2) says: "Fisheries Renewal BC must comply with any general or special direction, with respect to the exercise of its powers, duties and functions, that is made by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Again, that would be directions provided on a formalized basis. In other words, there would be a document setting out a direction to that board of directors.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it would be in an order.

J. van Dongen: In terms of subsection 5(1)(e), the long-term strategic plan, I note that section 5(1) is worded: ". . .may undertake programs. . . ." But is there any thinking that it would be their number one job to develop a strategic plan? I know this section gives them the power to do so. But is there any thinking by government that that would be their number one job?

Hon. C. Evans: The government attaches considerable priority to this section, because it will assist us to do our job. However, the board will act as a board, and the board will understand that their main function is to deliver programs and will probably see the plan as the job to get done before they get on to what it is that they believe is their real function.

J. van Dongen: I just want to express one concern, and then I have one more question on this section. The concern is with respect to subsection (1)(d), working with communities to develop strategic plans. Again, my concern would be that I think it's important to pay particular attention and give particular emphasis to what I call "direct stakeholders" -- i.e., people who make their living and generate economic activity in this sector, as opposed to someone in a community or a group within a community who do not have a direct economic interest. I just have a concern about that and wanted to express that.

Secondly, under subsection (d)(ii), "the development of local infrastructure. . . ." I wonder if the minister could just give an example of what would be considered local infrastructure that would qualify under this section.

[ Page 6358 ]

Hon. C. Evans: In answer to the hon. member's philosophical statement, I would just like to say that I agree with him. In answer to his question, I'll give you a couple of examples.

One is that we have a couple of fish plants in Ucluelet, and their existence changed the sewage outfall and water intake needs of the village. So infrastructure related to the village also related to the ability of people in the fishing industry to make a living. Another example would be docking facilities, the maintenance of off-loading cranes or something in docks in communities so that the fleet can tie up.

I. Chong: My apologies to the minister if this question has been answered earlier. If not, what I would like to ask the minister is regarding some of the strategic investments as stated in section 5(1)(b). In looking at it, everything seems to make a lot of sense in terms of partnership with fisheries sectors in communities and all those examples that are listed in that paragraph. The one area I am not entirely clear on -- and I am wondering if the minister can share with me -- is "supporting seafood and destination tourism marketing initiatives." Can the minister provide some sort of guideline or outline as to what that may entail in terms of destination tourism marketing initiatives that are supposedly in this mandate?

Hon. C. Evans: Fisheries Renewal is supposed to deal with all sectors of fishing and fish communities and business communities. Sport fishing is one of those sectors. There are people who come to B.C. on purpose to catch fish. Some of them obey the law and are good people, and we like that.

I. Chong: I would have to say sure, those who fish here and are happy and leave some money in our economy and help the economy. . . . We like that, too, on this side of the House.

I suppose what I would like to know from the minister, since he mentions recreational fishery as part of the tourism marketing initiatives he is implying here. . . . But was there something more specific? As I understand it, destination tourism marketing is now in fact dealt with through the new Crown corporation established through Tourism B.C. And, as I understand it, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture are dealing with sport fisheries, which is where it seems to fall under. And the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also deal with things to do with the fisheries.

So what would this new Crown corporation do differently, or enhance what is currently being done by those other authorities -- by your ministry, by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and by the new Crown corporation? What other new things would be covered in your Fisheries Renewal Act that would not otherwise already be covered?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm not going to limit the creativity of the board by saying what it is that they'll do. But I'll tell you one thing that will happen through this activity that won't happen through those other activities, and that is that the sport fishing industry will get in the same room with a whole bunch of other people in the fishing industry, which is a big part of my objective.

We have dealt with each of these sectors kind of off in a room by themselves. In fact, I have watched processes where there is a person running back and forth between rooms trying to make something happen, because the people can't get in the same room and decide what they agree upon. That's my biggest objective in it being here, and the sport fishing folks wanted the clause so that they could be part of the process.

I. Chong: I would have to say to the minister that that certainly does seem to make a lot of sense, because currently -- as he understands and as I understand -- that is correct. A lot of people are finding that they are lost where they are right now in the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. They believe that it should be with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So if this is where it belongs and this is where it's going to be, then I say that's wonderful, because they have been looking for a home, and they've been in the wrong home for a little while. And if they're finally getting the attention they deserve, then that's a good thing.

But what I'm curious about is that if in fact this new Crown corporation is going to be dealing with those things that have been dealt with before in other ministries, will that mean that that perhaps removes responsibility from the new Tourism marketing board? Will all those kinds of things be dealt with in this act? Will Fisheries Renewal be able to deal with the new marketing of sport fishery and remove that responsibility from Tourism, so we do know where it's going to be, so we do know what agency we should be looking at when our constituents come to us with questions, as well? Is that what we can tell them, so that we don't have them going off in all these different directions?

Hon. C. Evans: No.

I. Chong: I understand that some new responsibilities will be occurring in the sport fishing industry in terms of Tourism with this new agency, and some will remain where they are. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Evans: I don't know.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for being so honest about that. I guess it is difficult. It is a problem, I suppose, because we have a mandate. I know it's difficult to develop a mandate at the beginning of any new act. However, it provides more confusion when we remove confusion as to where the sport fishing industry will in fact lie, especially when destination tourism marketing initiatives are mentioned within this mandate. In terms of Fisheries Renewal, the only thing I see that deals with tourism is sport fishery. I am certainly looking to this minister to see if in fact Fisheries Renewal funds will be used in that area so that we don't have a duplication of policies or policies that work at cross-purposes, because that is what I have seen in the past. One minister will be dealing with a particular industry or sector and another minister will also have impacts on that, and the policies that are developed -- whether it's a mandate or a policy -- work at cross-purposes.

I was hopeful that the minister would be able, at least at some point, to provide us with some idea of where that may be. If he's not able to, then I suppose I will have to accept that. I will have to take a closer look as Fisheries Renewal starts to develop and emerge and as the mandate becomes more clear to us. As that does unfold, I would hope that the minister, through his representatives on this board, is able to give some direction to the stakeholders that we finally have some clear idea of where sport fishery fits into this entire picture.

[9:30]

[ Page 6359 ]

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. van Dongen: In terms of duties of the board, again referring to the "Crown Corporations Governance Study," it does talk about three statutory duties of directors as being important. One of them is addressed in this legislation -- and I think that's progressive -- and that's the issue of conflict of interest and duty to disclose direct or indirect interest. But there are two other duties that the auditor general talks about. One is a fiduciary duty to act honestly and in good faith. Secondly, there is a duty of care, to exercise the care and diligence of a reasonably prudent person. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us whether or not these other two duties, as suggested by the auditor general, were possibly considered. He does suggest Saskatchewan's wording in their legislation with respect to Crown corporations: "[To] act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation while taking into account the public policy and business objectives of the Crown." I'm wondering if the people who were designing this new Crown corporation considered that paragraph and that suggestion.

Hon. C. Evans: The two recommendations that the hon. member is referring to are actually in the Company Act, and that section of the Company Act applies to this act, so we've got it covered.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. van Dongen: Subsection (b) is the ability to borrow money: ". . .subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, borrow money. . . ." If this isn't a commercial enterprise, I'm wondering why this Crown corporation should have the authority to borrow money and what it would pledge as security.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a standard provision. The hon. member can certainly imagine a condition in which some long-term project that the board might want to undertake could be done in a more affordable fashion in they could contract for the whole thing instead of in annual increments, and in that case they might need to borrow money.

I. Chong: Within this section. . . . I'll move back, first of all, to section 8: "For the purposes of this Act, Fisheries Renewal BC may (a) acquire, hold, dispose of personal property. . . ." I'm wondering if the minister can share with us what, in this particular case, is meant by personal property. After he provides that explanation, what would be necessary to be acquired, held or disposed of?

Hon. C. Evans: It's property that's not real property. In other words, office equipment, computers and stuff like that.

I. Chong: At this point, can the minister advise whether there is anything contained within the ministry that will be transferred over to Fisheries Renewal B.C.? I ask that in the same vein that I asked this when we discussed the Tourism Act, because there were items contained within the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture that had to move over to the new Crown corporation. Are there any similarities here? Are there things that are going to be transferred? And if so, could the minister advise what kinds of things and the magnitude of the dollars involved of the amounts being transferred over?

Hon. C. Evans: No, we don't have items that will be transferred over. In the case of Tourism, they had items -- like logos, for example -- that people were used to, that made sense and had a value and were transferred. In this case, we're creating something wholly new, and there will be no assets transferred.

I. Chong: I gather from this that Fisheries Renewal B.C. wants to have the authority and the power to be able to purchase things, as you say, such as office equipment, perhaps leasehold interest, if they are renting premises, which I presume is going to be the case, and to hold those for however long, and to dispose of it. That's generally, shall we say, what this is after. It's not to acquire anything, I guess, of any long-term nature. Is that foreseeable? I know it's difficult, and I appreciate that the minister may not be able to answer. But I'm just wondering whether there is some goal or any plan to acquire some property that has some long-term benefit that we'd like to be aware of.

Hon. C. Evans: None.

I. Chong: Moving on to subsection 8(b), then, again -- as the member from Abbotsford asked earlier -- subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to borrow money. . . . As we found in the Tourism Act, the requirement to borrow money stemmed from some capital expenditures but primarily for operations for a line of credit. Is this the same opportunity that Fisheries Renewal is wanting? Are they in a position where they will have to have a line of credit?

As I understood it, as we will get to the sections regarding revenue later on, if there's substantial revenue to operate this, why would there be a necessity to have the authority to borrow, unless there were other some long-term objectives that were in the plans for this? I'm just wondering if the minister could enlighten us and share with us a bit more of that information.

Hon. C. Evans: There are no such plans. The intent is simply not to limit the board by our actions here, precluding good ideas they might have later on.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister give us any idea of what's anticipated in terms of the number of staff this organization would ultimately have?

Hon. C. Evans: Very few -- the bill says CEO and support staff. The suggestion is not very many.

J. van Dongen: Not very many -- is that ten or 100 or 1,000? I ask the question because later on in section 14, there's 

[ Page 6360 ]

a section that supposedly will allow the limitation of administration costs. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some ballpark number in terms of the scale of this organization and how it intends to operate.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm not going to give a number. I'm not going to limit the activities of the board. But the hon. member is right. The whole way it's written in the section the hon. member refers to is intended to limit the activities of the board to a CEO and support staff, and to program functions and not policy functions -- not gather together a bunch of people to think, but to go out and do stuff.

I. Chong: Subsection 10(3) says, of the staff and chief executive officer required by the board, "in accordance with government policy, the board may determine the remuneration of the support staff." I recognize it's in accordance with government policy.

Is that to say, then, that government policy is according to the BCGEU contracts and rates? Is that what we're looking at? Or is this some other different government policy that would establishing that? I'm just wondering why it wasn't more clear.

Hon. C. Evans: No, it's not to impose any particular contract. But it is to impose consistency with other arms of government.

I. Chong: So that the support staff in this agency, the hiring levels and salaries would be, I guess, comparable to other agencies, boards and commissions, as opposed to perhaps the BCGEU contract. Is that correct?

I see the minister shaking his head. If that's correct, then I'll accept it. If not, would he like to respond?

Hon. C. Evans: The support staff's wages and benefits would be in keeping with other boards and commissions of government.

I. Chong: Again, the same sort of question. Subsection (4) of section 10 is determining the remuneration of the chief executive officer of Fisheries Renewal B.C. That, again, would be consistent with government policy for other Crowns, agencies, boards and commissions, and not in any other fashion. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

G. Wilson: Do you think we should really be giving these employees access to pension benefits? That could be quite controversial. [Laughter.]

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

F. Gingell: When we get to section 20, the annual expenditure on the programs is going to be limited to $7.7 million for the first year, and it sets out the amount of money that Fisheries Renewal B.C. can spend. That's a clearly defined item.

Section 5(1)(e), which we've already dealt with, deals with the long-term strategic plan. It seems to me, when I look at this project and program delivery, that there are some things missing that, for Fisheries Renewal B.C. to prepare a very good strategic plan, they need to take into account. That basically deals with the issue of where we are now, so that the strategic plan will develop a program that has a target, a goal -- where we want to get to. Before we know what programs we need in order to get from where we are to where we want to go, we've got to find out where we are.

For that purpose, I have prepared an amendment -- which I trust you will find in order -- that deals first of all with the need for the first year's program to include a complete inventory of all fisheries enhancement and habitat protection programs currently being delivered by government and to report both the expenditure level and the employment figures in the first business plan.

Secondly, to add into this system, Fisheries Renewal B.C. will undertake to create 2,000 full-time jobs, in addition to the figure established under subsection (3), by the year 2001. This job target will be updated annually and reported in the annual report. The strategic plan, which will deal with how the $7.7 million in the first year is spent, clearly needs some goals. We think it appropriate that these goals be more clearly enunciated in the legislation setting it up. We appreciate that it is the role of the board of directors, but they do, I think, require general guidance.

[9:45]

So we would, first of all, find out what we are doing now and ensure that just the same way that Forest Renewal B.C. was originally intended, Fisheries Renewal B.C. expenditures will be incremental. We won't be expecting Fisheries Renewal B.C. to do things that are already required to be done by other levels of government.

Now, in looking at these issues, I'm sure it is true that government has far fewer responsibilities, or licensees have far fewer responsibilities, in the issues of fisheries than they do in the issues of forestry, where licence holders or the government ministry under the small business forest enterprise program have a whole series of responsibilities. So these are going to be a little more difficult to define.

