[ Page 7073 ]

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: Today in the gallery we have a number of student leaders from Vancouver and Victoria, including Maura Parte, the B.C. chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. Joining them are two of my staff who I'm very proud of, Renee Saklikar and Michael Gardiner. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Together with the other students here today are some students from the greater Victoria area that I want to welcome to the House as well. In the gallery today are Rob Fleming, newly elected chairperson of the UVic Students Society; Mike Conlon, president of the UVic Graduate Students Society; Hamish McArthur, external affairs executive for the Camosun College Student Society; Jason Noble and Kathy Loewen also from Camosun; and Morgan Stewart from the University of Victoria. As the local MLA as well as the Minister for Advanced Education, I'd like to ask the House to join me in making all these students very welcome.

G. Hogg: Present today are a group of youths from Surrey-White Rock who are involved in the production of a highly acclaimed Shaw Cable TV program for youth called Mestiza. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Plant: Today at McRoberts Secondary School in Richmond, which is just outside my riding, for the grade 9 students it's take-your-child-to-work day. Well, my daughter has prevailed upon her father to do just that. Caroline is in the gallery watching all of us, and I ask that members please make her most welcome.

R. Kasper: Today in the gallery we have two representatives from the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 280: Mr. Bob Colvin, who is their business manager and financial administrator; and Mr. Vern Henderson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Sitting, I'm pretty sure, up above me where members opposite can see them are some folks from my ministry who are here to celebrate 25 years of service to the people of British Columbia. All members of all sides and all parties know that the people who actually fly the plane are the civil service. Please make welcome Jim Alcock, Brian Belcher, Barbara Brown, Peter Fofonoff, David Kent, Jim Plotnikoff, Dave Sands and Jean Sherwood, and their families.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from Argentina. Her Excellency Susana Ruiz Cerutti is the newly appointed Ambassador of Argentina to Canada. She is making her first visit to British Columbia. Would the House please make her most welcome.

I. Chong: Visiting today from St. Michaels University Junior School are 40 grade 5 students, representing two classes of 20 students each. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Chan and several adults. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I noticed in the precinct today one of the students, Matthew Todd. I'd like to introduce him to the House. I worked with him on the social planning committee when I was on city council. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Joining with the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I would like the House to acknowledge a young gentleman. Evan Hesketh is here with the grade 5 class from St. Michaels. Evan's mother is my deputy minister, Joan Hesketh. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Walsh: Visiting with us in the precinct is a constituent of mine, Muriel Stickney. She is a councillor with the district of Sparwood. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be introduced and read for a first time now. [Applause.]

Hon. Speaker, you can tell by the applause how proud the caucus is of this act. It extends the current tuition fee freeze at public post-secondary institutions for a third consecutive year -- to March 31, 1999. At the beginning of the third year, British Columbia has moved from having the second-highest tuition fees in Canada -- when this government took office -- to the second-lowest in Canada today. Freezing tuition fees makes education more accessible for more than 150,000 students and even more future students throughout the province. British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in North America that has frozen tuition fees and significantly increased capacity in its colleges and universities for three years in a row because of the priority that our government applies to post-secondary education.

In addition -- and this is important -- the act will apply to mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition. This will ensure that students' financial planning is certain from last year to this year and that they will not encounter any additional mandatory costs outside of tuition fees. As institutions develop new programs to meet the demands of the changing economy, the act will ensure that tuition fees charged for these programs do not exceed fees charged for similar existing programs.

This is a flagship piece of legislation for this administration. It puts us in the vanguard in North America on access to post-secondary education. When you look at the statistics that show we already have the most educated population in Canada, it means we are giving young people the tools they need to be successful in the future.

Bill 8, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

[ Page 7074 ]

My question is to the Minister of Environment: has she ever asked a member of the NDP cabinet to contact the Agricultural Land Commission with a view to influencing that body with respect to the Six Mile project in her riding?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: In his report to the Premier -- as a means of emphasizing to the minister the importance of the question she's going to answer next -- Mr. McArthur wrote: ". . .a minister must not contact or make representation directly to a commissioner who is hearing a case, or presumably can reasonably be expected to hear a case, in an attempt to influence the outcome."

I'll ask the minister one more time. Has she ever asked any member of the NDP cabinet to contact and try to influence the ALC with respect to the decision on Six Mile?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I've answered the member's question.

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Environment as well. Will the minister confirm that she wrote to the Premier, asking him to contact Kirk Miller and the Agricultural Land Commission with a view to influencing their decision with regard to the Six Mile Ranch?

Hon. C. McGregor: I did not write to the Premier on that matter.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: I have a copy of a memo written by the member to the Premier in which she says: "I am hopeful that positive statements to the Agricultural Land Commission about the importance of this project, and to Kirk Miller in particular, will enable us to achieve our goal. . . ." Will the minister confirm that it is wrong and inappropriate for a cabinet minister to interfere with a quasi-judicial body like the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. C. McGregor: I did not interfere in any way with a quasi-judicial board.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his second supplementary.

G. Campbell: Again to the Minister of Environment. This memo that I have copies of, from the member for Kamloops to the Premier, is copied to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Employment. It says: "This project is necessary. . .and will be significant from a re-election point of view, as Kamloops is well-known as the 'bellwether riding.' " Will the minister admit that she requested the Premier and two cabinet ministers to interfere with the ALC, in violation of the guidelines laid down by the conflict commissioner?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I did not ask my colleagues to interfere with a quasi-judicial board. However, I did, on behalf of my constituents, lobby my colleagues heavily on the matter of the Six Mile Ranch.

G. Plant: I have a copy of a memorandum -- a document which purports to be a memorandum -- to the Premier from the member, dated September 23, 1996. It shows copies going to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and copies going to the Minister of Employment and Investment. The subject of the memorandum is Six Mile Ranch. My question for the minister is: did she write the memo?

Hon. C. McGregor: In my capacity as MLA for the area, I did contact my cabinet colleagues and lobby them heavily on the matter of Six Mile Ranch.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston for a supplementary.

G. Plant: My question now is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us what he did in response to the memorandum dated September 23, 1996, from the member?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the issue is very clear. I understand what the members are trying to get at, but they're chasing down a corridor with a dead end, because the member has been absolutely clear. When she was an MLA, she wrote that memo, which is entirely appropriate. As a cabinet minister, she did not interfere in a quasi-judicial process, nor did the government. Very clearly, the commission made an earlier finding against the Six Mile Ranch. We then chose to seek as to whether it was in the provincial interest and set up a different process to review the matter. She acted, in my judgment, entirely appropriately. By the way, I thought members opposite were also in favour of the Six Mile Ranch proposal.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston on his second supplementary.

G. Plant: Then my next question is to the Premier. Is the Premier prepared to deny today that his principal secretary, Adrian Dix, has personally discussed the Six Mile Ranch issue with the Agricultural Land Commission chair, Kirk Miller, with the purpose of influencing the commission's decision on this proposal?

Hon. G. Clark: I have no idea whether my principal secretary discussed it with the Land Commission. I do know that staff routinely discuss with the Land Commission proposals that are before it. All staff do, and I did as an MLA and as an opposition member, as well, around issues before the Agricultural Land Commission.

The Speaker: Richmond-Steveston, I think you've used up your. . . .

[ Page 7075 ]

The Speaker: All right. Proceed.

G. Plant: My question is again to the Premier. I wish to be absolutely certain of his recollection on this point. Is he saying that he has no idea whether or not his principal secretary, Mr. Dix, discussed the ALC issue on Six Mile Ranch with Mr. Miller for the purpose of influencing the commission's decision on that matter?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I'm trying to be as clear as I can. I have no idea whether my principal secretary engaged in discussions with Kirk Miller around this or other matters. I mean, obviously there are lots of issues on the government's agenda which we pursue. I can't confirm or deny any phone calls or any meetings that Mr Dix may have had.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is a simple one. It's not whether or not the government finds the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is not whether the government has an interest in this project. The question is whether or not the Premier's principal secretary -- his number one political operative within the Premier's Office -- was engaged to go and speak directly with Kirk Miller, the head of the Agricultural Land Commission, with the express intent of changing their decision -- influencing the decision of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, all I can say is that I would never instruct my principal secretary to engage in pressuring a quasi-judicial body to make a decision.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: This isn't the first time that this minister's staff have gone and done things. . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, for those members who recall the four separate investigations that have been ongoing for some time with regard to the B.C. Hydro scandal, they are familiar with what individuals under the guidance of this minister do. So if the minister is saying here today that if Mr. Dix made those types of representations to the Agricultural Land Commission, he would find that completely inappropriate. . . . If it is proven that Mr. Dix did that, can the Premier tell us what action he intends to take?

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The Premier has said that it is. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

C. Clark: . . .inappropriate for ministers to intervene with a quasi-judicial commission. I will remind him of what his own deputy said: ". . .there is a very strong parallel with the prohibition on communications with judges, in that a minister must not contact or make representation directly to a commissioner who is hearing a case, or presumably can reasonably be expected to hear a case, in an attempt to influence the outcome."

If the Premier's principal secretary, his top political staffperson, has attempted to influence the outcome of this quasi-judicial body, will the Premier tell us what he intends to do if he believes that that action was inappropriate, just as Mr. Hughes and Mr. McArthur told his office?

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will not proceed until order has been restored.

M. de Jong: Members opposite may treat lightly the integrity of quasi-judicial bodies. . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: . . .but we don't.

Will the Premier confirm having received a memorandum from the member for Kamloops, in which she advocates that at least three members of the NDP caucus take action in direct violation of both Ted Hughes's guidelines and the guidelines of his own deputy minister, Mr. McArthur? Will he confirm that his response to that request from the member wasn't to take action to discipline or to correct her in her misguided attempts to influence this decision, but was to appoint her to the very cabinet post in which she'd have total control over the project at hand?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, the Premier and the minister have condemned themselves by their silence. I heard the word "pathetic," and it's pathetic that this government, this Premier, and this minister would have such contempt for the independence of tribunals and commissions like the ALC that she would be openly advocating that the Premier intervene directly in this process.

Let's try one more time. Will the Premier stand here today and deny that his principal secretary, Adrian Dix, didn't sit down and bully and pressure members of the Agricultural Land Commission so that he would get what was politically expedient for his party?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a ridiculous line of questioning, hon. Speaker. We removed it from the agricultural land reserve. We sent it to another process to review. We looked at whether it should qualify as provincial interest. This is a position which I thought I heard the opposition advocate, hon. members. We

[ Page 7076 ]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: This isn't about a proposal; it's not about a project. It's about integrity. We have a memorandum dated September 23, 1996. I don't recall the minister acknowledging that she'd even written the memorandum, but it appears that the Premier recalls having received it. So my first question then is: what did the Premier do when he received the memorandum? What is his policy when he receives submissions from his caucus member which contain statements that urge that positive statements be made to the Agricultural Land Commission and to Kirk Miller in particular in order to achieve their party's economic and political goals?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm very proud of the MLA for Kamloops, who was advocating on behalf of her constituents and jobs for her constituency. Unlike the members opposite, this MLA from Kamloops put in writing absolutely unequivocally her support for this project, her advocacy for this project as the MLA for Kamloops. I not only have no problem with that but I urge all members to advocate on behalf of their constituency these kinds of economic development activities.

The Speaker: The red light is on. Question period is now over.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it's time to move on to the next order of business. I call upon the Government House Leader.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
RATE FREEZE AND PROFIT SHARING ACT, 1998
(continued)

On section 3 (continued).

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday when we were in debate on this section, the minister made a commitment to find out what the excess revenues of B.C. Hydro were this year and what proportion of that was returned, both as a percentage and a dollar figure, to British Columbia's ratepayers in the form of a rebate. I wonder if he has managed to find that information yet.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. The answer to that question would be $68 million, of which $31.4 million would be about 45 percent.

G. Farrell-Collins: That was easy. Can the minister tell me what the other $36.6 million is doing? Has it been left with Hydro, or has that been taken by the government in the form of a dividend?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's building roads, schools and hospitals, even some in the member's riding.

G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, it's probably not in my riding, but that's okay. I get the minister's point. The minister is telling me, then, that the additional $36.6 million has been returned to the government in the form of a dividend. I assume that's at the direction of. . .whom?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be returned to the government under the authority of section 35 in particular -- this particular section.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me what public process there was to determine the amount of that rebate and the amount of the dividend that will be returned to the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the process would be by decision of cabinet, based on information received from staff and the fact that we are a publicly elected body and make public decisions on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: Without getting into a protracted debate like we did yesterday, I would just perhaps like to remind the minister, as the member for Richmond-Steveston did yesterday, that there was a problem with the way Hydro rates, dividends and rebates, etc., were set previously, some decades ago. As a result, there was the B.C. Utilities Commission, which was brought into being to aid the public in having their interests served, as opposed to the political interests of those elected people the minister is referring to. The B.C.

[ Page 7077 ]

What has happened here is that the government, by including in this section the clause "despite the Utilities Commission Act," has gone around the B.C. Utilities Commission process, which includes public hearings, public input and the opportunity for the B.C. Utilities Commission to be petitioned by individual ratepayers in the event they feel the rates, rebates, etc., are unjust and unreasonable. It has now vested all that power directly with the cabinet and, in this document, particularly probably the minister and the Minister of Finance, as the minister said yesterday.

My question is: in the future, what will the public process be for a ratepayer or a group of ratepayers who are unsatisfied with the rates, rebates or dividends, or who have some legitimate claim that they are being dealt with in an unjust or unreasonable manner, as used to exist under the Utilities Commission Act? What recourse do they have?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct, in that there would be no public process to deal with rates for the next two years, which is the time remaining on the freeze. However, if members of the public are unhappy with paying amongst the lowest rates in North America, they can still make complaints to the Utilities Commission, and at the end of the two-year freeze there would be an opportunity for a hearing.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unfortunately, that's not quite correct. The section we're dealing with -- the changes to section 35 -- has no sunset clause on it. The previous section does, because it deals with rates. This one gives the power forever and a day to the government to set the dividend rates and the rebates, despite the Utilities Commission. So the Utilities Commission no longer has any jurisdiction, after the passage of this section, to deal with either of those issues. So what process is there for individuals if they don't have that process anymore?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This particular phrase in this particular section is designed only to override the ability in terms of rebates, not rates. Rebates are not necessarily going to occur every year. So we're not doing what you say that the government is doing.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, actually, the government is doing what I said the government is doing, because the new section 35, which will be included in the B.C. Hydro Act, removes the right of the Utilities Commission to have any say in the level of dividends paid to the government or in any rebate paid to the public -- forever. Forget about rates. Just push rates out of the minister's mind for now, and let's just deal with the contents of this section. Under this section, there is no recourse to the Utilities Commission for ratepayers if they feel the rebate they're being paid is unjust or unreasonable, or if they feel that they are being treated unjustly and unreasonably by not having a rebate that is due to them come to them. That is what is done in section 35. Contrary to the minister's earlier statement, there is no recourse for the public to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission with a grievance regarding any rebate they feel they're entitled to.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The commission sets rates which allow us to turn a dividend. What we do with the dividend is up to us. This section is allowing us to rebate some of that back. I haven't heard people complaining about the fact that they're getting money back from a company that they own, which gives them the lowest rates in North America. I mean, is the member suggesting that people don't want to get money back? That's what this section is allowing us to do.

G. Farrell-Collins: What I am suggesting is that the ratepayers would probably be a lot happier if they got back the amount that they were entitled to. What we have just seen from the minister is that some $68 million in surplus profits -- surplus revenue -- this year at B.C. Hydro. . . . About 60 percent of it went to the government, and about 40 percent went in the form of a rebate. There are probably a lot of people out there who, if they knew that fact -- if the government had spent as much money advertising that fact as they have the 2 percent rebate -- would probably be saying: "Hey, if that's a surplus or that's excess revenue, why don't we get a 4 or 5 or 6 percent rebate? Why don't we get a real rebate?"

[2:45]

My question to minister is -- and remains: what process is he replacing that with? If he's removing the right of individuals or groups of ratepayers to do that, what public process replaces it, if any?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No formal process replaces it; in fact, rates are frozen for two years. The government will decide how it spends its dividend, and the government will decide -- in the case of the $68 million -- what is an appropriate amount to rebate, which is what they have done. It's as plain as that.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister fails to understand or recognize is that it's not just $68 million that this government is taking; it's at least $369 million. I don't know if the $36.6 million that's going to result because of the passage of this section is included in that $369 million that's in the budget figures, but whether it is or not, it's a 10 percent difference. There's actually some $369 million that's going to be taken away from B.C. Hydro.

Just so people understand the impact that has, B.C. Hydro has a large debt, and that debt has been increasing over the term of this government. The government has been taking dividends away from B.C. Hydro which should have, in the normal operation of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, been used to pay down the debt. What the government has been doing is that instead of borrowing the money themselves and putting it on their books as public debt, they have been hiding it at B.C. Hydro by forcing B.C. Hydro to borrow money to do their capital projects and the other things they need to do. At the same time, the government is taking the profit from B.C. Hydro and putting it into general revenue and spending it. So Hydro's debt has been increasing at a time when the government has been taking more and more every year from B.C. Hydro.

[ Page 7078 ]

In putting in this section and this clause -- "despite the Utilities Commission Act. . . ." It's there for a reason. It's there so the government doesn't have to obey the law. It can just change the law if it doesn't like it. What would have happened is that instead of bleeding off those hundreds of millions of dollars from B.C. Hydro and forcing B.C. Hydro to rack up huge debts, that money would have stayed at B.C. Hydro and would have resulted in one of two things: either Hydro paying down its debt and therefore reducing the cost of doing business and somewhere down the line reducing rates; or an immediate rate reduction for the people who are Hydro ratepayers.

This section doesn't do anything like what the minister is saying. What this section does is allow the government to have their way, in a very irresponsible and totally unaccountable manner, in behind closed-door meetings -- either in cabinet, which is confidential, or between the minister and the Minister of Finance, which I'm sure won't be public -- to decide amongst themselves what's appropriate for a government monopoly, where the people who are customers of that monopoly have nowhere else to go. It's a patently undemocratic and unaccountable way of running government.