But I do think it's important, having recognized that we are talking about $7.7 million -- we're not talking about spending any more -- that there be some guidance given to the board of directors about where you are now and where you're going, and let's clearly mark that route out. It's up to the board of directors to actually work out the programs to accomplish it.

But this is a lot of money. In the total scheme of things in British Columbia, I guess, it isn't a huge sum. But it's a critical amount of money, because -- I hope for the first time -- the government is going to be doing some very important things that haven't been done in the past.

That's why you're bringing forward this act. We support that. We did send him a copy, I believe, of these amendments previously. I hope the minister will see his way forward to supporting them.

[ Page 6361 ]

The Chair: Members, we just have to get copies of the amendments so that the minister and the Chair can review them. They'll be here in a moment.

Hon. members, I'm ruling this amendment out of order. It clearly imposes a financial obligation on the Crown. Again, it's the Crown's prerogative to undertake that kind of an approach.

I. Chong: I know it is getting late in the evening; I know that some members would perhaps like us to move this along. But this is a very important act. There are some important questions we'd like to ask. We are attempting to move this along as quickly as possible.

With the indulgence of the minister, I would like to ask a question in particular on subsection 12(2)(b), where it requires that "The Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of Treasury Board, may make regulations. . .respecting employment preferences in support of local hiring and employment of persons with fisheries experience."

I'm just wondering if the minister could enlighten us on why there would be a requirement on the recommendation of Treasury Board to make those regulations respecting those kinds of employment preferences. I've never seen this in an act. It clearly wasn't in a previous act that was similar to this one, unless there is a substantial contract that is to be let, and that's why Treasury Board is having to be involved. If the minister could enlighten us on that, that would be most helpful.

Hon. C. Evans: It is a really good idea.

I. Chong: I don't know if the minister was attempting to be sarcastic or funny. I don't know what he means by a really good idea. Does he mean it's a really good idea to have the recommendation by Treasury Board? Or does he mean that employment preferences are required? Could he just be more specific?

Hon. C. Evans: I didn't mean to be sarcastic at all. I meant that we put it into the bill because it was a really good idea. You didn't find it in other bills. It's a good idea which other people didn't try before. We want to try and make jobs where the people need the jobs. We've got to do it within the context of the law and the government's ability. So it comes out of Treasury Board.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that answer. But the other portion of it says: ". . .on the recommendation of Treasury Board." Can he provide us with why that clause was included? As I understand it, things don't always go to Treasury Board unless there's a certain dollar limit. Is it that because of these employment preferences, it's going to require substantial contracts to be let -- independent contracts? Is that what this is about? Or if it is to be about employment -- and employment as employees -- then again, there's a bit of confusion there.

Hon. C. Evans: I guess the clause, "on the recommendation of Treasury Board," as put in there, is intended to give some comfort to the hon. member that we're not talking about spending extra money here. We're not going outside the context of how you're supposed to spend money; we're going to work with Treasury Board to find a way to aim the jobs at the local people without spending a bunch of money. And Treasury Board is the place around here where you constrict the expenditures of government. So we're saying: "We'll work with those folks to make sure it's cost-effective but gets the jobs to the neighbourhood."

I. Chong: So am I able to gather from this and from the minister's response that these deal with the employment of persons, as opposed to employment contracts?

Hon. C. Evans: I think it means all of the above. It means individuals; it means organizations with whom we might contract; it means people that are delivering the service in any aggregate.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister explain, in a practical sense, how cabinet intends to implement something like this? This section sounds good, but in the practical sense, how will it be implemented?

Hon. C. Evans: It's fairly innovative. The hon. member's right; it's somewhat unprecedented. What we're intending to do is to set up a situation where the board itself, in consultation with the Lieutenant-Governor, will or may put a target and say: "Twelve percent -- 8 percent, 6 percent, 13 percent -- of our funds can be spent on administration, and nothing more." And we, as the Legislative Assembly, aren't telling them what the number will be. We're putting it in the bill that they have the power to set that number. I think the reason is obvious: it's to give people some comfort outside that the board is working towards a target of responsible expenditures.

J. van Dongen: Does the minister have any sense of what sort of range that target would be for this kind of program administration?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I do, personally; and no, I don't, on the record. The board will deliberate on that, and those deliberations will be exposed to the light of day. Should they pick a number, the hon. member will see it.

J. van Dongen: So the minister and the government are going to rely on the board to try to establish some sort of target figure and recommend that to government as their target. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Evans: That's true, hon. member. I will be meeting with the board and helping them to understand that the number should be a small-type number.

J. van Dongen: And a small-type number would be less than the 35 percent to 40 percent numbers that we've heard mentioned by the Minister of Forests and the CEO of Forest Renewal. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. member, that's balderdash. And if, at two minutes to ten, you provoke me to tell you how it's balderdash, we'll be here all night, so I'm just going to pretend you didn't say that.

I. Chong: Just a very quick question. Where it says "Limit on administrative and non-program expenditures," I would 

[ Page 6362 ]

just like the minister to give examples of what would be considered non-program expenditures, if they would not otherwise be administrative expenditures?

Hon. C. Evans: They might be. . . . Say the board decided to go out and hire a whole bunch of consultants to write them up a whole bunch of option papers about what they ought to be doing, and those expenditures were outside their administration and yet had nothing to do with the delivery of programs.

I. Chong: Would non-program expenditures also include such things as grants, subsidies or donations and things of that nature? Or would they be considered part of administrative expenditures?

Hon. C. Evans: No.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

F. Gingell: Well, I've got an amendment for you here that will not be out of order for the reasons previously stated.

The Chair: Could you pass the Chair a copy, please?

F. Gingell: There it is.

It is the requirement of the auditor general of British Columbia to report on the consolidated financial statements of all of the various entities of government. So it has become practice in recent years for the auditor general, if he's not the auditor of a Crown corporation or a government agency, to be consulted by whoever is making the appointment. Many of the acts now include therein a requirement for the auditor general to be consulted, not for the auditor general to necessarily be the auditor.

So this amendment which I've given to you -- I should have another one here -- purely and simply adds the words: "on the advice of the auditor general," after the words "appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." So it would then read:

"At least once for each fiscal year, the accounts of Fisheries Renewal BC must be audited and reported on to the minister and to Fisheries Renewal BC by an auditor appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the advice of the auditor general, and the cost of the audit must be paid by Fisheries Renewal BC."

The Chair: Hon. members, at this point the amendment is in order, so further discussion can happen.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Evans: We are not in favour of the amendment, and we call the vote.

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

[10:00]

Hon. C. Evans: As soon as practical and prior to the upcoming fiscal year.

F. Gingell: We have also prepared an amendment to section 17, a copy of which has been given to the minister.

The Chair: And to the Chair, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Thank you very much. It is fairly long. It details in a little bit greater specifics those things that we think should be in the business plan. It deals also with the timing of certain things.

There are three important things that Fisheries Renewal is going to be doing: they are going to be presenting a business plan to the minister at some point in the year; they are going to be having a public meeting, at which time Fisheries Renewal B.C. issues are going to be discussed; and they are also going to be filing an annual report.

When you think about what sequence these things should take and how they should be handled, one sees that greater logic will be served by having public input into the business plan, and it is going to help the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal B.C. determine what their business plan should be, because they want to listen to the public. You also need that meeting to be at some point after the annual report has been filed so that the people at the public meeting will have the opportunity to discuss what has happened. So this amendment brings forward some critical dates.

We suggest that the business plan be filed before January 31. That will give lots of time for the plan to be finalized and to get all the approvals through cabinet and to the minister before the fiscal year starts. You can't tie that in to the preparation of the annual report, because that talks about what has happened in the past, and there's no convenient date at which you can clearly define what you want to do in the future and what you've done in the past and have those two years next to each other. There's always going to be a gap.

So this is a proposal that we think will bring a little more order to the process, and we commend it to the government.

Hon. C. Evans: There are lots of wonderful ideas in what the hon. member says, and we'll consider them all and commend them to the board. We think that putting them in the law adds considerable cost to the opportunity on many points, and so it's out of order.

The Chair: In accordance with practice, the minister has, with the particular knowledge he has of the ministry, indicated that it would impose additional cost. It is therefore out of order.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

[ Page 6363 ]

J. van Dongen: On this particular section, we had concern about the wording "as soon as practicable," and wondered if we couldn't have a specific time frame in there, such as had been in the wording of the tourism bill, Bill 9. Also, we think that the financial statement referred to under subsection (b) should be the audited financial statement. I can assure the Chair that this is the last amendment, but I'd like to just put forward an amendment on this section.

The amendment deletes "as soon as practicable" and puts in a date "before June 30 each year." And in subsection (b) it simply says "the audited financial statements." So we'd like to move this amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Evans: I think these are all good ideas. I don't think they'll add any cost. I think we should go to the vote -- and we're against it.

The Chair: Thank you. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived.

I. Chong: Certainly I'm disappointed to hear that the minister is not able to approve of the amendment, because clearly, in a prior act that we debated earlier this year, the wording on that did in fact say: ". . .within 3 months after the end of the fiscal year of the corporation or a later date that the minister may designate." So, in fact, it does imply that the minister would have the opportunity to designate a later time in the three. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I think we've already dealt with the amendment, so I would suggest that you. . .

I. Chong: Well, I'm going to ask a question.

The Chair: . . .work on it on a different tack. Thank you.

I. Chong: Well, I'd like to ask the question, then: what is the minister's opinion on what "as soon as practical after the end of the fiscal year" would be?

Hon. C. Evans: As soon as it can be prepared -- logically, within 90 days.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

J. van Dongen: Just a clarification: before each fiscal year, in other words sometime between January 1 and April 1, you would anticipate that public meeting happening?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

J. van Dongen: The whole issue of funding gives considerable concern to fishermen. Here again, I emphasize my point about direct stakeholders versus indirect stakeholders. There's been a lot of discussion about landing fees and landing tax, and I know that the ministry has done some work on that. Could I ask the minister what would be the mechanism to establish a landing fee on all fish?

Hon. C. Evans: The legislation doesn't suggest that a landing fee has to happen. The question is kind of. . . . The hon. member asks me what the mechanism would be by which it would be applied. It requires me to conjecture what the board and government might decide at a future date, and I don't really think that's possible. I will say, in case there's more of a philosophical question behind the question, that as the hon. member knows, the government and the newspapers at this time are not the first people to posture a landing fee. It was first discussed, that I know of, at the round table in the discussions about fleet reduction. At that point, it was being put forward by fishermen themselves as a way to generate the money to accomplish fleet reduction and not have the Mifflin plan happen. But as for what the mechanism would be if there was a landing fee, I don't know the answer.

J. van Dongen: Well, again, this issue has been discussed with respect to this legislation and with respect to the whole fisheries strategy, so I submit that it is an important issue. Fishermen are concerned about it. Certainly the funding that's set out here under section 20(1) is really transfers of dollars from Forest Renewal B.C. It's not new money and, as I understand it, it's dollar amounts that have already been committed, in a sense, to certain types of programming. I understand that $15 million are matching funds, matching the federal announcement on January 9, and the other $7.7 million are matching funds in a fashion that is still being negotiated. I wouldn't think that the Forest Renewal funding that's established by this legislation for Fisheries Renewal B.C. is a permanent source of funding.

I wonder if the minister could confirm that. Is there going to be another transfer from Forest Renewal in year four?

Hon. C. Evans: I didn't mean to denigrate the member's question. He's right; it's a good question. What I meant to say is that it's inappropriate for me to say what may or may not happen three years from now. This section simply says that Forest Renewal will transfer money to Fisheries Renewal, and that will happen. As for whether or not there will be a further transfer in the future, that's not part of the bill, and I don't know.

J. van Dongen: If it's not part of the bill, and if it wasn't part of the consideration, why did the ministry bother to get a legal opinion as to whether or not it required federal cooperation to put in place a landing fee? I think it is a significant part of the bill, and it's one of the bigger concerns about this bill.

So again I ask the minister: in terms of the research done on the issue of a landing fee, what are the options to provide funding? I'm talking under subsection (2): "Money received by Fisheries Renewal under subsection (1), or from the government of Canada or any other source. . . ." This is the area that I'm focussing on: any other source of funding, landing fee being the most prominent one. What options are there to provide other sources of funding other than Forest Renewal or the federal government?

Hon. C. Evans: People have conjectured in many ways, and I'll list some of it for you, but let's remember that there is no funding source in the bill, and the question is not connected to any particular line in this bill. The section that the 

[ Page 6364 ]

hon. member is asking about allows or requires a transfer from Forest Renewal to Fisheries Renewal; it doesn't talk about a landing fee. However, people have discussed the possibility of a landing fee. People have discussed the possibilities of penalties being transferred when people commit crimes in fishing or polluting or wrecking fish streams. People have talked about transfers from the electrical energy that may have impacted fish. People talk about transfers from some kind of water fee. And that's right off the top of my head.

What people have conjectured about is the notion that the funding to restore and enhance the fishery ought to come from those sectors that have had some impact on the fishery. That's why government has asked for advice. We do it all the time. We will continue to do it. It doesn't mean we're going to act on that advice or put it in law -- and, very specifically, we haven't here.

[10:15]

Hon. C. Evans: The question is out of order. I will always consider good ideas.

I. Chong: On section 20(1), the moneys advanced. . . . Are these amounts assured and not subject to amendment? I'm looking for certainty here.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

I. Chong: In section 20(2). . . . I know my colleague from Abbotsford asked about "or any other source," and my question is: understanding money will come from Forest Renewal, understanding money can come from the government of Canada and any other source that perhaps is raised if there are profits made on some programs, would any other source also include moneys from the general revenue of the province?

Hon. C. Evans: It could. It could also include moneys from general revenue of the state of Alaska, when they come to their senses and decide to make reparation.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

G. Wilson: I wouldn't hold your breath on that last thought.

Section 21 is an area that's really deserving of hours of debate, but perhaps in a different forum. So let me just ask the minister this. With respect to the transfer of money to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations for investment -- when it doesn't need it for immediately carrying out its purposes -- does the minister not believe that it's better to take or divest that money and invest it in the communities and put it into community credit unions for operation of facilities in the communities to be able to manage fisheries better? It seems to me that one of the big mistakes we made with Forest Renewal B.C. was that a lot of this money went into general revenue, it didn't get out to the community, and the community didn't have a chance to control it, access it and get it to work. So here's a really good idea: don't give it to the Minister of Finance; give it to the community.

Hon. C. Evans: That's a great idea, and I'll take it under advisement.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

J. van Dongen: In this section, subsection (3) talks about:

". . .a general notice in writing given by a director to Fisheries Renewal BC to the other directors to the effect that the director is a member, director or officer of a specified corporation, or that the director is a partner in, or owner of, a specified firm, and that the director has an interest in a specified corporation or firm, is sufficient disclosure of interest to comply with this section."

Hon. C. Evans: The section says that you would have to disclose that that was the case.

J. van Dongen: But I don't see it specified there, although there are a lot of specifics there in terms of ownership and interest in corporations that are doing agreements. But I just don't get out of that section -- whether it's a spouse or a business associate, for example, writing a contract with Fisheries Renewal -- that that's a conflict of interest. Maybe the minister could specifically explain to me how I would be in a conflict of interest if either a spouse or a business associate was applying to write a contract with the organization.

Hon. C. Evans: If I understand the member's question correctly, he's asking me where it says specifically that you must disclose. Section 22(1) says that the director "must disclose the nature and extent of the director's interest at a meeting of directors." The entire section is sequential; each one of these things is added onto the other. The sum total suggested in the case that the member is discussing is that he would have to disclose to the directors at the meeting where his wife was attempting to get a contract that he was in possible conflict. In any board that I know of, in such a case he would be asked to step outside while the matter was resolved. But the important thing is that the disclosure take place.

Sections 22 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Fisheries Renewal Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 6365 ]

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

M. Coell: I hope the minister and her staff had time for dinner. We were talking about services for adults with mental handicaps. One of the areas that I'd like to spend some time talking about is respite and relief services. The caregivers in group homes obviously need time off periodically and don't get it if people are living 24 hours per day in their homes with them. I just wonder what program we have for respite relief for caregivers -- and also for families, if adults are still living with their families.

Hon. P. Priddy: On the first question, many adults, but certainly not all, live in residences with 24-hour staffing, so respite is not an issue, because they are staffed on a two- or three-shift -- generally three-shift -- basis. But for those people who are living in a family, where the family indeed does need respite, then we do provide either emergency or short-term care for adults living in community residences, in terms of respite and relief. Some associations will actually have what they call a respite bed -- it sounds terrible -- in the facility that can be used by people in the community who are living at home with their mom and dad, and who are adults, and either they or their parents might need that kind of respite. There are about 300 people currently using the respite care system in the province.

M. Coell: Would that be a rotation of 300 over a period of a year, or is that 300 per month?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's the number of people served in a year.

M. Coell: That's quite a small amount, considering that you have 4,000 people in facilities and only the need for 300 people for respite care. So I suppose that's positive. Is there a global budget for respite care and relief services? I'd be interested in that number and if it is fairly constant.

Hon. P. Priddy: The respite care budget is encompassed within the entire residential care budget, and I can't break it out for you, I'm sorry. The other thing just to consider, although I appreciate your comment about the number, is that some people above and beyond this number will actually build dollars for respite into their contract with us to provide a place in their home for somebody with a mental handicap who is an adult. So those contracts aren't included in here.

[6:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: The respite care is arranged by the residential care providers. They make their own arrangements around who they are going to have in to provide that kind of respite care. During the reviews of the residential services, there is a review done about who has been hired, what their background is, whether people have used people consistently, etc. Sometimes it's actually a family member that someone knows, because usually this is for a fairly short period of time. But it would be reviewed during the regular contractor review time.

M. Coell: Has the ministry had any problems in this area in the past -- any charges laid for any kind of criminal activity or abuse by people coming in? Specifically, I'm thinking of part-time respite care workers.

Hon. P. Priddy: None that I'm aware of. I asked the person in charge of the service, who has been doing this for five years, and there are none that we're aware of.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that, because in reading through some of the briefing material that the ministry gave me, I thought that if you're doing reviews every three years or every year, people are taking a holiday once a year or twice a year, and you're having people come in to look after your house and hiring them yourself, then that's an area where you don't have as much control as you would. That's why I brought it forward, but if there hasn't been a problem, possibly it's an area not to be concerned about.

Just to touch on an area before I move on -- support for children with autism. I'm jumping back a bit. It's an area I meant to cover. What programs do we have for children with autism, and adults as well? Does the ministry cover adults with autism once the children pass through the system?

Hon. P. Priddy: Children with autism would have access to a wide range of services, some of which we've talked about today. But specifically around their autism, there is a behavioral support program which does provide consultation to the family and sometimes to the other caregivers, teachers or preschool people in the child's life. These are programs such as child-specific training: demonstrations of behavioral techniques -- because I think we have to be very careful around those issues -- and development of behaviour management plans for children with autism and their families. Families may receive both direct and indirect services from an agency to support the inclusion of their child in community settings, including schools, child care and recreation. There are more and more children with autism, for instance, in the local preschools, but with support. In 1996-97 the budget was $3.1 million.

[ Page 6366 ]

M. Coell: So the behavioral support program for children with autism has a budget of $3.1 million. I am interested in hearing what the breakdown is of the type of staff we're using here. I've got a couple of other questions, but. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: There may be others, but primarily two kinds of staff. . . . One would be child care workers with specific training in working with children with autism, but with backup from behavioral psychologists. If you're really talking about developing behaviour management plans -- which I approach with great trepidation, actually; I think you have to be very careful -- then a significant amount of that is also the backup from the behavioral psychologist, who helps develop that in the first place, and then the child care worker who helps carry it out.

M. Coell: Would these people be direct government employees or contract employees? And where would they be stationed? Are they going to be in the regional offices, or are they in various schools or other programs?

Hon. P. Priddy: They are generally employees of contracted agencies. For instance, in my community, there's a behavioral psychology team that operates as a contracted agency in the community, and we would purchase the service from them. So it's primarily contracted agencies, not direct government employees.

M. Coell: Again, I wonder if we could just look at how those programs are reviewed. What type of assessment of them is done on a yearly basis? What sort of assessment tool is actually used to assess those contracted agencies?

Hon. P. Priddy: Are you asking about how the program is assessed or how the agency is assessed?

M. Coell: Both.

Hon. P. Priddy: Of course. I did that last night, right? Wrong.

Currently -- I expect, again with our audit and performance review, that this will be significantly enhanced -- what would happen at this stage is that it would be reviewed whenever a contract is renewed; then how the contract has been carried out and whether the goals have been met is reviewed. It's certainly also reviewed in terms of the work either with the preschool or the school, because you have to work together to know whether whatever has been developed by, for instance, a behavioral psychologist is going to work in a school system for that child.

And although it's on a much broader basis, we do provide support and have a contract with the Autism Society of B.C. But that would be monitoring on a much greater. . . . That would be much more looking at the kinds of agencies that were providing services, not individual children.

M. Coell: Maybe just a general question. It appears, with the size of the ministry, that you're going to have a whole range of program review mechanisms. I specifically looked at this one and the last one, but is that going to be consistent throughout the ministry? Or is each one of the programs going to have a different type of evaluation program?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member has raised an interesting point: it is large and there are many. I don't think our intention is that for every single program that we have we're going to go and develop a brand-new, different tool. I think that there are ways. . . . For one thing, we'll be developing an accreditation model, so that services will have to be accredited on a regular basis. I think we can make many of the components of that quite consistent either across the region or across the province.

In regions as well, we will have program service indicators that, regardless of the program, will give us some indication of whether it's meeting certain kinds of needs. And then, depending on the kind of program being offered, there will have to be some specialty part built into that; but there's no thought that we're going to go out and create 195 different kinds. The accreditation model will be very similar, the program service indicators will be very similar, and we'll build in whatever specialties we have to in terms of the target group of folks.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. We haven't talked about the risk assessment tool yet, and we'll get to that later, I hope. That seems to take care of the individual people within the system to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing and that there's a check and a balance in there. What the minister has just described to me is the other part of that: making sure the program is actually functioning the way it needs to be. So I'm pleased with that.

Is there a time frame for implementation of that overall accreditation process?

Hon. P. Priddy: The work will be beginning in the fall. Some of the planning work has already begun. What we want to do in the fall is begin to identify. . . . Well, we want to begin to develop the model, but we also want to identify -- because I think you need to use external accrediting agencies, or you're really just doing the review of how you're doing. . . . The accrediting agencies bring strengths into certain program areas, and we'll be doing that. We also want to take to the regions, and to the families, service providers and others in the regions, what that model will look like and get some input back from that. That work will all be happening in the fall. We expect it to be all up and running by the fiscal year.

M. Coell: I got a bit off topic there. I was interested in your comments. Maybe I'll return back to what we were discussing.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to be able to participate, although I may be somewhat brief, in this ministry's estimates. Regarding the issue of care for, I would say, severely handicapped or disabled children, as well as adults, my first question to the minister is whether or not she can elaborate on what kind of funding or what kind of commitment is available for a severely handicapped or disabled child in terms of 24-hour care -- if there is such a program, if there is such funding that's available. I'm not talking about a situation where a child goes to a facility for short periods of time but a case where a child requires 24-hour care.

[7:00]

There are three ways in which that happens. One of them is that we do have nursing respite, where you may have a 

[ Page 6367 ]

child or an adult who actually requires some round-the-clock nursing, either for a particular short period of time or because something's happened to the child or something's happened in the family. There's that kind of nursing respite.

There's the at-home program, where there is or can be a significant amount of not necessarily nursing support but in-home support provided for children who have complex needs.

As well, there's -- you may know the program, hon. member -- the associate family program, which is actually a program that has grown in the last six or seven years. It began out of Sunny Hill Hospital for people who are truly unable to have their children at home, because they can't provide the 24-hour care they might need. They might have to work outside the home for wages. Then an associate family has that child in their home, but it is still the child of the mom and dad. They still retain guardianship and see the child, often on a daily basis. But the associate family is also available for providing that kind of care.

I. Chong: Touching on the last point you made regarding the associate family program, would that be similar to a foster family program? Is that what it really entails? Or is it more in-depth with that? Can the minister share with me a little bit more on that program?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are a couple of differences between foster care, if you will, and an associate family program. One of them is, of course, that in an associate family the parent doesn't give up guardianship at all. I mean, your child is your child. There's no giving up of guardianship at all.

In my experience and, I think, totally with all the associate family programs that are available, it is for children with extremely complex needs: youngsters who've lived at Sunny Hill, kids who've lived at Queen Alexandra, children who have very complex needs.

I. Chong: In situations like that, then, can the minister advise us what kind of funding her ministry provides to the associate family? Is it on an annual or monthly basis? What amount was provided in this year's budget -- and perhaps last year's budget, as a comparison? If there is a decline or decrease, is it because the need has decreased? Or is that just a ministry decision?

Hon. P. Priddy: The funding last year -- and it continues this year, because the number of children we're serving is still the same -- is about $2.1 million.

I. Chong: Can the minister provide the number of people or of children this would be, so I just have an idea.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's 67.

I. Chong: So 67 children is what this $2.1 million. . . . I haven't got my calculator with me quick enough. I'm hoping one of the ministry staff can quickly calculate that out for me while I ask the next question.

The associate family program is very much a program that takes the place perhaps of -- I hate to use this word -- institutionalized care, where in days gone by a lot of the children ended up. Now you've got a new, more community- and family-oriented program, which I think is a wonderful idea.

The minister mentioned earlier the Queen Alexandra Hospital, where a lot of children had in fact been serviced in the past. Does that mean there are no more children at Queen Alexandra Hospital? Or if it has decreased, can the minister advise us on what her ministry's role is in that hospital in particular? Because it is in my riding. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: If I'm not sure, I always sort of wait to be tugged. But my understanding is yes, there are certainly still children at QA, but not as a residential placement. They're there for rehabilitation. You know, that rehabilitation may take six or nine months. It may be long. It's the same thing with Sunny Hill. But they're not there because it's a permanent residential facility anymore, either at Sunny Hill or at Queen Alexandra. It's not being used for that.

Oh, the calculator was working -- I've always wanted to do that one with my fingers, but I can't remember what it's called. It's about $31,000 per child.

I. Chong: I was starting to figure it out myself. I started with the 3, and I said that's pretty close. So I appreciate that.

So $31,000 is provided to a family or, I guess, a caregiver who wishes to be an associate family. That person who is qualified to be an associate family can be a single parent, I presume; it could be anybody in the community who wishes to take on that responsibility. Could the minister advise. . . ? I see she nodded, so I'll acknowledge that as a yes for Hansard's purpose.

Can the minister advise me, then: is that the only funding that would be available for the parent of this child who took advantage of and used the services of an associate family? Would the parent still be provided additional funding through her ministry? I'm not sure, and I don't expect her to answer for another ministry, but is there some sort of interministerial decision made that additional funding is provided for the parent for support, whether it be through Human Resources or through Children and Families -- another base amount, so I can get an idea of what collectively the total cost would be for the maintenance and service requirements of this particular child?