G. Plant: And neither of them know anything about hydroelectric rates.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Richmond-Steveston tells me that none of them know anything about that. I would probably agree. I don't know a ton about B.C. Hydro. I think I know more than some members, but I don't know enough. That's why you're supposed to hire professional staff at B.C. Hydro, and that's why you're supposed to appoint a board that knows something about what's going on.

Hon. Chair, what the government is doing here is clear. They are taking a government monopoly and running it like it was their own kingdom. They are forcing the ratepayers to comply with whatever their directives and decisions are, and there is no public recourse like there was before for ratepayers to be heard. All of these decisions are going to be made in private, in secret, with no deliberations, no questioning by the public. The committees of this House aren't even going to hear about it; they aren't even going to be able to go out and talk to people about it. There is no recourse for the public to have any involvement in the setting of Hydro rates, in the setting of Hydro dividends that it pays to the government or in the determination of what rebates are due to them, if any. None of that is available to the public anymore. What used to be an independent process, an independent body -- the B.C. Utilities Commission -- is no longer there, for all intents and purposes, as far as B.C. Hydro is concerned. There's no recourse for the public.

I think the minister should just admit that, accept that, admit that it's. . . . Well, he may or may not admit that it's the wrong thing to do. I think it's the wrong thing to do, and I think if the public were asked, they'd also think it is the wrong thing to do. But that's what this section does. This section eliminates the B.C. Utilities Commission. It shuts the public out of the debate over what hydro rates should be and leaves that squarely in the hands of the minister and the Minister of Finance to decide behind closed doors, in secret, where the public interest and the public concern will never ever be heard. And it does so in perpetuity.

Section 3 approved on division.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Interjections.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Rate Freeze and Profit Sharing Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I'm pleased to present the budget estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration for the 1998-99 fiscal year.

Last year I spoke to you about the justice reform journey we have embarked on here in British Columbia. The purpose of this journey is to restore confidence in British Columbia's justice system by ensuring that we have a system that is fair, accessible, efficient, effective and affordable. The refocused justice system I envisioned treats serious crimes seriously. It makes sure that offenders are held accountable for their crimes and that victims' voices are heard. It values crime prevention, it seeks non-confrontational ways of resolving family disputes, and it gives communities a stronger role in the justice process.

I would like to tell you about the many important actions we've taken on our continuing reform journey and about other actions ahead. In April of 1997, I released a document called "Strategic Reforms of British Columbia's Justice System," setting out our government's framework for reform. At the same time, we launched a consultation process to get public input on how best to implement the change in direction outlined in our framework document.

As part of that consultation process, I and my staff visited communities around British Columbia, including Terrace, Prince George, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Sparwood and New Westminster, to talk to people about our framework for reform and listen to what they have to say. These consultations have been extremely valuable. The justice system belongs to all British Columbians. Our government is strongly

[ Page 7079 ]

Through these consultations, we have had an opportunity to hear people's views firsthand. For example, I heard people in Kamloops tell me that a justice presence is the backbone of a small community. In Cranbrook people asked that we proceed slowly with our reforms. Other communities have asked us to move quickly. We are listening to all those views. I want to express my appreciation to everyone who took the time to participate in these consultations. I have been deeply moved by the power of some of the personal stories I've heard during the course of these consultations. Each story I've listened to has reinforced my conviction of the real importance of the justice reform process we've begun. It has strengthened my resolve to move forward with that process until we have a justice system in this province that truly serves the needs of all British Columbians.

[3:00]

Last December I convinced justice ministers across Canada to join B.C. in developing a national drug strategy. I believe this strategy should focus on three areas: getting tough with those who traffic in hard drugs, education and prevention programs for youth, and programs to help people deal with drug abuse and addiction. I will also be meeting with Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire and top-level state and provincial police in Washington in May to discuss how British Columbia and Washington can better work together to stop cross-border crime, including drug trafficking. This meeting, by the way, will be a follow-up to the very productive meeting I had with Ms. Gregoire and other western Canadian and American Attorneys General at the Conference of Western Attorneys General in Vancouver in February. It was the first time the Attorney General of this province has attended that forum.

Let me mention some of the other actions we're taking to fight serious crime. British Columbia continues to lead the country in applications for dangerous-offender designations, which allow violent criminals to be imprisoned indefinitely. I have asked the federal Justice minister to make it easier for prosecutors to make these applications. I have also urged my federal and provincial counterparts to establish a national registry for violent and sex offenders and to review the issue of conditional sentencing. Conditional sentencing, I believe, is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offences. I think most Canadians would agree with me on that. I want to make sure that that is reflected in the Criminal Code.

We have created an unsolved-homicide squad to ensure that murderers are brought to justice. In conjunction with this initiative, we've provided money to buy a gene sequencer so DNA tests can be done more quickly and funded a forensic dental lab at the University of British Columbia. We have been able to lay 18 charges as a result of the squad's efforts to date. We have provided funding for a home invasion team made up of police officers from the Vancouver police department and RCMP officers dedicated to preventing and solving these particularly despicable crimes. And we're taking steps to fight organized crime activities.

We're developing a provincial strategy in conjunction with the national strategy on outlaw biker gangs. I signed an agreement with the Vancouver Port Corporation in July 1997 to ensure continued policing of our lower mainland ports. The agreement provided for local police agencies to take over policing and for the creation of a special intelligence unit led by the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

As well, we've established an auto crime task force comprising 12 police officers, a dedicated Crown counsel and three ICBC analysts to tackle this very prevalent and growing crime. About one in four Criminal Code offences reported to the police in B.C. involve auto crimes. In 1996, 36,000 vehicles were stolen in British Columbia, about 17 percent of them in the lower mainland. This is clearly not acceptable. The auto theft task force will begin operations shortly in the lower mainland. If it is successful, we will consider expanding this initiative to other areas of the province.

At the same time, we are continuing to take action -- tough action -- to protect the safety of vulnerable British Columbians, including our children. One of our priorities in this area is to stop the sexual exploitation of children and youth. We are tackling this problem on a number of fronts. I am pleased to tell you that the federal government has agreed to consider B.C.'s request to raise the age of consent under the Criminal Code from 14 to 16. I want to thank Diane Sowden, Chuck Cadman and Chris Simmonds from CAVEAT, and others, who brought this issue to my attention and asked me to raise it nationally.

We are also continuing to press for further changes to section 212(4) of the Criminal Code to make it easier to charge and convict adults who sexually exploit youth. In the meantime, our provincial prostitution unit is continuing to help police across the province with enforcement strategies. The PPU is recognized as a model across Canada and the United States. With assistance from the PPU, police have arrested and charged 29 people across British Columbia over the last 18 months with attempting to buy sex from young people, a significant increase from the total of eight charges laid in the previous eight years.

The PPU is also working with communities to help them develop community action teams to address at the local level issues related to prostitution and the sexual exploitation of youth. To date, community action teams have been established in 12 communities and are continuing to expand to other local communities.

We've sent a clear signal, too, that child pornography will not be tolerated in this province. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit is coordinating a team approach to combatting this crime. In 1997 CLEU investigated 61 cases of child pornography in British Columbia, resulting in an impressive 91 percent conviction rate.

As well, we're taking further steps to ensure that women and children are protected from violence within relationships -- another important priority for this government.

Let me mention some of those steps. I have urged the federal government to raise the penalty for stalking -- criminal harassment, in other words -- from five years to ten years. We have undertaken a pilot project with B.C. Tel Mobility, ADT Security, the Vancouver police department and Battered Women's Support Services to provide cell phones to Vancouver women at high risk of violence, so they can access the police quickly.

[ Page 7080 ]

In fact, ensuring that victims are listened to and involved in every aspect of the justice system is an important theme that runs through all our criminal justice reforms. Two years ago, our government brought in B.C.'s Victims of Crime Act, the strongest victims' rights legislation in the country. Last October we further enhanced our support for victims' rights by introducing a victim surcharge levy of 15 percent on fines for all provincial offences. The levy funds are used to cover the costs of meeting the obligations under the Victims of Crime Act and other victims initiatives. The new levy has already provided an additional $1.2 million for police-based and specialized victim services programs across British Columbia. We are also continuing to work with victims groups. I have also pressed the federal Parole Board to follow B.C.'s lead and allow victims to make oral impact statements during parole hearings.

Let me mention one more serious crime we are targeting before I move on. All of us have an interest in ensuring that crimes based on hatred and prejudice are eliminated. Hate crime affects the security and quality of life not just of its victims but of the entire community, as does any other crime. Last year the hate crime team, which I established in 1996, continued to take action to combat hate-propaganda crimes and to help law enforcement agencies and communities identify and respond to local hate activities.

You will be pleased to know, hon. Chair, that during the last many months, the hate crime team has actually trained 17 or 18 police detachments across British Columbia. In fact, they have a scheduled training session for the Prince Rupert detachment this Friday. They continue to do invaluable work. They continue to investigate the Fairview Technology site in Oliver; that investigation is ongoing. They have assisted an investigation led and conducted by the Surrey detachment with respect to the Surrey matter. They have participated in that investigation as well.