Hon. P. Priddy: The additional support that would be available to the birth parent or natural parent, if you will -- whichever phrase you use -- would not be around financial assistance necessarily, because when the child is in the associate family they are generally there full-time, although they may go home on weekends.

If they go home on weekends, there would be some additional supports available to, if you will, the natural family. They may need additional equipment at home. It may be a special bed that lifts easily; it may be a moulded wheelchair; it could be some respite care during the weekend. So they would have access to that kind of support. But because the child is really full-time in the other home, there's not an income available.

I. Chong: If we were to move that along, and the child, as I say, would require a fairly substantial amount of care, whether it's because of a birth problem or health reasons like cerebral palsy or things like that where they do require additional care. . . . If the child were to become 19 or 20, what then happens with the program? How does the ministry deal with a child who now becomes an adult?

Hon. P. Priddy: There isn't a hard-and-fast rule that says: "It's your nineteenth birthday -- out the door." So it's really important that planning take place for that individual. Gener-

[ Page 6368 ]

ally what. . . . We haven't been in the associate family program really long enough to see very many of our youngsters get to be 19.

But when that has happened, what we have done is plan with the associate family and, very obviously, with the natural family about what would be an adult living environment that the parent would be comfortable having their son or daughter in -- acknowledging, as we have with a number of group homes around the province, that sometimes there are only two or three people, and they require, again, extremely high levels of physical support. So that planning would happen. They would move into what might be termed more adult-oriented living, perhaps with one other adult.

I. Chong: Understanding that the associate family program is fairly new, and that Sunny Hill and Queen Alexandra were in place before, and there were children there who at one time were very severely handicapped, I'm curious if the minister could share with me some information as to how the transition then occurred for those who perhaps were on the brink of adulthood -- shall we say aged 17, 18, 19? When the facility -- I wouldn't say closed down -- changed its goals and mandates, and those children were moved out into associate family homes. . . . I guess I'm wondering how that worked, because as you say, there's no cutting-off program. There's a planning process, but how did that planning process take shape when the people were moving out, on the brink of their adult life? If the minister could share that with me, I'd like to know how many people actually got placed at that point -- if that's available.

Hon. P. Priddy: I can perhaps offer a small amount of information. QA and Sunny Hill were both health facilities, so they weren't facilities over which we have sort of control or destiny or whatever you wish to call it.

Somebody of 16 or 17 who, for instance, lived at Sunny Hill is probably less likely to go into an associate family than somebody who's 5, 6 or 7. By the time somebody gets to be 16 or 17, we've begun to do the planning, along with the staff who work at Sunny Hill or who work at QA, for what kind of nursing care or at least what kind of personal care this individual might need. In the last few years most of those people have been at school. So we would do that with the people at the hospital and with the natural parent.

It just happens that I was involved with someone who started the associate family program here in British Columbia. The natural parent has a huge amount of choice in terms of the right match for their son or daughter. It's not just: "Here are two people, so pick, and if it doesn't work, that's too bad." This particular individual waited quite a while for it to be the right match between her son and the receiving family.

But as I say, if they were 16 or 17, you'd really be planning, with the people at Sunny Hill or QA, more for adult care afterwards. If they're younger, you'd be looking at the associate family, again with the staff at the hospital.

I. Chong: So if we took the adult situation, if you're looking at adult care, then what kind of placement would you move them into? I am talking specifically, and I'm just trying to set in my mind what happened before I pose a particular example to the minister. I want her to be aware, because I do have an example of an actual situation. But I want to understand the workings of it first, because if she's able to explain it, I may not have to provide that example.

[7:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: You're right -- without knowing the specific. . . . We did canvass a little bit of this earlier. There are many people who were living at Woodlands in Fraserview who had the same kinds of complex needs that you would have seen in some of the people at Sunny Hill or Queen Alexandra, who actually. . . . I haven't seen anybody that I would describe -- and I've done this work for 35 years -- as unable to live in a group home. Sometimes it's a group home with two people, and it may have one-to-one staffing with people with a very high skill level. And as we spoke of earlier, everybody who was in that facility, no matter the complexity of their needs, has moved out.

So in the question that you pose, for an adult who requires a very high level of care, there still is no reason that could either not be. . . . I can think of several facilities around the province that have adults with the kinds of needs that I think you're speaking of, either in a group home with two or three other people or actually with a family that simply has that one individual with them and provides that level of care on a 24-hour basis.

I. Chong: In response to the minister's response, then, if a group home situation were to occur, what level of funding would the ministry provide for the group home? When I ask about the funding, I guess I'm also looking at the total cost that it would entail in terms of the home itself -- care that might be required, an allowance that might be required for those people living in a group home. What is the range, if you will, that is provided for people in a group home? Surely two in a group home would differ from four in a group home, because the cost would be amortized in terms of the house for four people versus two. Can the minister provide that?

Hon. P. Priddy: If this answer doesn't help, then what you might want to do is bring us the information, and we'll try and help.

There is obviously a range, because there are a variety of group homes established around the province, so it's not always about going out and sort of buying something new. The range for people goes from about $128 a day, which would be people who have some independent skills and so on, to about $350 to $360 a day, which would be the kind of individuals that you're talking about -- that require a much higher level of care.

I. Chong: So on the minimum end of the scale -- $128 a day for 365 days a year -- we're looking at a minimum of around $40,000 or $45,000, I would imagine, and, of course, going up to almost $100,000 per year. I want to share with the minister that that's essentially what I had heard before -- that it was costing about $108,000 per adult, if you will, who requires 24-hour care when you factor in all the costs involved in terms of providing a home, some living allowance funds, equipment and all those kinds of things, and that value never goes down. And when a child is in the associate family program, the range is much less, at $30,000, with additional costs, again, for equipment and things.

So there's a substantial amount being spent. My question to the minister is then: if these children or young adults didn't 

[ Page 6369 ]

need to be put in a situation like this, if they could remain in their homes, would the ministry be able to provide -- I wouldn't say exactly the same level of funding -- perhaps a good portion of the same level of funding to allow the child to grow up in the home, so the parent is not necessarily going to have to place the child in the associate family program, is not having to see the child go into an adult group home in later years? Is there an option that a natural parent or other parent can come to the ministry and ask for?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. If the parent wants to -- and very often the parent does want to and chooses to -- have their child stay at home, then you're quite right: it is not the same amount of dollars. But they're certainly eligible for things like the at-home program, which is respite benefits, equipment, as well as arranging any of the other community services which we've canvassed on several occasions, I think, earlier today, which would be speech therapy in the community or all the other services that would be available. As an adult. . . . If that person is an adult and the parents wish the adult to still live with them, the resources are less than they are for children. They would probably still have access to some respite, maybe some specialized equipment if they needed it. My experience, actually, with parents with -- and I guess it depends on how old the adult is -- adult mentally handicapped children is that they actually want some help planning for an alternate living arrangement, because they're worried about what will happen when they're not there. And they're not wanting to suddenly not be there and have this huge transition for someone. My experience is that once somebody gets to be 20 or 21, parents actually start to do that planning on their own.

I. Chong: As I said earlier, I do recognize the fact that in a situation such as that, where a child is raised at home as opposed to using a program that is available, they would not or could not expect the same amount -- although it doesn't always make sense to the parent who is suddenly saying: "Well, gosh, if I were to do it for someone else, I would get this amount, but I can't do it for my own child. It doesn't seem to make any sense." Certainly I recognize that government has limitations as to what's available, but explaining it to a parent is much more difficult.

What I would like to do now is just advise the minister of a particular case that I've been aware of for about a year now. I thought it had resolved itself, and it's come to my attention again this year. It is a constituent who in fact has had a severely handicapped disabled child, I think, for about ten or 15 years. I think there was a complication, and I'm not even sure whether it was from birth or some years later. It caused a medical. . . I wouldn't say a birth defect, but a defect, and the child is now 100 percent dependent on someone. The mother has in fact taken care of this child at home and received some financial assistance from Social Services and now, I suppose, does from Human Resources.

At one point, I think, there was a request, when QA was still considered institutional care, to have the child in institutional care. She fought very hard not to have that happen, because when she placed the child there for short terms at a time, the child actually deteriorated. Because even though you have 24-hour care, it's not the same as your mother taking care of you, as we all well know.

The child has now become an adult, and there is, I think, some difficulty, and difficulty as well for the parent, because the child essentially in its mind and in its function, though physically grown to an adult, still believes it's ten years old or younger, and therefore requires her mom to take care of her as if she were still a young child and also has not the capacity to move on into a group home situation. So as the minister recognized, the parent, rightly so, is very concerned: "How long can I keep doing this, and who's going to take care of my child if something should happen to me?"

I'll give you the name, because the ministry staff is probably aware of this person, because I understand she's been in the office a substantial number of times and on a number of occasions. Her name is Lavinia Rojas. If I see some nods, then I'll know she has been in. She has felt, at times, that she has not been able to go to the ministry -- especially when there have been changes from what was Social Services and the Ministry of Health and all this -- to get the necessary care.

She posed the question to me, and that's why I wanted to have an understanding of the entire functioning of the ministry: "Why is it that if it costs $108,000, which the ministry would be prepared to allocate in terms of providing a home and providing a surrounding for an adult to grow up. . . ? Why would I not be able to access even half of that and raise that child within my own home and continue to raise that child until that child's final days or mine or whatever, and at least save the government some money, because I won't require another home? I have a home. I want the child with me."

So the question was posed to me. I quite honestly don't know how to answer that. If the minister is able to provide some answer, albeit I'm not sure what would satisfy my constituent, it may help in understanding or recognizing if there is a problem here that we aren't addressing. Especially with the direction this government is taking in terms of health, Closer to Home. . . . Certainly we want children closer to parents and closer to home and have that same philosophy, I would imagine. If there is opportunity to do that, and a savings to government, is it a program that government can be looking at? There may not be a lot of people out there. There may only be 100 in all of British Columbia. There may only be 50 people, but if there's a savings of $50,000 or $60,000 a year for that, that's a substantial amount of savings, I think, that this government would be prepared to look at, as we would, and to support. So if the minister is able to help me somehow resolve this kind of dilemma with my constituent, it would certainly be appreciated.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess my first suggestion would be. . . . It's not a name that I recognize or that the staff that are with me recognize. That doesn't mean that she hasn't contacted us. I think it would be easier to try and help in this circumstance if you could ask her to call, and we could try to work that out with her. I don't know why someone would not be able to move on. We try not to talk a lot about IQ levels or whatever, but I don't think that whether somebody is 25 and has the skills of a ten-year-old or a five-year-old is any kind of limitation on whether they move into a group home or not, or we wouldn't have anybody moving into a group home. So from that perspective, I don't see any reason why this individual would not be able to move on into a group home, if that's what his or her mom wants.

But I would ask, actually, if you would send us the specific information. I guess the challenge to. . . . If it costs us $100 and you spend half of that, or whatever, for a particular. . . . Say it's 100 people, just for the sake of argument; I have no idea how many it would be. I personally would like to be able to do all of that, but I think you would then have to really look at expanding. What does that mean to people who are looking after aging parents at home? I just think that it's difficult to say: "Gosh, for those 100 people we could probably 

[ Page 6370 ]

do that." But what about those people who are looking after spouses, aging parents? I think it does open a door that would require some other considerable consideration.

I. Chong: I certainly would have expected that that had to be the sort of the rationale or the reasoning that would be offered. I recognize that we don't want to open a Pandora's box here of a whole new set of programs that would have to be dealt with through Children and Families. As I say, the question is posed and it is raised, that if this parent were to allow their child to go into a group home and have the group home cost upwards of $100,000 or $50,000 or $60,000, and then this parent, on the other hand, can take in. . . . Because this parent has learned over the years that to take care of a special needs child or adult, and did that. . .they would be compensated to take care of someone else's child. It somehow doesn't seem to make sense. You're putting one child out, taking in someone else's and asking someone else to do your job in that sense.

[7:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: We will obviously have the Hansard. I don't know if Hansard will need to check with you for the spelling. I've made sure that staff will follow that up when the letter is received.

A. Sanders: Greetings to staff and the minister. I am pleased to enter the debate at this time in the estimates of the new Ministry for Children and Families.

I have looked over the slate of areas covered in this ministry with quite a bit of interest. I've decided that the ministry should probably have its name changed to the ministry of the congenital and/or acquired, in that looking at the ministry as a multifaceted ministry it encompasses precisely everything that is congenital or acquired. Maybe we can rename it the ministry of everything at some other time.

As the minister may or may not know, my interests primarily reside in the areas of health, education and mental health. From each of those ministries, and the estimates therein, have resided almost vestigial appendices -- issues -- that have been left over from the estimates of those areas where I was told that that particular item was now in Children and Families. It is required that I come to these estimates in order to address a number of topics that used to be in those ministries and now have found their way into the Ministry for Children and Families.

These issues cover a plethora of topics, some of them decidedly the concerns of children but others more those of adults but not necessarily families. One of the things that has been expressed in my community -- very much to me as the MLA for Okanagan-Vernon -- is a concern, especially from those areas that have moved into the Ministry for Children and Families, such as adult mental and physical disabilities, of blind children, detox centres, drug and alcohol abuse and psychiatric services for kids. . . . Many of these issues have caused concern in the community. People are looking to ascertain whether, with our tremendous concern for children, their concerns will be weighted to a lesser degree than they were previously in another area where their importance was that they were part of a fabric of a much larger adult structure. When push comes to shove, they do have concerns that dollars, when they are scarce, will be moved to those areas concerning children, thereby perhaps squeezing their services from the previous service level to what is going to be the case in the future.

One of the issues that I would like to discuss first is the issue of what I have come to call the infant development centres. These are institutes around the province that meet the needs of children from the neonatal age up to kindergarten, and sometimes in some cases, there is an interdigitation of those services within the kindergarten level.

In Vernon, the infant development centre is called NONA -- North Okanagan Neonatal Assessment. I'm not sure that's the correct term, but I will use the term NONA because it's a lot easier for me to get my tongue around. Presently the administration of NONA are holding their breath. They are not sure what the switch from the status where they were to the Ministry for Children and Families will mean for delivery of services in the region.

NONA presently operates on the mandate of early intervention and is funded by various methods. For example, the Ministry of Health provides some funding for child development; Human Resources provides funding under mental disabilities; there is contract work done for ICBC as part of a rehab program; school district 22 and some federal funds from the Department of Indian Affairs make up the constellation of moneys coming in to NONA.

Fee-for-service options are available on a limited basis. Gaming funds raised by bingo provide an annual base of approximately $60,000 a year. From all of this, administrative staff worries that changes to gambling laws will also affect the service.

The centre is running at a maximum capacity of 220 families and takes in all of the North Okanagan. A physio outreach is available, and a therapist is permanently stationed in Salmon Arm, as well.

Their main concerns to date involve finding out what is going to happen in the area of developing long-term plans under the new auspices of the Children and Families ministry. Since 1993 the centre has been working under extension agreements rather than committed contracts, although they have been identified as eligible for long-term or open contracts. Without a long-term ministry plan, it's difficult to develop contracts, as well.

So basically the instability of the funding and the lack of a blueprint are the two main issues for NONA at this time. They are aware that the deputy has a time line and a blueprint, and they want to know what that is. Families who attend the centre are already stressed and have been knocking on my door for information. My first question to the minister is: how can the Ministry for Children and Families, with its mandate for child protection, be expected to accommodate the responsibilities of a centre like NONA, which has a mandate for early intervention?

[ Page 6371 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't want to debate the term; I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and the same place, if I might, hon. member. I think we're talking about the North Okanagan Neurological Association.

A. Sanders: Yes.

Hon. P. Priddy: Okay, because there are also infant development programs. I wanted to make sure that I answered the correct question, because, of course, with your colleague there I asked: "Oh, did you want this or did you want that?" And he said, "I want both," simply because I offered it. So I'm trying not to do that again.

There's no question. . . . People know that this is my background. So I've had as many phone calls as most people in this province have had on this issue -- mostly at home, because so many people know me that they just feel free to pick up their phone and call me at home. I know that, for parents, this has created a great deal of anxiety -- and not because there will necessarily be great change. But when you have a child with a disability, it feels vulnerable. If you've had to fight for service for a child, it feels very vulnerable. You don't want to lose anything that's been gained by the organization, either, because North Okanagan Neurological Association has done a very good job, and they have a good reputation. So I want to begin by saying that.

I want to go to the last part of your question, if I understood it correctly. I think that the work that you do with either infant development programs or neurological centres. . . .. There are -- I'd have to have somebody count for me -- probably 20 in the province. We call them child development centres, for the most part. Many of them are changing directions. The one in Kelowna actually is changing in direction, and they're just doing a terrific job.

They're serving some of their children in a little bit of a different way, particularly their preschoolers, in sort of preschools that are closer to home. They haven't made people do that, but many parents have chosen to. So they've made a bit of a shift in direction, but the centre is still there; their funding is still there. Nobody is taking services away from families. I do understand the concern, because I was part of the group that fought really hard to get more money for people with disabilities in this province. People don't want to see it get eroded because it's needed here, here and here. That's not the intention at all.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Around the contracts, and I actually think this will be an advantage. . . . Under our contract and reform restructuring, our intention is actually to do long-term contracts. I mean, we've not done this before anywhere in the province, and almost every organization would say that it's really hard to go from year to year because it's really hard to do planning. So there will be long-term contracts.

I would have to check this, but I would be extraordinarily surprised if Julie Dawson, who is the regional operating officer up there, has not met with the neurological association. I mean, it's possible she has not, but I would be very, very surprised if she hasn't. She certainly has met with parents of children with complex disabilities there.

So while I understand the concern, I think the things we can say to child development centres are: "Well, maybe we'll look, and maybe we'll all have to look at delivering the service and doing a bit more outreach, so it's not necessarily all centre-based. But there will be long-term funding or long-term contracts. People will have a much more stable way of counting on funding."

I think it's absolutely compatible with the mandate of the ministry. Everybody thinks of the mandate of this ministry as child protection. While it's critically important, it's only a small part, in some ways. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. A much bigger part. . . . The better work we do with children who are six months, 18 months and three. . . . Generally, child development centres go until school age. There's a few that carry kids a bit longer, but most stop at school age. The better work we do there, the less work we'll be doing later on, either in child protection or in a whole variety of other areas. So I certainly don't see it as incompatible.

A. Sanders: Funding today for NONA comes directly from ministry envelopes. Will this continue, or will funds come in a different way?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are a couple of changes in terms of how the funding happens. It won't come in. . . . This ministry has 12,000 contracts in our province, or more. So it's not 12,000 cheques that go out the door. The dollars will be delivered to the region, and what we'll be looking at are not just programs -- although it's important to look at the programs -- but what kinds of services and supports this child needs to survive, be healthy, be safe and thrive in her family and her neighbourhood.

So it's not just sort of, "This is money for programs," but also, what other. . . . Not all supports that people need are a program that you register in. There are other ways of providing service and support to both children and families, as well. The money will not come -- whatever it is -- in 4,000 individual envelopes to the Vernon area but as a regional budget, and NONA will have a place at the table in terms of how those budgets are decided.

A. Sanders: My last question on NONA, in terms of what the group has related to me, is about what they call the instability of funding, meaning that they aren't sure when they will have the information to say what comes from where and when and so on and so forth. There's a term that they call the PB which is, with all due respect, the Plecas blueprint. They wanted to know what the blueprint was, in terms of when they would know how those contracts will be delivered. When, in the near future, will that be available for them?

[7:45]

A. Sanders: I would certainly put the plug in for the services from the neurological association. I've worked with child development centres in several different locations, and I 

[ Page 6372 ]

can tell you that for locations outside the lower mainland, these places provide an invaluable service, especially within the area of physiotherapy and child development. A lot of the young people that I've had come back from special care nurseries in Vancouver have received excellent service in the communities where they live and have arrived at kindergarten relatively within their milestones as a result of the work of those people at the child development centres. I found them absolutely invaluable.

Another area that I have interest in. . . . One more comment. Sorry, hon. Chair. I was very interested in what the minister mentioned about long-term contracts. I would really appreciate the minister talking to her colleague the Minister of Education. I was pushing for the last couple of days for two- and three-year contracts for school boards. He told me it could not be done, because every year we have to have a budget. I said: "Well, the result of that is you don't get anyone planning beyond the end of their nose, because they cannot look at a more global and realistic view for a two- and three-year period." If we could do that in schools, I think we'd come to a really quite significant crossroad.

The second area I'm interested in is the social equity issues that revolve around the education of children. One of the programs I'd like to mention is the school meals program. Last year this program was under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. At that time, the minister gave me a list of schools that were funded for school meal programs. What I found, in contacting the individual schools on the list, was that not all schools that were funded for school meal programs provided school meals. They got the money but felt that there were other things more important in the school. The way I look at the world, you either get the funding and do what you're supposed to do with it or you don't get the funding.

I would appreciate a couple of things:

1. I'd like a list again this year, because I certainly plan on doing what I did last year, as I found it interesting.

2. I would ask the minister to consider doing some independent audits on the school meals program. I do feel, from a point of view of where I have come from, that this is a valuable program. It cannot be measured by the usual accountability measures, but I think that if we are funding it, those kids should be eating. I would ask the minister if she would be willing to provide me with a list of the schools that are receiving funding for this program.

Hon. P. Priddy: Three things. Yes, I'm more than willing to provide you with a list of the programs receiving money for school meals programs. I absolutely agree with you. Anybody who has a school meals program in their school will tell you that there actually are markers you can use. It makes a huge difference in how children learn.

Secondly, yes, we will do some audits. I just checked with the person from Education who's come over to our ministry. She had not heard that comment before, but, yes, we're perfectly willing to do some audits to ensure that the money is being used for the purpose for which it's intended.

Of course, our colleagues do not always all agree, as in every government, but as a former school board chair, I have been asking for long-term contracts for education for a very long time.

A. Sanders: Keep asking.

My second interest is the inner-city schools program. Would the minister provide me with a list of those receiving inner-city school funding?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we will.

I want to add something, because a staff person who has come to us from Education has said to me that one of the things we've added to the school meal programs is a sort of auditing and reporting requirement that I think may not have been there originally. I just wanted to add that to the information.

A. Sanders: The Kids at Risk program. Could the minister give me an update on this program?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm wondering if the member could just help me around the phrase "update." Are you looking for numbers spread around the province? Just help me a bit.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are 12 Kids at Risk projects around the province, covering 9,000 students in 16 schools. The budget total is. . . . We will be finishing an evaluation of these 12 projects certainly by summer. In terms of distribution around the province, it's fairly. . . . Well, I guess there are some pieces missing. But there are places like Babine Elementary in Nechako, Prince George, the Island, Vancouver, so it seems to be both rural and urban. But we'll certainly provide you with the list; we're happy to do so.

A. Sanders: Just to make sure that we're talking about what we were talking about last year, what is the definition of kids at risk, under the auspices of the Ministry for Children and Families, to qualify for the program?

Hon. P. Priddy: The definition certainly has not changed since last year. I'm not sure of the criteria that are looked at -- I'll have a total list for you -- but they will be things like a high degree of poverty or unemployment in a community that is coming forward, schools where there may be a high level of absenteeism and a high aboriginal population, where we know that there are more children at risk, and a population that is more transient. It's not on the list, but I have a school in my city, near where I live, where the turnover rate is about 80 percent from September to June. So we would look at things like high transient rates and languages other than English and people's ability to have English actually as a functional language. So those were some of the criteria that were looked at when Kids at Risk was designated.

A. Sanders: I have a parent -- again, not in my constituency -- who comes from Kelowna. She is a very educated woman who spent quite a bit of her time doing a self-educated program on kids who are legally blind, as she has a daughter in this situation. One of the things she has been concerned about in the transfer of blind and hearing-impaired kids to the Ministry for Children and Families is. . . . There were summer education programs for deaf kids and for deaf-blind kids but none for blind kids. Because CNIB deals with adults, not children, she wondered why there had been an oversight for this particular group with a disability.

Hon. P. Priddy: I remember this, because I was a week or two in the ministry before I discovered that one of these programs was here. In our ministry we have the summer program for deaf-blind students. It was in the Ministry of Education before it moved over here. I think the rationale for 

[ Page 6373 ]

that particular program is that when you have a dual disability, the risk of losing skills during the summer is quite great. So that particular program was transferred over to us, but those are the only additional responsibilities that we have.

A. Sanders: Our concern is that there is a program for deaf kids, there's a program for deaf-blind kids, but there is no program for blind kids. Her child is blind, so again, it wasn't just the dual disability. It was actually the lack of a program for blind kids in the summer.

Hon. P. Priddy: We will have a look at that. I'm not aware, nor are staff who are here, that we have a program within our ministry for deaf kids. The only program that we have is the summer program for deaf-blind children. We don't have one for deaf children only. But we'll go back and have a look at all three pieces of that. I'm happy to do that. It doesn't necessarily make something happen, but we'll have a look.

A. Sanders: The woman's name is Joyce Mainland, and she lives on Walnut Street in Kelowna. I can provide the phone number if there is some follow-up necessary for this woman.

Another area of interest to me is mental health. As the summer drags on and we're in the Legislature, my own is of concern, as well. Specifically for this minister to deal with, I have a lot of interest in psychiatric disorders and certainly psychiatric disorders among youth.

[8:00]

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually I've probably had less experience than you've had, but I have had a few experiences with Maples, as well. You're right, they're always anecdotal stories. But I heard one story the other day and appreciated hearing it. The Burnaby school board provides the teachers there. They said that it's the first time in years that other ministries have actually come and asked them: "What do you think about the kids here? Can you please be part of the planning team?" That alone doesn't change your concerns, but it did help me know that we were trying to bring people in as part of a larger team.

We in the ministry are doing a review of all our programs and all our contracts, and that will include the one at the Maples. Currently there is not a specific plan to review Maples as a top priority, but it will be reviewed in the same way that all the contracts are being reviewed: not only for effectiveness but for efficiency as well.

A. Sanders: Hopefully, when that review is done we will find good things.

Under the Ministry of Health a number of eating disorder programs were run in British Columbia through the pediatric hospitals and also many of the outreach hospitals. Now that the Ministry for Children and Families is looking after this particular area of psychopathology, did the funding come from the Ministry of Health commensurate with what it had been?

Hon. P. Priddy: We actually do have some very active work going on with the Ministry of Health. However, the program for eating disorders did not come to us; it has stayed with the Ministry of Health. Nevertheless, we are working very actively with them because we know that for children or young people with eating disorders having their family around them is an incredibly active part of what happens. Progress will not happen without that, and it's one of the reasons that we've responded and helped with the family of Brandon Werry. We ensured that his family could be with him.

We are working with the Ministry of Health on a provincial framework for persons with eating disorders. We're working on a variety of strategies, including some funding, a provincial steering committee and some additional services that could be available. But the program itself did not come over to us; it stayed with Health.

A. Sanders: Did the programs for alcohol detox come over to the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. Alcohol and detox programs did come over for both children and adults.

I'm sorry; I do need to make a correction. The institutional treatment part of the eating disorder program -- because I thought maybe that's what you were talking about -- has stayed with the Ministry of Health. Community programs will be programs that we jointly work on with the Ministry of Health, so we do have some joint responsibility for those. But all of the institutionally based ones are with Health.