If I could digress a little and go back to the issue of stalking and harassment, the reason that we're asking the federal government to raise the penalty from five to ten years. . . . There are two reasons. One is that that would send a message, a very strong message, from parliamentarians of Canada that we treat this offence more seriously than we currently do by way of the penalty that's indicated in the Criminal Code. Second, as I mentioned earlier, we are the leaders in making dangerous-offender applications in this country based on our population. We have standing instructions to our Crown counsel that if they feel it's appropriate, they should make those applications. Special funding provisions have been made for them for some time. If we increase the penalty from five to ten years in the Criminal Code for this particular offence, that conviction alone can be used as the basis for having someone declared a dangerous offender if he or she is a dangerous offender. I think it's important that the federal government listens to our request and deals with it appropriately and quickly.

On the conditional sentencing, if I could go back to that for a moment, British Columbia is the leader on the conditional sentencing issue. We are the province that raised the issue and said that conditional sentencing is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offenders. We are the province that led the chorus of opposition to that issue with respect to the Attorneys General conference in Montreal in December of last year. We got an undertaking from the federal Minister of Justice that this issue would be monitored, and I say to you and I've said to Ottawa that monitoring is not enough. What we require is a quick amendment to those provisions of the Criminal Code so that conditional sentencing is deemed inappropriate for serious sexual and violent offenders. If we continue to leave those kinds of decisions at the end of the day to the courts -- and courts have to make those tough choices in an absolutely independent way -- and if the community is at odds with what the legislators in British Columbia want, or at least with what the Attorney General and the government of British Columbia want -- it has the potential of bringing the whole system of justice into disrepute because parliamentarians are not taking hold of the issue that they need to grapple with. They are basically leaving it to the courts to make those difficult decisions. I believe that we need to put it in law and say that conditional sentencing is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offenders. Otherwise, courts would obviously continue to make the decisions that they absolutely make independently, based on the law that they have before them.

[3:15]

Another major thrust of our criminal justice reforms, therefore, is the development of more effective, more economical and more creative and imaginative alternatives to prison for offenders who have committed less serious crimes. In British Columbia we have used alternative measures for appropriate young and adult offenders for almost 20 years. Nanaimo is one such community where that has been happening for 20 years. In fact, we are recognized as a leader in Canada in this area. Today about 8 percent of the charges are diverted by the Crown, with 94 percent of the offenders successfully completing alternative-measures agreements.

We are now taking the lessons we have learned from these experiences and applying them more broadly to other non-violent offenders. This approach, called the restorative-justice approach -- it is known by many other names -- gives offenders an opportunity to accept responsibility for their actions and make amends. It ensures that victims of crime are heard and supported, and it gives communities a meaningful role in the process. Earlier this spring I visited Britain and Australia, where I had an opportunity to see firsthand some of the world's foremost examples of restorative justice in action. It was gratifying to see that we are already implementing some of the best features of these models here in British Columbia.

Among other developments this past fiscal year, we have expanded our alternative measures program to include a wider range of low-risk, less serious offenders. This expansion is the result of the new, stronger safeguards provided by

[ Page 7081 ]

In February, we announced that we are providing $1 million to help communities establish community accountability programs. One of the goals of our justice reform plan is to strengthen community partnerships and give communities and victims of crime a stronger voice in the delivery of justice. Community accountability programs are an important step towards reaching this goal.

Of course, we recognize that the long-term solution to crime is to stop it before it happens. That is why we made reducing the level of crime through prevention and early intervention -- in particular, intervening early with young people at risk -- the third thrust of our criminal justice reforms. This government is continuing to provide support for a range of prevention and early-intervention initiatives. For example, in December we opened the Safe School Centre in Burnaby, the first such centre in Canada. Schools can access this centre to get information, resource materials and examples of best practices to help them address a range of safe-school issues, including crime and violence prevention.

Other initiatives include Nights Alive, a program offering positive recreational alternatives to crime on the street; the youth against violence line, a toll-free provincewide youth violence prevention line; TC02, a youth drama group that gives workshops on the dangers of street life and sexual exploitation; the youth crime prevention toolkit -- 5,000 kits have now been distributed provincewide; 841 KOZ, an interactive youth group dedicated to promoting ways for other youth to take action against crime and violence; TROO, a new anti-racism youth program with youth action teams now working in 50 communities across British Columbia to help youth become involved in creating safer neighbourhoods.

At the same time, we have followed through on our commitment to increase the number of police on the streets. One hundred new RCMP positions have now been allocated, and we have introduced a new independent public complaints process in regulations for police use of force to help strengthen police accountability and improve public confidence in B.C.'s police forces.

In that regard, I was very pleased to announce the Legislative Assembly's choice of Don Morrison as the province's first independent police complaint commissioner earlier this month. If you remember, that was the culmination of the process that Justice Oppal commenced with his inquiry into policing, and then the community was consulted on this issue and came up with all of the recommendations, pursuant to which the Police Act was amended last year. We now have the process almost complete.

I also would like to advise the House that just this noon, with Bruce and Inge Thomson, the parents of a young man who died in a high-speed police pursuit in Kamloops some years ago, we unveiled for the first time in the history of this country pursuit regulations and guidelines that have the force of law. This is a historic time, because this is the first time any jurisdiction in this country has given the force of law to those regulations and guidelines affecting police pursuits, which creates a balance between the need to apprehend criminals for public safety while at the same time trying to enhance public safety on the roads, so that unnecessary injuries don't happen when police pursuits are engaged in.

Turning now to the civil and family side of the justice system, we are continuing to move ahead with reforms aimed at creating a family and civil justice system that resolves disputes faster and more fairly, that looks for consensual solutions whenever possible and that is affordable to all British Columbians.

One of our major thrusts in this area has been to promote the greater use of alternative dispute resolution -- that is, using techniques such as mediation to bring together people in conflict to find solutions outside the traditional court system. Traditionally, the civil and family system has focused on winners and losers in disputes, creating an adversarial approach that can seriously damage a family that has to live together after the dispute. In the end, no one benefits.

Alternative dispute resolution, on the other hand, is more likely to result in solutions that produce longer-lasting benefits for individuals, families and communities. It also offers a faster, simpler, less expensive way to get disputes resolved. Over the last year our dispute resolution office has been working hard to develop and foster the use of alternative dispute resolution programs within the court system and within government.

For example, to name two recent projects, the dispute resolution office has been active in the development of a notice-to-mediate process to promote early collaborative settlement of motor vehicle actions. As well, the dispute resolution office has helped develop a pilot project that will evaluate the benefits of requiring parents who apply for child support, custody or access orders in New Westminster and Burnaby to attend the parenting-after-separation program. This program is now being offered on a voluntary basis in 50 communities across British Columbia. It helps parents understand the issues that face them in a family breakdown -- in particular, its impact on children.

We have also improved access to dispute resolution services for families dealing with issues such as child custody and support by expanding our network of family justice centres. At the same time, we have brought in legislative changes to ensure the civil and family justice system better meets the needs of British Columbians. For example, we have introduced changes to the Family Relations Act that give all the children in British Columbia the same rights to receive child support, regardless of whether their parents were married, living common law or in a same-sex relationship. This amendment, which came into effect this month, is designed to protect children's standard of living when their parents separate and to bring fairness and consistency to child support awards.

We are also in the process of bringing in new, tougher penalties for parents who fail to pay child support. The new measures, which will be in effect by November, authorize the province to garnishee defaulters' pensions and company assets, charge an annual default fee, and even prevent the issue of a renewal driver's licence to a defaulting parent. I think my written speech is incorrect on this; some of these measures are already in effect. That happens when you don't get a chance to read your speech before you come into the House. In addition, we have amended the Court Order Enforcement Act to ensure better protection for families and individuals facing court-ordered seizure of their belongings.

Finally, we are continuing to take steps to improve efficiency in the administration of our justice services, to ensure a more affordable and effective justice system. Our goal has been to work better and smarter -- to control costs now in order to protect services in the long run. One of the ways in which we have been doing this is by consolidating court facilities. To date, six of the seven planned consolidations have now been completed, resulting in a saving of $1.7 million. We

[ Page 7082 ]

We are also working in partnership with communities on joint projects to improve the administration of justice services at the local level. For example, we're working with the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver police department to develop a new and more efficient process and facility for handling prisoners. The new Vancouver jail is now under construction, and we expect it to be fully operational by September 1998. We have been applying new technology to improve access to justice services. An example is video conferencing, which is being piloted in Vancouver and Prince George. Our court services branch will be examining other new technology, such as electronic filing.

A major focus for our reforms has been to tackle the problem of court backlogs and to come up with new ways of moving cases through the courts more quickly. In that regard we are continuing to work with the Provincial and Supreme Court judiciary on a number of initiatives. Last fall Chief Judge Metzger and I agreed on a four-part plan to reduce backlogs in the Provincial Court system. Yesterday I released reports developed under that plan by Chief Judge Metzger with other members of the judiciary, members of the bar, senior Ministry of Attorney General staff and Crown counsel. We are already acting on a number of the recommendations in those reports. For example, we have made commitments to improve the quality of data collection and management by October 1, to continue providing funding for retired judges to sit part-time whenever they are required, and following consultation with the judiciary and the bar, to implement effective case management in the family and criminal justice systems beginning in 1999. Of course, we will be looking at other recommendations by Judge Metzger and making decisions as we consider them.

With respect to my other responsibilities relating to multiculturalism, human rights and immigration, let me briefly talk about those areas. As our province becomes more richly multicultural, the need for programs, policies and initiatives to promote cross-cultural understanding and to help us better serve our culturally diverse population continues to grow. Multiculturalism B.C. is now sponsoring a series of aboriginal hate-crime forums in a number of communities throughout the province. I had the pleasure of attending the Vancouver forum.

In addition, I'm pleased to report that B.C.'s new immigration agreement with the federal government is now close to being signed. This agreement will, hopefully, provide more control over settlement programs and greater input into the determination of immigration policy. We also hope it will help boost business immigration programs, which will mean more jobs and investment for our province. We will continue to make efforts in these areas.

As you know, we're also considering the recommendations made by the human rights chief commissioner, Mary Woo-Sims, in her report. As we reach conclusions with respect to those reports, we might see some changes -- when, I don't know. But we are working hard on that issue. I'm told my time is finished, and I will perhaps conclude at the end.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: In the gallery this afternoon are 15 students and staff from the Anne Teslyk Enhancement Centre. They are members of the AIM-2 program. They're here from Chetwynd to visit Victoria, tour the buildings and, for the last half-hour or so, to watch the proceedings of this House. I promised them a lively half-hour, and I'm sure they've not been disappointed. Would the House please make them welcome.

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon, Chair, thank you for granting me the opportunity to say a few more words before we move on.

In conclusion, and without looking at the notes, let me just say a few things to you. I'm more alive without the notes. This has been a year when I have travelled across British Columbia, as I said earlier. In terms of our discussions with the communities in Cranbrook, Terrace, Prince George, Kamloops, New Westminster, Maple Ridge -- where I visited the community accountability program -- and Sparwood, where I visited the program. . . . These two programs are world famous, actually. I came away with this impression of the people of British Columbia: they are committed to assisting us in moving in the direction of restorative justice. They are satisfied to a large extent with our tough approach on sexual and violent offences. And once you've dealt with that end of the spectrum, with all the initiatives that we have underway, such as the unsolved-homicides squad, the provincial prostitution unit, the hate crime team, our approach to Ottawa on issues of stalking, on a national pedophile registry -- all of those issues that I keep talking about day in and day out. . . . Once you are able to place all those issues before them, they were all of one mind, without exception, in the meetings that I attended. They said to us: "Yes, we need to deal with low-risk, less serious and less violent offenders in a more creative way which empowers the communities, which in fact holds those offenders more accountable to the communities, which in fact gives some control back to the communities over the system of justice and how it should be dealt with." Of the 1,500 to 2,000 people that I have talked to in various communities in the last year, not one person stood up and said we shouldn't do that. There is complete unanimity on being tough with violent offenders and more creative with less serious offenders.

They also made it clear that in the community accountability programs, in whatever design you want to have -- family group conferencing or other kinds of models -- there should not be any paid panellists or others who would be dealing with these issues, that it should be volunteers from the community trying to take hold of part of the justice system and trying to mete out punishment and to seek and obtain accountability from offenders in creative ways.

The police made that point to us in Sparwood. In Maple Ridge that point was made to us by volunteers. When we were in Australia and Britain, people there made the same point. Yes, some core function may have to be funded with respect to organizing this. Yes, startup funds may be required.

[ Page 7083 ]

One other reassurance that people of British Columbia have had, and they know this, is that now the Criminal Code allows us, as I said earlier, to prosecute a young or an adult offender if you do not comply with the terms of the agreement with respect to diversion, if I can use that simple term. We can then go back and try that individual for the original offence. I think that that's a sword that should hang over the heads of those offenders who are back in the communities and facing these community accountability programs.

It is also important for us to remember that in family justice and civil areas. . . . We've been talking about the arena of the courts being much more adversarial than it needs to be, but the fact is that courts function the way they do, and what we need to do is try and steer some of those cases away from the courts. That is where the new child support guidelines are going to help. You're not going to need long litigation, in most cases, to determine what your child support payment is going to be. That is where our tough enforcement mechanisms through the family maintenance enforcement program are going to come in handy. In fact, that is where our parenting-after-separation education programs are going to be very effective. That is where, in fact, conciliation and mediation programs are going to be of a great deal of assistance.

So you see, we're dealing with violent crime in a tough way, and we're dealing with the low-risk, less serious offenders more creatively. The crime rate in the whole of British Columbia is going down. In fact, in 1991, in 71 municipalities and towns in British Columbia where the population is over 5,000, there were 437,000 criminal court offences, if I remember correctly. In 1997, when the population had gone up by half a million in those municipalities -- 71 cities and towns -- the number of offences was almost exactly the same.

The fact is that the crime rate has gone down in British Columbia. In fact, property crime and auto crime have not only gone down in Vancouver; They're down by 6,000 offences in Surrey in '97 over '96. If you add the fact that the crime rate is going down, that the number of criminal court offences are going down, that we're going to do more community accountability programs, that we're going to try to take the civil cases out of the courts to the extent possible, particularly family justice. . . . If you add all of those factors. . . . We added four new judges right away, early on, when Judge Metzger raised the concerns with us, and we provided more money for ad hoc and retired judges to sit wherever necessary. If you add all of those measures up, I think that we are moving in the right direction. The issues of backlogs and quick and speedy trials. . . . I think we'll be able to resolve those in the very near future.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to rise to begin my participation in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. The Attorney General has given us a fairly full exposition of the activities of his ministry over the last year or so and some idea of what his priorities are for the next year. Obviously we're here to discuss some of those things. I look forward to those discussions over the next few days. The happy expedient of an introduction by the member for Peace River South gave the Attorney General a very full opportunity to express himself, and perhaps it would not be inappropriate to say a few things at this point before we get to the substance of it.

I think that the Attorney General has one of the most difficult and important roles in government, and I speak less of the individual in this case than I do of the office. It's an important role in our history; it's an important role in our constitution. It's a very interesting role, because in a number of ways the Attorney General is required to act independently. The Attorney General is in fact the chief law officer of the Crown, the person whose statutory and traditional obligation is to ensure that the Crown gets the appropriate legal advice and to act, if you will, as a bit of a rein on the enthusiasms of the other ministers of the Crown from time to time. That's an important and difficult role, and, I think, a role that's not always as well understood as it could be.

In addition to wearing that hat, the Attorney General wears a hat in relation to the enforcement of laws in British Columbia as the chief law enforcement officer. That is obviously an important and difficult role. I always acknowledge the difficult position the Attorney General is in as someone who is seen to be in charge of the criminal justice system in British Columbia but is clearly surrounded by forces over which he has no direct control. He cannot amend the Criminal Code of Canada; he cannot, or at least ought not to, interfere in the independent function of the police authorities across the province; and, of course, he cannot and must not interfere in the operation of the judiciary. So in attempting to achieve reform in the area of criminal law and process, there are clearly constraints that operate on the Attorney General, which perhaps make that role more challenging than the role of the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health.

The Attorney General is also the minister presiding over a ministry that has a lot of important public policy programs -- and we'll look at some of those over the course of this estimates debate -- where the Attorney General's role is more obviously political and less obviously independent in the sense that I've talked about. I've always thought that the combination of the political office with the independent office creates an interesting and difficult tension. The Attorney General has spoken about the voices he's heard within the justice system of British Columbia. There are many voices, and I think it is the case that most of the voices we hear, if we're involved with the justice system, are the voices of people who are often not willing participants in it. Rather, they are dragged into it by the force of circumstances in their lives which are often the most trying, painful and emotionally difficult times of their lives.

As we who participate in that process respond to those voices, there's a need to find a balance among all of the competing interests. I think an important part of the Attorney General's role is in fact as messenger, if you will, for a message about what the justice system should be about. But I also think that it's important that we have the opportunity to examine the extent to which promised actions have been followed by actions that were in fact promised. We may have an opportunity during this estimates debate to examine the extent to which promises about the system have in fact been met on the ground with programs that are adequately resourced and properly funded.

A recent example of a situation that I know has caused the government some concern is the whole issue around domestic violence and protection orders. A number of years

[ Page 7084 ]

[3:45]

I am also concerned about the issue of perception in the sense of: what is it that the public think the justice system is doing for them? Having heard the Attorney General speak about the extensive consultations that he has undertaken across the province, I think that I have heard perhaps. . . . I can't make the claim to have spoken to 2,000 people, but I have spoken to many British Columbians about justice issues over the last couple of years. I'm not sure that the message that British Columbians are getting is a message which strikes the right balance between a justice system which, on the one hand, really does impose consequences on offenders and, on the other hand, a justice system which recognizes that for many non-violent offenders, those consequences do not have to include incarceration.

I had the good fortune to participate in a justice forum in my community last November. I heard many people from my community come up and speak in a public forum about the extent to which they don't feel as safe today as they did some years ago. Difficult as the task is, we need to ensure that the justice system does not only represent a correct striking of all the balances that the Attorney General has spoken of -- between the need to ensure that violent and sexual offenders are treated seriously and experience severe consequences, the need to ensure that we have creative solutions for other offenders, and the need to ensure that the civil and family justice systems are fair, affordable and efficient -- all of those things. . . . We need to make sure not only that we do those things but also that we persuade British Columbians that those are the right things to do. Sometimes I think that is a task that all of us who are participants in the justice system have not done a good enough job with.