A. Sanders: Let's just go back to that for a second. In the community circumstance where we have the eating disorders programs, my understanding would then be that the funding for the Vernon eating disorder program would come jointly from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Children and Families? Is that the correct interpretation?

Hon. P. Priddy: Might I ask for clarification on whether the program that you are referring to is both a child and adult one or a youth one only? I'm sorry; I don't know.

A. Sanders: Just youth.

Hon. P. Priddy: Just youth. Then it would come under mental health and would come under our ministry.

A. Sanders: I don't think I have much more to ask about that. This is a program that I have quite a significant amount of interest in, as I work with it in a medical capacity and it does come through the mental health facilities -- just to find out where we're supposed to go when the funding dries up, just to make sure we're at the right ministry.

Another program that I work in conjunction with is the family counselling. . . . I can't remember the actual name for it; it's another one of the non-profit groups that provides counselling for families. One of the things that they had to remove from their budget because of budget restrictions was anger management for men who had been convicted of spousal abuse and who were required to have mandatory 

[ Page 6374 ]

anger management courses. This particular facility ran this program, and they were very concerned that their budget restrictions did not allow for the inclusion of that program in this calendar year.

I run a sexual assault team and have found that, quite commonly, for a lot of the offenders, anger management seemed to be one of the more helpful courses that offenders could take. I had some concerns about the loss of this program. I just wonder if the minister was getting a lot of communities, such as my own, concerned about the loss of what might be considered somewhat ancillary programs, such as an anger management program for convicted offenders.

Hon. P. Priddy: Around those, we have not. That is a question that could be answered either by the Minister of Women's Equality, because I know from my experience in that ministry that we funded some of those programs, or by the Attorney General. But none of those programs are ones that have ever fallen under the responsibility of this ministry.

There's also a debate about whether anger management is as effective as folks think it is.

A. Sanders: Yeah, a few people around here could use some anger management. But nevertheless, I want to thank the minister for her time and turn the discussion back over to my colleague.

M. Coell: I could see that the minister looked a bit surprised. I probably should have said that some of my colleagues were going to come in with specific cases from their constituencies and fit them in during. . . . But it's my intention to continue to go through the list that I provided to the minister of the ministries that came into her ministry.

To go back to services for people with mental disabilities, one program that I wish to canvass, which was highlighted earlier this year, is supported work programs. I remember earlier in the spring getting a number of calls from people afraid that the supported work programs would be cancelled -- anything from. . .they would be subject to minimum wage and those sorts of things. I wonder, first of all, if the minister could assure us that the supported work programs will be continued this year as part of her budget and identify what that budget is and how many work programs we are sponsoring.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, supported work placements will be continued. The budget is $7.37 million. It serves about 1,400 people. It's difficult, actually, to talk about numbers of programs, because very often it's one person working at one factory and one job site. So it's not like they are necessarily programs in buildings, but they are individuals being supported in individual work situations. So it's much harder to talk about programs; it's easier to say that there are 1,400 people being supported in supported work.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could comment on the government policy on minimum wage. I have actually worked with people in supported work programs before, and I think it's the work that's important, not necessarily the wage, although I do understand the reasoning and the desire to possibly have minimum wage. I guess what I'm interested in are comments as to when this does become less of a school and more of a workplace, or a supported school and workplace? Just what will the ministry's philosophy be on dealing with the supported work programs?

Hon. P. Priddy: If someone is in a training program and they truly are gaining new work skills, training skills, then there's not a requirement to pay minimum wage. But one of the things that you probably know as well as I do is that some people have been in training programs for 20 years. Training cannot go on forever. As long as someone is in a training program and is learning new skills, is having some preparation for a more job-ready worksite, then there's not a requirement to pay minimum wage.

In many of the sites for supported work, I know -- I just know because I know personally -- that some of these people are earning a training wage, but some people are earning the minimum wage because they've gained the skills and are actually producing the required amount of work for the job. The determination about whether minimum wage is paid is actually done by Employment Standards, not us, because that's where the decision came from -- a year ago February, if I recall.

I agree with you that it's not always about the money. There are many disabled people that both you and I know who know very well the difference between getting $2 an hour and getting $7 an hour and know the value of their work. But as I say, if they are truly learning training skills, and if they are then work-ready and are in a job where they are fulfilling the work requirements, then Employment Standards makes that determination.

[8:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: I know there have been some struggles along the way, but I'm not aware that any program had to close as a result of this. However, last year we did provide an additional $1 million to a variety of workshops, work training centres -- they get called different things in different places -- around the province to ease them through that transition. For some of the ones that I know, they have chosen to be training facilities only and are there for training people for particular tasks. And some have chosen to have that and then to refocus many of their people where they can and where there are jobs in external supported employment, where people are more likely to be earning a minimum wage.

M. Coell: I think that's very positive.

I wonder if I could move on to community project funding. The ministry now has a number of community projects that it funds, non-profit agencies that deliver community-based services to families, children, individuals. I wonder if there is a global budget for that funding. What I would like to canvass is the number of non-profit agencies that are funded and the types of work they're doing.

Hon. P. Priddy: The budget total is $8.232 million. The range is huge; the range is absolutely enormous. Everything from -- just let me try and find some. . . . While saying that it's a wide variety of services, we do, however, try and make sure that these are services that complement other services 

[ Page 6375 ]

and don't replicate or duplicate other services or other ministry programs. They include family support services, services that assist seniors, volunteer placement services and services to assist people with disabilities integrating into the community. Some are actually local community needs assessments, where there may be a needs assessment around a particular issue that's happening in the community -- for instance, youth. If they are services that are really clearly the responsibilities of other ministries, like job training or adult mental health counselling, they are definitely referred to those ministries for the opportunity to receive funding from them.

M. Coell: I would presume there are probably 100-plus organizations that get funds or. . . . As I see from one of the staff members, it's way more than that. That's all right; I appreciate that. I'm interested in how they are evaluated, by what process. Obviously some are small; some are larger. At the end of the year, after you've allocated the $8.2 million, how do you go back and assess that they're doing their job and that they're doing their job the way you wanted them to do it?

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, it wasn't quite as many more as folks thought. It's about 130. You were quite close.

The evaluation is done as part of the contract renewal. If you talk to people who get the money, they will sometimes say to you, "I don't know if it's worth it or not," although I think they would take the money; I think they would say it's worth it. There is a fairly extensive evaluation that has to be done.

I would also comment -- not simply about these -- that we have within our new ministry something like 12,000 contracts, if not more. So a really large part of our project on contract restructuring and reform has to look at how you are able to monitor it in a way that's efficient, that's efficacious, that does ensure that you get the information and doesn't make it overwhelming to do so. You're not going to monitor 12,000 contracts. So how do you do that restructuring so you're able to do that? For these 130 that I've mentioned, that would be done on an annual basis as part of their evaluation.

M. Coell: With regard to community project funding, how would a group go about getting into the ministry? If someone decided they had a great idea -- a society or a group of people -- how would they go about becoming part of this funding block? Or is it ceilinged out now and there isn't any room?

Hon. P. Priddy: I certainly would not suggest that there is a large amount of room available. What they would do. . . . I think this is a very good thing: as opposed to writing to us, who live here way more than we probably want to these days, that they would actually go to the regional operating office or the regional staff in the region, because that's closer to home. Those are people who know far better than people sitting in Victoria what kind of project that community might need. So they would do that through their region, which I think just makes far more sense than trying to do it through Victoria.

M. Coell: Does the minister envision the regions actually doing the evaluation of the projects that fall within their boundaries eventually, as well?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we would envision them doing the review of those projects; that's correct.

M. Coell: If the regions are going to do the review -- and to me, that sounds like a very logical thing to do -- are they going to be apportioned the staff that are doing those reviews now from throughout the province back into the regions? Or where are those staff going to come from? Obviously they have some specific talents and skills for review. Are they going to be moved to the regions, or are they there now?

Hon. P. Priddy: For the most part, we already have people in our regions who do contract management and contract evaluation. So it's not as if there have never been people out there before doing contract management. We would expect that the people who are doing contract management would be able to participate in this work. They may need some skills upgrading, and if that's the case, we certainly will provide that for them. But there are already people doing contract management and evaluation in the regions.

M. Coell: If they will now administer and evaluate the community-based projects in the regions, as new ones come on, with the limited dollars we all know government has, will they have the power to reduce some programs and bring others on? Will that become a regional issue rather than a provincial issue?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they will be able to do that, and probably for a couple of reasons. One of them is that they know best whether they're working or not. So that won't be done through Victoria; it will be done in the regions. I think that, because a project got funded eight years ago, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's still doing the job it was intended to do or that it's still doing a job that's necessary in the community. So yes, there is that opportunity to do that.

M. Coell: I agree with the direction the minister's going. Has any thought been given to each region having a certain amount of money, not by population but probably by need? Some regions may find that they cut services because of not having that global amount of money like the Vancouver region or the capital region would have. There may come a disparity of services -- I'm thinking of community-based services, not of government services, because I'm sure they would be apportioned. But you could have a chance where you'd start to lose one type of community-based service in an area, so that if someone moved to the area, they might have had that program in Vancouver or the capital region; they might not have it in Rossland-Trail. What sort of centralized control or watchdog will be there on these programs?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two or three, hon. member. One of them is the fact that on an annual basis all of the regional plans, while developed in the regions by people in the regions with all those people at the table who we said would be there -- and they will be -- have to be approved in Victoria. So they don't only get approved in the regions; they have to come to Victoria and go through a screen here, as well. Can you ask the first part of your question again? I had the answer, and I'm just not sure of the question part.

M. Coell: I was looking at the potential for. . . . I'll give you an example: the Boys and Girls Club. You might find they thrive in an urban area, but they are found to not be as necessary in a rural area. . .cut for another program. So you would start to find different areas might have different programs. I just want to assure myself that there's actually going to be -- and I think the minister's really answered my question -- someone looking over that whole thing to make sure 

[ Page 6376 ]

that you don't all of a sudden lose community-based programs in favour of other ones. There may be a good reason for that, but then you start to find that your province isn't served with the same services.

Hon. P. Priddy: Just very briefly, because I think I have answered most of the question, there's nowhere that we live currently in this province that everybody has equal access to programs. That's part of what happens in terms of the choices we either make or, often, have to make in terms of where we live or where we earn a living. But it also offers an opportunity for the community to say: "We've had this program for a long time, and we actually think we need that kind of program much more." It offers the opportunity to do that.

Heretofore what's happened is that the programs just continued along, needed or not; no matter why it started, they just continued. This way, a community can actually say: "I'm not sure we still need this kind of program. But we really need this one." And so our recommendation is going to be to set up a different kind of program. As I say, we don't have all programs in all communities now, and I don't expect, whether we like it or not, that we ever will.

M. Coell: Thank you for those comments. I feel that my concern is obviously one that you have had, and structured an oversight within the program.

If we might move on to health services and programs for children, there are actually two programs I want to look at. One is the Healthy Kids program. I was on the capital regional district board when Best Babies came in, and the pilot project in Esquimalt was very successful. So I'm anxious to hear how this program is going. It's a much more expanded program than Best Babies, and it is a much broader program. It also deals with dental care, vision and counselling for families. So if the minister could update me on the program, I would be pleased.

[8:30]

Under the Healthy Kids program basic dental and optical care eligibility was extended to 145,000 children. Twenty thousand of those children were in income-assistance, two-parent families; 125,000 in low-income working families. That is optical and dental combined. If you break the data down a bit more, it shows that last year dental benefits were provided to approximately 36,000 children under the age of 19 at a cost of about $6.2 million. Optical benefits were provided to approximately 4,600 children, at a cost of approximately $385,000.

M. Coell: That's a very impressive number of children who have used the services of a dentist. Does the ministry have any information as to whether those are children who hadn't been seeing a dentist? You would probably have records on the 20,000 that were on income assistance, but I suspect that with the other 145,000 children, you wouldn't know whether that was the first visit to the dentist in four or five years or whether that's a. . . . I'd be interested to hear your comments on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, I don't think we have the data. But for a variety of reasons, I know a little bit about this one. I think many of those children. . . . You're right, for the 20,000 that are on income assistance, that's always been accessible. But for the families and the dentists I've talked with -- because we own one in our family -- a number of those children had maybe seen a dentist once or twice. These are very-low-income working families, so when you list all the things they have to buy this month out of their paycheque, dental care, which is very expensive, is way down at the bottom, and children simply don't have that opportunity. So many are children who may have gone once or twice, but they were not in any way going on a regular basis, and they were not having anything beyond very basic care. So it's made an enormous difference for low-income working families.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could expand on the amount of money that each child would be entitled to, how many visits. . .and what the program would be for an individual child.

Hon. P. Priddy: We don't have that with us. I used to be able to do that right off the top of my head. However, we do have the information, and we will get it to you.

M. Coell: That number is staggering when you think of the number of kids that are in low-income families that probably hadn't been to the dentist for a while, as the minister says. So I think that's very positive.

I would be interested to know the budget for children's orthodontic services and the approximate number of children who use that service in a year.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't have the information around orthodontia. I know that it's a fairly small number of children, and it tends primarily to be orthodontia when it's actually presenting a difficulty for the child in terms of eating, speaking and so on. We will get the information for you. The program has only just been journal-vouchered over to us. It's actually still being administered by the Ministry of Human Resources, so that's why we don't have the data with us. But we'll get it for you.