One issue that I want to pause on for just a moment is to acknowledge that the Attorney General has today -- I think it was today -- issued a press release and, I assume, proclaimed the pursuit guidelines that he has spoken about. I've been looking forward to seeing those guidelines. I acknowledge the tremendously tragic circumstances which have given rise to this review. Last year I said that the legislation was a good thing. The trick, of course, is that the devil is in the details. I will look forward to examining the details, and if there are questions that arise, I may pursue them in the fullness of time during these estimates. I didn't want the moment to pass without also acknowledging that real people and real lives have been hurt. Those people's voices need to be heard, and those people's situations need to be acknowledged.

Lastly, the fact is that over the course of the last year I have been assisted by many members of the minister's staff when I've had questions about what the ministry was up to. I want to acknowledge and give my thanks to those officials and tell you that my task would be easier if I at least had last year's annual report. It's a magical process of accountability in government, but the most recent annual report of this ministry is for 1995-96. I hope the Attorney General will agree with me when I suggest that that's not an effective process of formal accountability. I know the challenges that are involved in collating all the information from an extraordinarily diverse ministry, but in the public interest, I think his ministry needs to do a better job.

Let me say that I intend over the course of these estimates to follow the practice, which I've adopted over the past of couple of years, of dealing with most of the branches of the ministry in the creative order in which they appear in the estimates. However, this year I intend to begin with a slightly longer introductory series of issues that are probably more political in nature -- important issues, I think. It will be a little while before we go from some of them, and then we'll move into the questioning on the various branches.

With those remarks, my understanding is that at this point it is the wish of the ministry that we begin with some questioning of the children's commissioner. If that's so, then I'm prepared to stand down and allow that to take place. I should indicate that I expect that my colleagues -- at least the critic for Children and Families -- will probably be leading the questioning and debate on those issues.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, we now have the children's commissioner, Cindy Morton, with us.

C. Clark: I'd like to welcome the children's commissioner to the chamber. This is my first opportunity as a critic to go through the estimates process with the commissioner present. I want to offer my congratulations on work that I think has been well done in the first year of the commission. I want to thank the commissioner, as well, for her office's regular cooperation with us and with all the members of the public that I hear from when they have concerns and complaints and comments about the way children are being dealt with by the government. So I first want to offer my congratulations and my thanks, and then perhaps. . . .

I guess the best place to start would be with a broad overview of how her office receives complaints and how it deals with them when they come in. I think that fundamental to that question is the way the ministry operates. I know we're not in the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families at the moment, and we'll get to that in a few weeks -- or months, depending. But when the ministry is doing its job very well, I suspect there would be fewer complaints coming to the commissioner's office. That's what one would hope.

Clearly the minister's workload is very closely linked to the workload at the ministry. I'm interested in the commissioner's opinion, through the Attorney General, of how work

[ Page 7085 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a very broad question. Obviously the jurisdiction of the commissioner is to hear complaints about kids who receive services from the Ministry for Children and Families. In investigating those complaints that she determines she should investigate, the commissioner makes recommendations, and quite often those recommendations are followed in terms of an audit of those recommendations. As to how many have been followed and to what extent, I think the minister would be in a better position to answer those questions.

C. Clark: I recognize that it was a broad question. The commissioner, though, is empowered under the act to investigate not just critical injuries. She also is empowered to investigate -- under subsection (h), I think it is -- other matters concerning the ministry. We know that the commissioner has undertaken at least one investigation under subsection (h) -- that would be the situation in Quesnel -- which looks at the systemic issues with regard to workload. That's my understanding.

If I need to make it more specific, then perhaps the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could comment on the status of her investigation in Quesnel and on where she sees that going with regard to workload and those issues that have arisen in that investigation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The investigation in Quesnel, of course, is ongoing. To the extent that the audits that have been done by the ministry raised the issue of workloads, those would be addressed in the investigation and the recommendations.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's answer. The commissioner, of course, also precipitated the audits in Quesnel by calling on the ministry to address the issues up there -- as early as August, I think it was. Perhaps the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could comment on what it was that precipitated her request for the ministry's action and whether the ministry, in her view, has responded adequately to that request.

[4:00]

C. Clark: I do want to be clear about the reasons the commissioner requested the audits in Quesnel. Was the only reason for that the death of a child, which I understand was in a motor vehicle accident, or were there other issues, as well, that prompted the commissioner to bring forward her request?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The concerns were several deaths as well as practices of the ministry in that particular office. That's why we now have a special investigation.

C. Clark: The practices of the ministry are an issue that I'd like a little bit of clarification on, if I could, because I suspect that that was a workload issue. I wonder if the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could clarify for us what she means by practices of the ministry when she says that's one of the reasons that prompted her to request an investigation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The initial concerns the commissioner had were bad practices and investigations by the ministry, and all of that issue is now being investigated. Workload may be one of the issues that arises out of that whole investigation.

C. Clark: Could the Attorney General tell us the source of the commissioner's concern about bad practices? Was that in response to complaints by social workers or complaints by families? What was the source of the complaints in that case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue arose, as I said earlier, out of the investigation of the fatalities by the commission itself. That was the genesis of the whole issue.

C. Clark: Can the commissioner, without violating privacy rules, give us some indication of the fatalities being investigated that prompted this request -- at least the nature of those fatalities, if that's possible?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told, and I believe, that it's not appropriate at this stage of the investigation to go into those details. As the hon. member knows, when these reports are finally completed and made public, they are sent through the FOI process. In fact, extreme care is taken to make sure that privacy is not jeopardized. So I think it's appropriate that the commissioner is able to proceed with the investigation.

If there are any general concerns the hon. member has, obviously the commissioner will be happy to answer.

C. Clark: I do have some general concerns, but I just want to finish up this one point. I believe that some of the investigations into those fatalities which prompted the request for investigation have been completed and made public. Perhaps the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could tell us -- without violating privacy rules -- at least about those fatality investigations that have been completed and that prompted the investigation. Perhaps they could reference those ones that have already been made public. I know that the commissioner releases a public report on every fatality for which she concludes an investigation, so I suspect that information is already public in some respects. Isn't it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that the difficulty arises. . . . The commissioner is always very careful in not identifying the place to which a particular case may relate, because that then leads to identification of children. It would be very difficult to do that.

C. Clark: Thank you very much. I'm glad I'm clear about that.

Another area which is related to this issue -- but it's a systemic issue, as well -- is the issue of plans of care. The commissioner is responsible for auditing plans of care that are undertaken by the ministry. Could she tell us how many plans of care her commission has audited over the last year and what the conclusions of her investigations have been?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the commissioner is currently investigating or auditing 40 care plans and is in the

[ Page 7086 ]

B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. McKinnon: I have a group of grade 5 students and their teacher, Mrs. Prinsen, from the Surrey Christian Middle School who are attending the precinct today along with a number of adults. I think it's a fairly large group of approximately 65 people. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: Back to the audit question: I understand that this is the first batch of plans for care that have been audited by the commissioner. Can the commissioner, through the Attorney General, tell us how they were selected? Were they selected on sort of a random regional basis, or was there some other method for choosing which ones would be audited?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The process is going to be as follows, if I understand it correctly. The first 40 cases are going to be preschool, disabled and transition to adulthood. And after that, there will be some emphasis on aboriginal children as well. There will be 40, and then we'll be doing 40 once the first 40 are completed -- every month.

C. Clark: Will there be a method for the commissioner to choose which office, for example, they might be chosen from? Obviously there are different workload issues at different offices and different crises at different offices.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The audits will begin at random. Of course, we will collate the results of those random audits over a period of time and then, perhaps, begin to focus on regions where there might be more need of audits.

C. Clark: I understand, in particular from foster parents, that frequently -- and this is anecdotal -- the children that are put in their care don't get a plan of care at all from the ministry. Could the commissioner tell us if that's going to be a subject of her investigations as well?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

C. Clark: Could she tell us when she anticipates that's going to make the lineup of investigations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the commissioner continues these audits, I'm sure she's going to come across cases from the random selection where there are no care plans at all. I think that would answer the hon. member's question.

C. Clark: My suspicion is that there should be a mechanism within the ministry to take care of this problem. Can the commissioner comment on why that process isn't working, or if it should be working at all, or whether she sees her office as potentially replacing that process as time goes on?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner, of course, has just either received or developed software programs that deal with this issue. I understand that the ministry in fact doesn't have as good a software program as the commission has. The commission is going to share that program with the ministry as well, so it can begin to deal with these issues, rather than the commissioner having to detect them subsequently.

C. Clark: I'm left with the question of what processes the ministry currently has. . . . I want to be careful not to venture into the Ministry for Children and Families estimates, but I'm left with the question in my mind about how the ministry is doing these audits now. There must be some kind of process that they have in place -- maybe it's not working -- and that they're supposed to be using to do these audits. I wonder if the commissioner could comment on her understanding of how the current system is working or not working, and that requires her to step in.

[4:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, she is independent -- absolutely independent.

The social workers are supposed to put plans of care into the computer system. The commission has to go behind that to then determine whether or not the care plan is accurately put into the computer. That process is underway.

As to the independence question -- we talked about it last year -- if we had an independent officer of the Legislature, she wouldn't be sitting here. You wouldn't have access to her -- not in this fashion.

C. Clark: I don't want to venture into that debate again this year. I've read the Hansard from previous years, and I think I benefited from the exchange that occurred in those previous debates.

The ministry has a process where they take a plan of care and put it into a computer. Isn't there, though, any more auditing process that goes on within the ministry currently, through a reporting structure or a regional supervisor? I mean, where is the check and balance within the ministry that's supposed to be doing this? I suspect that there must be some senior managers that are required to review these plans of care and those kinds of things as well. Could the commissioner comment on that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, there are child protection managers in every office, and they help social workers do their work. But I think we are moving into dangerous territory in examining the Ministry for Children and Families through the commissioner's work. I think that if you confine your questions to what the commissioner does and doesn't do, and what recommendations she has made and how she makes them, and whether or not they're being dealt with, it would be more appropriate.

C. Clark: I'm interested in this audit question because. . . . I am cognizant of the need to not venture into the Ministry for Children and Families estimates. The reason I have this concern is because the fact of whether or not the ministry is able to do its job has an immediate and direct impact on how much work the commissioner has to do. That's the link I'm making here. The reason I'm interested in the commissioner's views about whether the ministry is doing its job is because that impacts on the way she budgets for the next year. I think it is relevant to this year's estimates for the commissioner's office, because if the Ministry for Children

[ Page 7087 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Using that logic, we could have a whole debate on the Ministry for Children and Families, because obviously the commissioner is entitled and authorized to investigate all aspects of that particular ministry. It is specifically mentioned, in fact, in the legislation. I don't remember the exact details. I think we have to put some barriers around what we can or can't discuss under this rubric.

C. Clark: What I see happening increasingly with the children's commissioner's office is that they are picking up the slack, and they're stepping in more and more often -- or I suspect they are -- when the Ministry for Children and Families drops the ball. That's not the direction we should be going in. The government should be moving in a direction where ideally the children's commissioner doesn't have any work to do. That's the direction we want to go in, where the children's commissioner's office is like the Maytag repairman: they sit there and nobody calls, because there's nothing to do, because the Ministry for Children and Families is doing such a stellar job. That's where we want to be, and increasingly I'm suspicious that that's not where we are going.

We had the ministry announce yesterday or the day before that they're creating a SWAT team to go in and take care of emergency situations around the province, which I think is an admission of failure. It's an admission that the ministry is in constant crisis. One of our people phoned up the ministry the other day and asked: "What if there isn't a crisis?" The ministry staff said: "Well, there's always a crisis in the Ministry for Children and Families." That's not the direction we want to go in either, and that's why I have these questions for the children's commissioner. That's why I'm seeking her opinion on these issues. It's her role to offer her opinion and recommendations on the ability of the ministry to do its job.

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. The Chair would like to caution members that we are dealing with the Ministry of Attorney General, and we seem to be spending a lot of time on other ministries. Please take that caution.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commission doesn't do the work of the Ministry for Children and Families. The commission investigates matters that it deems appropriate to be investigated and makes recommendations. I think the questions that should be asked of the commission should be on what investigations she's conducted, without identifying any locations or individuals, and what recommendations she has made and if they are being implemented -- which is part of her responsibility to see at some point. The commission recommends what changes should happen and perhaps how they might happen. That doesn't make the commission accountable to the Legislature on how the ministry functions.

C. Clark: With respect, the Children's Commission. . . . We've just seen an example of a case where the children's commissioner is picking up the slack for the Ministry for Children and Families. If the children's commissioner is doing audits because their software is better than the Ministry for Children and Families' software. . . . Because they can't really do the audits adequately, the Children's Commission is picking up that slack. Maybe it's not an ongoing responsibility for the children's commissioner, or perhaps she doesn't see it that way, but she's certainly having to step in and pick up the slack where the ministry can't necessarily do it. Further, though, the workload that the children's commissioner has in her office and the number of deaths that she has to review are, I would suggest, directly related to the ministry's ability to do its job. If the ministry is doing a great job of early intervention, a great job of parent education and a great job of managing the children that are in its care, then I think the children's commissioner and the Attorney General would agree that the children's commissioner's workload would be reduced. That's where there's a link. And I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the link; I think it's fairly obvious.

I will, then, maybe ask the commissioner, through the Attorney General, to comment about foster care. I know that's going to be a big focus for the commissioner over the next year. Could she give us a view of what her experience has been with the foster care system and the reviews that she has conducted of foster care, particularly highlighting the complaints from foster parents and the problems that they are bringing to her office for review?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In 1997 there was a task force by the Minister for Children and Families on foster parenting. The commissioner has essentially endorsed all of those recommendations and will continue to do so in the commission's work.

C. Clark: I thought I was very specific in my question, which was about the number of complaints that the commissioner has received from foster parents or the kinds of concerns that have come forward. I started out with a fairly broad kind of questioning. The Attorney General told me: "Well, those aren't the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families." Well, he's right, we're not in the Ministry for Children and Families, but I think it is perfectly legitimate for the members of this House to be able to ask the Attorney General, or the children's commissioner through the Attorney General, whether the Ministry for Children and Families is doing its job. That's her job; that's the job of the children's commissioner: to determine and keep an eye on whether the Ministry for Children and Families is doing its job. That's where I'll be going with almost all my questions today. The Attorney General can quibble about the way I ask them, and I will try to be careful and word them in such a way that we don't offend the rules of the House and that we ensure these are restricted specifically to the estimates of the children's commissioner.

Now, the Attorney General asked me if I would be more specific in my questions and ask about complaints that the commissioner has heard and recommendations that she has made as a result of them. Specifically, my question about that is: what kinds of complaints has she heard from foster parents? What kinds of investigations have ensued as a result of them, and what have her recommendations been as a result of those investigations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The foster parents do complain. Sometimes their complaints are general, and sometimes their complaints are specific with respect to a service or services for a child. The issues that have been raised, in general, have been with respect to access to social workers and home visits, with respect to planning for children and including foster parents in that planning, with respect to placement matches occurring before placements are made and, as well, with respect to training for foster parents for special needs children. Those are the kinds of issues that have been raised by foster parents with the commissioner.

[ Page 7088 ]

[4:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner indicates that, no, that concern has not been directly expressed to her, but she is aware of it. She believes that the recommendations in the task force report are very appropriate to address those concerns.

C. Clark: The foster parents tell us -- or tell me, anyway, and I suspect they also tell the commissioner -- that morale is very low, that they're not at all happy with the way they interact with the ministry, that they weren't all happy with the new foster care contract that came in, and things like that. Another issue that has recently been raised is the issue of putting children in culturally appropriate foster care homes. Is that a subject of investigation by the commissioner? If so, is she looking at just aboriginal children, or is she looking at some of the broader cultural groups -- Indo-Canadian, Chinese Canadian groups -- where there might also be cultural issues?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that the commissioner has a specific mandate to address that issue on its own, but in specific complaints with respect to the adoption or placement with the foster parents of children, perhaps not just aboriginal children, the commissioner does make specific recommendations. The commissioner looks at it and does make recommendations in those specific individual cases on these issues, yes.

C. Clark: To be more specific, then, is the commissioner currently investigating any complaints about culturally inappropriate foster care placements?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there are a number of cases in those complaints that the commissioner is looking at where a child's cultural identity and placement is an issue.

C. Clark: As a last question on this subject, could the commissioner tell us whether those complaints are about homes for aboriginal children or non-aboriginal children, or both, and what the percentage is?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This issue concerns mainly aboriginal children, but there are also non-aboriginal ethnic or cultural children -- children from those backgrounds -- that she is dealing with.

B. McKinnon: I just have one question for the commissioner. I'm concerned about the new millennium coming and the computer systems that we all have. I'm wondering if the commissioner's office is prepared -- or if her computers are set for the new millennium and the year 2000.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe the commissioner will be able to answer that question -- nor would I -- but I am certain that some part of the government is looking at that issue. It would be a governmentwide system change that has to be made. I'm sure everybody is aware of it. Yes, it's an important issue.

B. McKinnon: So I can take it from the Attorney General that everything on the government side is being looked after as far as the computer system goes?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's very difficult for the Attorney General to give that assurance, but I can certainly tell you that all the major institutions -- and government is perhaps the largest institution in the province -- are concerned about this issue. In fact, you hear discussions about it every day on radio and television. I'm not aware of the specific plans that are being made. That perhaps might be within another ministry. I'm sure it's being done.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am just told, by the back row here, that it is all being taken care of.

B. McKinnon: We can feel very assured, then, that your office and all the offices are being taken care of. Have they even started doing anything, say, in your office itself, the office of the Attorney General?

The Chair: Members, perhaps we could return to the estimates of the Attorney General at some point here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps the more appropriate minister to ask that question of might be the Minister of Finance. Those kinds of systems are perhaps housed in the Ministry of Finance.