M. Coell: Is the program open to the same income ranges as Healthy Kids in that it's open to those on lower incomes as well as people on assistance? As well, is there a graduated range where someone would actually pay the actual cost if they could afford it?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two things. One of them is around eligibility -- and yes, you're right: we would look at the same things as the Ministry of Human Resources does when it looks at the child benefit. So the income range for the low-income working poor, if you look at that. . . . It might only pay $12 to some people, because they're at the very top of the scale and they've got only one child and so on. So it varies depending on the number of children in your family and on income, and it goes from paying almost the full cost and graduates as your income goes up. As I say, it's based on the same criteria as the child benefit.

M. Coell: I purposely haven't dealt with child protection, as we've been going through the services moved from the Ministry of Social Services. Because this has been probably the most important issue of the reorganization -- well, the most highlighted one, I guess -- it would be my desire to deal with that issue when I deal with the Gove recommendations and the structure of the new ministry. What I would like to do, if 

[ Page 6377 ]

the minister is agreeable, is just go through the other ministries of Education, Skills and Training, Women's Equality and Health. . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: No, you just did some of that.

. . .and then come back to the global issues. I don't know whether we'll get to it tonight, but I'd like to do the global issues in child apprehension and the risk management tool, as well.

With that, I would like to talk with the minister about school meals programs on a provincial basis. I know that the member from Okanagan mentioned a couple of programs. . . . One of my colleagues is mentioning the amount of staff, and I am cognizant of the amount of staff we have here, as well. So I'm trying to be as efficient as I can.

The global budget for the school meals program and the number of children using the program would be helpful.

Hon. P. Priddy: The budget is about $14.8 million, and there are approximately 60,000 children who are part of school meals programs.

If I might make a correction or what may be a correction, because I'm not certain of what I said earlier in terms of the notes that were in front of me, I just want to go back to dental care for a moment to make sure that I was clear and not misleading around numbers. There are 146,000 children who are eligible, but they have not all gone to the dentist yet. I think we've got about 40,000 so far. We've had a little discussion going on around fees with dentists which has sort of slowed this down a bit.

I must comment, if I might. . . . I promised I wouldn't do this, didn't I? I know, but it's only once. I've talked to a number of parents who said: "I was so worried about moving off income assistance. I knew that I'd be able to afford other things when I got into the workforce, but I'd never be able to afford dental care for my children, and now I can." I wanted to clarify the numbers so that I didn't mislead you.

M. Coell: I appreciate the clarification. I think that's still a large number of kids to go through the program in one year. With the global budget and the number of children, would it be reasonable to think that the meals program is subsidized per child, or is it subsidized per program?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's subsidized per program. In many cases, parents subsidize the program on an individual basis. The program is subsidized, not the individual child.

M. Coell: Would the minister be able to tell me what the average program is subsidized for, for one school?

[8:45]

M. Coell: Is the ministry concentrating on inner-city schools, or is any school able to participate? It strikes me that there are probably areas that we could put more effort into and in other areas not spend a lot of money. I'm just wondering how the program is administered that way.

Hon. P. Priddy: They are primarily inner-city schools. It's important to remember -- at least for me -- what an inner-city school is. There are certainly programs in the north, in rural areas. The bulk of inner-city schools are in larger areas. Inner-city doesn't mean downtown Vancouver. There are inner-city schools in Surrey; there are inner-city schools in Prince George; there are inner-city schools all across the province. So yes, they are inner-city schools by that kind of definition, and not deep in the heart of a large city area. They are across the province but predominantly in urban areas.

M. Coell: I suppose you could say this is on future budgets, but has the budget been going up, and do you see the budget continuing to go up as needs are found?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's amazing what one can learn in one's own estimates. I hope, of course, that it would be a learning process for all of us.

The budget for '96-97 was increased for school meals programs. It has not been for this year, although I know that there are schools -- for instance, schools in Vancouver -- that have gained some corporate sponsorship from major sports organizations, like the Orca Bay.

Interestingly, we did two things. We allowed some flexibility. There are a number of programs that come now in what you might call the social equity envelope: Kids at Risk, school meals and so on. We did allow some flexibility within that. What we found last year when we said, "We don't think this is an unending amount," is that in the schools that had school meal programs, they gained, both through parent contributions and through other ways of offering the program, an average 18 percent efficiency per school over the previous year. So they were able to offer 18 percent more for the same amount of money.

M. Coell: Is there an opportunity for private or corporate sponsorships? Does the province actively look for those, or do they let the individual schools look for them?

Hon. P. Priddy: There is not a particular policy around corporate sponsorships, but we have a number of them. I can think of two or three schools just in the last few months that have gained corporate sponsorships. We do not actively, as a ministry, go and seek that out. What we do, though, is provide some guidelines for schools around what corporate sponsorship might look like, and some things to avoid and some things to think about. So we do provide some guidelines around that, but we're not actively out, at this stage, searching for corporate sponsors.

M. Coell: I might relay a story. A friend of mine teaches and runs a school lunch program. The students go out and do car washes and community-type projects. They put that money into the pot so they can have four kinds of cheese on their pizza, rather than one. They actually get quite a charge out of raising the money to upscale their own lunches. So there are a whole bunch of ways of raising money out there.

Hon. P. Priddy: That's the 18 percent.

M. Coell: Yes, I suspect that's probably it.

I wonder if we could move to the inner-city school programs. I must confess, I know very little about these programs. I gather they are relatively new programs in the couple of years. . . . I'd be interested in, again, the budget and then the number of students who are involved in the programs. They look very interesting.

[ Page 6378 ]

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: When we talk about the inner-city school programs, I guess I sort of want to divide this into some categories, if I can. Actually, you're quite right: they're quite wonderful and interesting and creative programs. The criteria are much as I described the criteria earlier. Significant numbers of children who are living in poverty with poor parents. . . . I don't like the phrase "children who live in poverty"; they hardly do that alone. These children are in areas where there might be a very high number of children from single-parent families or families on income assistance, children with English as a second language, and a large number of aboriginal students, actually, in dangerous environments. And I think we have seen some of that -- a high transiency rate and high absenteeism. So their criteria are similar.

There are 113 programs in the province. The budget is $5.5 million, and the range is quite open-ended. It can be -- I was just sort of thinking of one at my local school -- additional counselling services. It can be parent and community involvement in programming, which I think is really important, because then when you start to get everybody coming into the school, not. . . . Schools aren't just for children; schools are for whole communities.

Language development, self-confidence, conflict resolution, cultural experiences, fine arts, recreation, some health issues for students, increased parent and community involvement in the school -- which I'm seeing more and more of and which I'm absolutely delighted by, because in many cases students, especially children, don't have seniors involved even in their lives, because they don't have grandparents here. . . . So I think that we've been very pleased by that. I think that sort of gives you a range of the programs.

M. Coell: The staff are obviously Ministry of Children and Families staff, and they're working within the school system. Is that correct? Or are we subsidizing the Ministry of Education, and it's their staff doing the work?

Hon. P. Priddy: For the most part -- and it's a little different when we talk about community schools as opposed to inner-city schools -- we primarily contract with school districts for staff. So it may be Education, it may be teaching staff, or it could be support staff; but we contract with the school districts for the staff for the programs.

M. Coell: They actually would be employees of the school board, but the money would come out of this ministry for the school board budget and the school board.

Does the school board decide on the program and then apply for funding? Or does the ministry decide, "This is a school that needs a program," and provide the funding to the school board?

Hon. P. Priddy: This is a program where the school board must apply. Now, an individual school can go to the school board and say, "We want to apply as an inner-city school," but the school board has to sign off on the application and has to talk about how that particular school meets those criteria.

M. Coell: The school board would then develop the programs -- the counselling programs or the support programs -- and they would be part of the application to the ministry -- or to the school board? I'm a little confused.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's changing. That's why I was just helping myself be corrected. What happened previously is that the school board would have had to define what the program was, what they were going to do and the kinds of programs, and it would have gone to the Ministry of Education. What will now happen is that it will be developed by the school district, but the actual application will go to the regional operating officer, because, again, it's closer to home and people there know better than we do.

M. Coell: In that case it would be the same as the other programs we discussed: the province would have the overview at the end of the year and the sign-off on it?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct, as we would any part of the regional operating plan.

M. Coell: That'll be the last time I ask that question, then, if it's the same for all. I appreciate that.

The program Kids at Risk, which is another program that I know little about other than what I've heard from your staff in briefings -- and I've appreciated that. . . . Again I just would be interested in the budget and the number of kids served.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think part of this information was canvassed, and actually, because I think these are wonderful programs, I'm pleased to share some of that information again. For Kids at Risk, the budget is $750,000. There are 9,000 students involved in 16 schools throughout the province. All of the programs are being evaluated, and the evaluation will be finished, I hope, by June. It is interesting to note, particularly around schools, whether it's what you call kids at risk or inner-city schools, that in the children's commissioner report, she placed significant emphasis on schools being the hub of communities -- which architecturally, when we started building suburbs after the war, is actually what they were intended to be. I think those are the questions that you've asked.

[9:00]

Hon. P. Priddy: It's two and a half years. You can put an X beside my name -- a big X, right? because I'm going to do it again. In one of the schools, not in my riding, but in Surrey. . . . It's a fairly new program, and I went to visit one day. One of the things they've done. . . . A mother said she didn't think that other moms were getting enough exercise, so as they dropped their children off for school, she started a walk program. Here now, three times a week, are about 35 mothers who speak about 28 languages between them -- they don't actually speak with each other, other than in their own language -- who are now actively involved in an exercise program and way more involved in their children's school. I mean, some of the things that are happening are just extraordinary; they're quite wonderful. Thank you for allowing me to tell the story, even if I got an X.

M. Coell: Even if her deputy didn't want her to tell the story, I enjoyed the story.

I'd like to talk about the funding for community schools and the expansion of community schools. It's a concept that obviously has caught on and obviously is needed. I can remember when the first community school came to greater 

[ Page 6379 ]

Victoria, which is a few decades ago now, and they've expanded quite significantly. I would be interested in. . . . I guess there are two areas. I find it somewhat interesting that it's in this particular ministry and didn't stay in the Education ministry. I do view that as positive, because I think it probably has more in common with this ministry than it does with a strict Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. As I was saying, the growth of community schools has been quite extensive. Does the minister see that growing, or has it reached a level where it's providing the service and you don't see that continued growth as we've had in the last decade?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, it's an area that I expect to grow. I think it may be one of the most important things that we do. I am very excited about community schools. Let me just give you a little bit of the background information. You probably remember -- as I do and as your colleague from Delta North, who has come in, does -- when we actually had community schools back in the seventies and early eighties. Those were dismantled, and then we didn't have community schools for a very long time.

The community schools that we're talking about here have only been around since 1994-95. It's grown from 21 schools in the first year to 41, to 71 this year. We actually added 30 community schools to the program this year. The budget is $5.3 million.

Again, a school can go to the school district. The school district must sign off on the community school, on the concept of it.

It's somewhat different from other programs, because it has to have a strong active community organization that is prepared to run the programs in the school. It's intended to strengthen existing school programs through more involvement with the school, to expand the range of learning opportunities for youth and adults and to really encourage what we all say so easily, which is lifelong learning.

I like my program activities better than these, but I'll give you some of these, too. Some of the program activities that are listed here are enrichment programs for children outside of school, and preschool and after-school child care programs. But I know that in some of the ones that I've seen -- for instance, the Hjorn Road-Holly Elementary one -- there are clothing exchange programs. It's partly because people need to do that, but it's a safe way to go into the school. If your experiences with school haven't been good or if you've had a principal that's really scary, it's really hard to go into the school. If you go in for a clothing exchange, you're in, and then you start to meet other people and other parents.

There's the community kitchen, where parents come in -- both moms and dads -- and cook meals for the week for families.

There are some absolutely wonderful things going on. But there has to be this commitment by the school community -- not just by the parents but by the community around the school -- to keep this running. There is money for a part-time or full-time coordinator, but it is the school and the community that keep it going. They are wonderful, and, yes, they will grow.

M. Coell: That $5.3 million and 70 school programs -- do we have the number of people using them? Are we keeping that? People who would actually. . . . They would be very hard statistics to keep, granted -- of people using the kitchen and the clothing exchange. Has there been any thought. . . ? It would be interesting to know how many people are actually involved from each community in that facility and what we could expect over a year.

Hon. P. Priddy: We don't have any kind of data like that at this stage, hon. member. Actually, it might be interesting. I'm not sure you could do it with all 71 schools at once, but it might be interesting to try and do that with one or two of the schools, to see how large the community involvement is.

The one that I spoke of also has all these seniors who come at night and use the school. It's intergenerational, which lots of children don't have an opportunity to see. Some of the community schools -- not the one I'm referring to but some of the ones in Vancouver -- actually also offer a safe house, safe places for kids to get off the street. They're not truly safe on the street; it's dangerous.

It's very diverse. We don't have that data. It might be interesting, with one or two schools, just to try to collect some of that. We haven't yet, though.

M. Coell: I think that would be worthwhile data if only from the prospect of selling the program. If you could show that indeed this program has 300 active members of the community in it, show how many meals have been produced -- those sorts of things -- as dollars get tougher, I think it would be easier to sell a project like that.

My colleague from the Okanagan mentioned the summer programs for deaf and blind children. The province also has resource programs that are summer programs for children in care. My recollection is that those have been going on for many years, and I would be interested to know what the status of those programs is -- whether the province still offers summer programs for kids in care and if there is a budget for that. I couldn't find it in the budget I had.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm going to have to check on it, member. When you asked the question, I didn't know if you. . . . Hon. member, I just want to clarify if you're actually talking about children in care, so it moves out of Education and into that part. Is that okay? Because it's not a responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

I cannot give you either a budget or a number. What happens when we develop a case plan for a child in care is that we look at what the child might like or need or want to do this summer. In some cases, it may be residential camp for a couple of weeks; in other cases, it could be sports camp. It may be parks and recreation programs in their own communities. It's really based very much on what the case plan is for the individual child, so I cannot give you a budget for it. It's included within the entire budget planning.

M. Coell: I just want to make sure, for my own self, that those programs are still available, and they obviously are. They have been going since I was a child in British Columbia, and that's just a few years ago.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Yeah, it's getting longer.

I wonder if we could go on now to the Ministry of Women's Equality.

Hon. P. Priddy: Delighted.

M. Coell: I'll let you change staff.

[ Page 6380 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: It's like changing horses on a stagecoach ride.

M. Coell: I would think that over the last ten years there has been a huge improvement in services such as child care, the ability to have toddler programs and programs for wage supplements -- a huge benefit not only to women but to families as well. I'd just like to take a few moments and look at some of those programs with an eye to seeing where they're at in funding and use and what sort of evaluation the ministry has been doing.

I think the minister probably feels quite at home with this ministry because she was the Minister of Women's Equality at one time, so she probably has a fond spot in her heart for this ministry. It seems appropriate that it would come to Children and Families and follow you.

The facilities and equipment grants program was started with the Ministry for Children and Families, I believe. It's not new; it was there before. I wonder what the budget of that is and also what the usage is. How many people are using that program? I can see the minister wanting to jump up already. . .

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry.

M. Coell: . . .and I haven't finished asking my question -- which is very good, especially at this time of the night. [Laughter.] Anyway, what I'm looking for is basically an overview of that program and the usage. Have people taken advantage of the program?

Hon. P. Priddy: I will try and be serious and depressed about this, since my deputy has reminded me how late it is. I think that he means he doesn't want me to talk about it very much -- hardly at all. Actually, I've just gone for another sheet that I think might be helpful for you. But in terms of the facilities, all of the programs are being used to the maximum, so there's no program that is not being used to the full extent.

[9:15]

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Under the current grant system, I think there are somewhere between ten and 12 grants that will be approved for this year. Just a little bit of additional information: the grants are available to non-profit societies and local governments to purchase, to renovate, to expand, etc.

The provincial priorities for this year -- because we do sometimes change the priorities, as we should, depending on where the needs are in the province -- for the facilities and equipment grant have particularly focused on infant and toddler spaces, because they're harder to get; out-of-care spaces, because out of care, both before and after school, is also difficult to get; and spaces in underserved parts of the province.

There are parts of the province that are -- although it may not always feel that way -- better served in terms of child care spaces. The grants this year range somewhere between $5,000 and $300,000, so obviously people were actually building the $300,000 one. There were 280 child care spaces created and 60 existing child care spaces retained through the facilities and equipment grant, because sometimes you actually retain a space, which means you don't lose it because your facility isn't up to standard.

M. Coell: The other area is the wage supplement initiative that is relatively new and that supplements child care workers' wages. I think the idea was that a higher wage would keep people in the job longer. It would also give an incentive for people to hire people with more training in those positions. I'd be interested in knowing how many individuals were supplementing their wages. That's a good start.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm just looking for the total: $14.3 million is the total budget for it. There are 5,500 child care workers who are benefiting from the wage supplement. They're employed in 1,195 child care facilities. They're earning an average, currently, of about $14 an hour. By the way, I know it has grown a lot in the last ten years. I'm very seldom partisan in estimates, but, quite frankly, it's grown significantly since 1992, because this government has made it a priority. Recipients of the wage supplement currently represent about 76 percent of the workers in the licensed group child care centres.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline the extent of the supplement: how much it is per individual either per hour or per day.

Hon. P. Priddy: The current goal within the guidelines is $14 an hour. Most of the staff in these facilities have at least a two-year program from a community college, and some have a university degree. The top goal is $14 an hour, so how much they're being supplemented depends very much on where people started. Some people might only be supplemented $2 an hour; some might be supplemented $5 an hour. It will depend on how low the wage was to begin with. But the top is $14.

M. Coell: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that all the agencies were paying different levels of scale, and you've levelled them off to a maximum of $14 an hour. So not all people are being paid $14 an hour; there's a variation.

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct: there is still a variation, because not everybody has reached $14 an hour. People were paying varying rates, including one organization which was paying two staff people $2.50 an hour. I found that quite interesting.

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me what the time line is on bringing everyone up to that level? Once that's done. . . . I suspect that's for a future estimate.

Hon. P. Priddy: Obviously all things depend on future estimates, as the member knows, but we would hope it's within the next three years. Part of this negotiation is done through CSSEA, as well. We don't do this all on our own.

M. Coell: The minister said that there were 5,500 child care workers. With the increase in wages, are they required now to have that two-year program certificate before they would be hired into the system?

Hon. P. Priddy: The amount people are paid and the qualifications really depend on the licensing and the kind of 

[ Page 6381 ]

facility that exists. For instance, in a group licensed facility, you must have a certain number of people who have completed an early childhood education program. So the training of the people in the facility depends on the regulations around the Community Care Facility Act. That would therefore depend on how many children you have, their age, their size, the kinds of children you're looking after, and so on. So, in part, that's guided by community care licensing.

M. Coell: I'd like to move on to the B.C. 21 child care expansion initiative. That program, I believe, is three years old -- correct me if I'm wrong -- and it is designed to increase child care spaces. I would be interested in knowing how many spaces are in the budget to be created this year.

Hon. P. Priddy: Just while people check the actual numbers, is B.C. 21 three years old or four? There was a designation of $32.5 million to provide child care spaces in public buildings: primarily schools, colleges, universities. There are some other public buildings, as well, that have child care centres in them. So they were very focused dollars. The program is over. That was $32.5 million to be spent over the course of three years. That particular program is finished. The only capital expansion money that's available is the $2.5 million that we spoke about earlier under the facilities and equipment grant.

As a result of the $32.5 million, I know that almost every college in the province now has a day care. Maybe not every campus, but almost every college has a day care within its college system. It created a number of the teen parent programs within schools. Hospitals were harder to do than we expected, but there are three hospitals where there are child care programs within the hospital setting. People don't actually have the number yet, but I'll get it for you in a minute.

The dollars that were spent, the $32.5 million, led to the creation -- or in some cases relocation, but primarily creation -- of 3,400 child care spaces in total: 2,600 of those in schools, 600 in colleges and 200 in hospitals. It was not the least expensive way to build child care, but it is important for people to have them in those places.

M. Coell: The other child care element that I wish to canvass is the child care subsidy. The subsidy is intended to provide income assistance to low-income families and also, I believe, families who are on income assistance. Could the minister tell me what the budget for that particular program is and how many people are actually using the program at this time?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: For the day care subsidy -- without which many parents would not be able to return to the workforce or to participate in any kind of skill upgrading -- the total budget for this year is $131,777,000. In 1992, when this commitment to child care began, it was $55 million, so we have seen a significant increase. At this stage, the number of children using the day care subsidy over the course of a month is about 33,256. Sometimes children go off and on if parents have seasonal work, and so on.

M. Coell: Does that subsidy vary from area to area in the province? Or is it strictly a subsidy per child anywhere in the province?

Hon. P. Priddy: No. It is the same throughout the province.

M. Coell: The budget this year sees a consistent 33,000? Or do you see this budget growing as it's grown since 1992?

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, the day care subsidy has always been seen as an entitlement. It is not legally an entitlement, I don't think, and I think we've looked at this before under the Charter. But it has always been considered an entitlement, so we've not -- thus far, anyway -- had to cap it in some way.

I mean, what happens in other provinces is that people apply because the spaces are subsidized. So you might have to wait six months to get a subsidized space, whereas in our province, if you have a job that's starting next week, you will not have to wait for your day care subsidy. You just have to fill out your application, and it will come.

[9:30]

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me what that subsidy is this year? Has the subsidy itself changed? Or has it been the same subsidy for three years?

Hon. P. Priddy: The last time the rates were raised was 1994, and at that time, if I recall, we actually raised the rates of family day care, because that was the greatest discrepancy between what the subsidy was and what the market rate was. But 1994 was the last time -- if you're talking about the individual payment to a family or to a parent -- that it was raised.

M. Coell: I'd actually be interested in the dollar figure for the subsidy.

Hon. P. Priddy: For individual families?

M. Coell: For an individual family.

Hon. P. Priddy: It varies, depending on the age of the child and the kind of facility you have your child in. I can run through it quite quickly for you, and I'll assume it's full-time, just for the sake of this discussion.

If a child is between zero and 18 months and is in family day care, a smaller facility family day care, the rate is $438 a month. If a child is between 19 and 36 months and is in family day care, it's $404; if it's between 36 months and five years and again in family day care, it's $354. Sorry, those are subsidy rates for unlicensed caregivers. So this is the neighbour of yours that might live next door who provides day care for one or two children.

If you look at licensed facilities, then, for family day care, it's actually the same. The family day care rates are the same, whether it's licensed or not. But for group care -- for instance, if you have a child from zero to 18 months in a licensed group facility -- $585 is the top amount. If the child is 19 to 36 months, $528; over 36 months, $368. And then there is an amount for out-of-school care as well, which is $255 for kindergarten and $173 for grade 1 and up.

[ Page 6382 ]

M. Coell: We've now created child care spaces, a child care subsidy. We have children in care. That would bring me to my next question, which is: how are we monitoring the day care spaces and the staff who run those spaces?

I realize that there are different categories. You have some that are the person next door who has two children. They're licensed through the regional district. The chief medical health officer, I guess, is involved there. But there's a significant amount of people and money involved, and if we could spend some time looking at how they are monitored and how the individual staff are reviewed or assessed, as well. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: I've just asked someone to look for something I want to comment on for a minute. In terms of monitoring for group facilities that are licensed under the Community Care Facility Act, the Ministry of Health, under community care licensing, has that responsibility.

Although it is not yet perfect and there are not enough people and all those kinds of things, one of the things we started to do in 1992 was hire more people in the Ministry of Health for licensing who had early childhood backgrounds, because previously people doing the licensing were the same people who licensed restaurants and other kinds of community care facilities. We wanted people who actually had early childhood backgrounds to be able to do that.

Regular visits from community care licensing ensure that the standards that the community care licensing is concerned about are being met. We fund 47 child care support programs throughout the province, and these are sort of centralized programs that provide support to family caregivers who will go in, look at how they're doing, provide them with resources, provide them with training, lend them equipment, lend them toys. These are people who were giving child care all by themselves before, with no kind of support. So the monitoring is being done in that way, as well.

One of the things we've done as a pilot project -- this an important one, and I'll mention it quickly -- is a demonstration project in Chilliwack. We got some cost-sharing a few years ago from the federal government -- yes, I got some money from the federal government. You see, if you care for only two children, you don't have to be licensed, but we still want to be able to know you're there, know the kind of job you're doing and have access to the home.

What we've done is a registration project to see if we can get people to voluntarily register in the beginning. The program has been having really good success. There are a number of caregivers who are actually not required to have licences but who have volunteered to participate in the program because they see the benefit that they get back from it. What we do is get into the home, have access, make sure there's training and be able to do some monitoring.

I'm just watching the time, so I won't go on longer.

M. Coell: With the licensed day cares -- and they would be four-plus children -- is there a mandatory review of the licence? How often is that?

Hon. P. Priddy: For licensed facilities, the official review of the facility -- not just the physical part but the quality of the programming as well -- is done under the Community Care Facility Act by the Ministry of Health, and it's done every two years.

M. Coell: Do we do a criminal background check on someone who applies for a licence? Do we also do a criminal background check on anyone else living in the house? I'm thinking of adolescent children or spouses.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we do. In the past, it had been done only on the caregiver, on the person who was going to provide the care. But we changed that, and it is done on anybody who either lives in the home or is in the home on a regular basis. That sort of extends that circle, as well -- absolutely.

M. Coell: I'm thinking of how the relationship fits between a regional district -- or now it would possibly be a health board, I guess -- and the medical health officer. They also have some responsibility for the day cares. How do the two fit together with the new ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: The responsibility has not changed in terms of the licensing, so that has stayed with the Ministry of Health and in each region with whoever the regional health officer is. What's happening in most regions, now that we have so much more interaction with the Ministry of Health and with public health, is that we have worked out. . . . It's a little different in each region. Our staff work with the public health people and the licensing officers to make sure that it's a coordinated approach, so that somebody doesn't go off and check licensing and then somebody goes off and checks something else and something gets missed. The health board, our people and the licensing people all work together.

M. Coell: One case that I believe the minister may have some knowledge about -- I was copied with a letter that was sent to you, I believe -- is a licensed facility where there were problems with a youth in the house. A young boy had been charged with not sexual abuse but sexual touching -- something along those lines -- and the mother had also lost the licence twice before. When applicants came forward, they weren't told about the background. At that point the licence was good, she had cleaned up her act, so to speak, and the boy had done counselling sessions. But still, the parents weren't told about that. Will there be a point at which the entire background and history of the person who has a day care has to be open for the applicants?

Hon. P. Priddy: Not only do I not have an answer, but the ministry does not have an answer at this stage. It's much like one of the questions asked by one of your colleagues earlier about the issues of freedom of information and privacy. They are there for good reasons, but they also provide us with some real challenges.

The Ministry of Health has an alert system, so the Ministry of Health holds all of that information. Because of freedom of information, the applicant -- you or I, if we wanted to know about that provider for our child -- would not be able to receive that information from the Ministry of Health because of the FOI regulations. We are currently trying to find a way to work around that so that those situations don't reoccur, but we have not found one as yet.

M. Coell: Thank you.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:44 p.m.

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