G. Plant: In fact, we'll come back to the millennium compliance issue, because it is an issue that actually directly relates to this ministry and all ministries in government. It is an important one, perhaps, in terms of obtaining some assistance from the children's commissioner, which I think is close to what we're trying to do right now. I'll just shift the focus slightly.

Last summer -- I think right about the eve of the session; if not the last day of the session, then virtually as the session was concluding -- there were regulations promulgated with respect to the processes and procedures of the children's commissioner office. Concern was expressed publicly by a number of people -- and the issue received some media attention -- about the confidentiality aspect of the regulations. I'm going by recollection now, but it appeared to many people that the commissioner was not just being given by cabinet an extensive ability to maintain a veil over, in this case, her operations, but really had an over-broad power of privacy.

Let me put that in context. Clearly much of the work that the commissioner has to do is work that can only be done effectively if there is integrity in the process and if there are elements of privacy and confidentiality, so people are prepared to cooperate in the investigative undertakings that the commissioner engages in. I think it is also the case that many people who are given broad powers under a statute -- coercive powers, in fact -- would, for perfectly reasonable reasons, I suppose, want to exercise those powers sheltered from or out of the main glow of the sometimes harsh light of public scrutiny. So what we're always talking about in these

[ Page 7089 ]

I think the view that many expressed last summer was that the regulations promulgated last summer struck the wrong balance. They erred too far on the side of protecting privacy rights and did not give enough of an opportunity for public scrutiny. I don't intend to have a debate about where the balance might be drawn. What I do want to ask the Attorney General and through him the commissioner is. . . . I'm interested in the commissioner's comment on her experience in administering that regulation over the past year, and I would let her know that I still have this concern. If she has any comments in response to that, I would be grateful to hear them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The first panel hearing pursuant to those regulations would be heard by the end of this month or early May, so there is no experience to speak of. I appreciate the hon. member's comments with respect to the need to strike a balance between the competing interests of openness and privacy, and that's how this regulation was put together. There were extensive consultations, including with the freedom-of-information and protection of privacy commissioner, in drafting those regulations.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

G. Plant: Just to follow up, I suppose, and bring closure on the topic in terms of the panel hearings, which I think was the place around which the noise of concern was loudest, we really haven't had a chance to see whether that process is fair or not, because we haven't yet had a panel hearing. I guess in that respect, timing is wonderful. The issue arose at the end of the session last year, so we didn't really have a chance to engage you in debate about it. Now that the issue has arisen a year later, we'll have to wait and see how the process is working and whether, in fact, it's striking the right balance. But I'm glad that the Attorney General appears to understand my concerns, and I hope that he and also the commissioner will be mindful of that interest as they continue to do their work.

C. Clark: This issue of confidentiality is something that was raised with me by another member of our caucus committee, as well, and I'd like to raise it on his behalf. He is quite concerned, and I've heard from a number of parents and family members who are concerned, about the way that the children's commissioner and the ministry report to families about what's happening with a family member. Sometimes the complaints come from biological parents, sometimes from adoptive parents and sometimes from foster parents. I'd like the commissioner, through the Attorney General, to outline for us how that system of accountability works when there's a fatality and whether, in her view, it works well, or whether changes need to be made to make sure that it works better.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The practice is that the commission would write a letter to the custodial parent or parents when a fatality is to be investigated.

As to whether or not the commission could speak to the parent if parents would like to speak to the commission. . . . If yes, obviously the communication then proceeds. As well, the question is asked if the parent or parents would like to receive a copy of the report. All of that is done. But nobody else is spoken to. It is the custodial parents that the commissioner speaks to.

If you have any specific concerns, I would ask the hon. member to approach the commission directly, and perhaps the commission can deal with them.

[4:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of the initial purposes of the letter is to ask for them to be involved. So that involvement is there in each and every case. Parents are asked for their opinions about the issues being dealt with. Then the report is made accessible to them, yes.

C. Clark: I will approach the commissioner outside the chamber about some issues that have been brought to my attention from constituents who are concerned about input.

The integration of services in the ministry is a big focus for the commissioner, as well. I know she anticipates that is going to be a big issue over the next year. Could she give us a brief overview of how well the ministry is doing, in her view, in integrating the services that have all been brought on line in such a short time frame? Also, could she offer us some comment on how the shortening of the time line from three years to one year, for the integration of the ministry, has affected the ministry's ability to do its job?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, the integration isn't complete as yet. The next report from the commissioner will make a comment on the integration. It is underway. The commissioner obviously has to make an assessment at the end of it and make some comments in that regard. But so far, I believe that it's appropriately underway; it's not complete yet.

C. Clark: One of the issues that one hears from social workers and people on the front line is that one of the big problems with integration -- and the commissioner has already alluded to this -- is the fact that there is a shortage of software and just the technology they need to be able to make sure that they can have a system to input information into and that the system is connected to other offices. I believe this is an area that the commissioner has publicly commented on in the past. Could she just reiterate for us, if that's what it is, her recommendations in that regard? And could she tell us what the ministry has done to try and meet her recommendations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the commissioner obviously did make a recommendation that there has to be adequate information-sharing between practitioners who impact the lives of children -- mental health workers, social workers and the like. The information-sharing isn't at a stage where it should be, but their ministry is working on it.

The second issue that the commissioner has raised in terms of her recommendations is the issue of training of the practitioners with respect to utilization of that software or whatever information-sharing technology that might be. I think that is being done as well. I don't think that, at this stage, we're able to make a comment as to the state of progress in that regard, but the work is being done by the ministry. It is quite expensive.

[ Page 7090 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner has seen no evidence to suggest to her that the gaps are wider than they were before. In fact, the evidence is that in some regions, such as Kelowna, Vancouver and Victoria, the processes and the systems are working much more closely and much better.

C. Clark: I know there's an integrated case management model underway, but I also understand that in some regions the implementation of that model is fairly far advanced. Could the commissioner comment for us on which regions are the farthest ahead? Which regions are sort of at the back end of the process, having a little more trouble or taking a little longer to implement the integrated case management model?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there's a commitment from the Ministry for Children and Families that they will have integrated case management in place in the entire province by the end of this fiscal year, '98-99. That integration has already taken place, and I understand it is working quite well in Victoria, Kelowna and Vancouver.

C. Clark: Could the commissioner tell us which regions she expects will be amongst the last to put the integrated case management model into place? I know that in her annual report she says she's monitoring that on an ongoing basis, so I suspect she has some idea of where that might fall into place.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that would be difficult for the commissioner to say at this point.

C. Clark: I am interested in the commissioner's opinion of ministry audits and her relationship. . .how her office monitors audits that the Ministry for Children and Families do internally. I wonder if she could outline for us how that process works, how the interrelationship between the ministry and her office works when the ministry decides to do an audit, and how often the ministry's decision to do an audit is done in response to a request from her office or from another outside agency.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the audits, there has been a commitment by the Ministry for Children and Families to do all ten offices. There have been practice reviews done in three to five offices in response to the commissioner's request.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, my apologies. I misspoke. They have done audits in ten offices around the province since 1997, and there have been practice reviews in three to five offices in response to the commissioner's request. I think that's the kind of information that the hon. member should be seeking from the Minister for Children and Families.

C. Clark: What I was specifically asking was whether the Children's Commission requests most of those audits or not. It appears that the practice reviews were all precipitated by requests from the children's commissioner's office. I'm curious to find out how many of the audits were conducted as a result of requests by the children's commissioner's office.

[5:00]

C. Clark: I may be misunderstanding, then, the difference between a practice review and an audit.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, I understand from the Attorney General that they're the same. Okay. So three to five audits were. . . . Can the commissioner tell us which offices her office requested be audited? If it's three to five, can she tell us which those were?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is difficult, in fact impossible, at this point for the children's commissioner to identify the offices, because that can then lead to the identification of the children. The commissioner is considering a possible regional, collective identification at some point, if that might be possible without compromising the privacy of the children. It is a difficult issue.

C. Clark: The reason I'm interested in where the audits are happening is because I'd like an idea, and I think the communities that are being served by the ministry would like an idea, of whether their offices are doing their jobs. I mean, it's not much different from parents wanting to know if their school is doing an adequate job in terms of the outcomes that it's getting from children. I think it's fair for communities to get that assurance or to get a warning that the ministry offices aren't working well.

I am hopeful that the commissioner can find a way to identify the offices that have been audited without identifying the children in those communities. I suspect that if a social worker is carrying 50 cases and you've got five workers in every office, that's a lot of children that are in contact with the ministry, and there are a lot of people in that community that are being served by that ministry. I'm not sure how identifying

[ Page 7091 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously this is a troubling issue for me as well as for the commissioner, as she has indicated. I think that the moment you identify a location. . . . There may have been only one or two fatalities in any given period of time, and if you indicate that a particular office has been audited around that time, particularly subsequent to the deaths, then children may be identified. This is a very difficult issue. I think the appropriate thing, perhaps, for the hon. member to do would be to ask the Ministry for Children and Families to make their locations public -- all of them -- if that can be done without compromising the privacy of the children.

C. Clark: I certainly will ask the minister to make the results of those audits public. It's important that everybody in those communities know how the office is performing.

I didn't realize that this privacy concern would come up, because I didn't assume that each audit was precipitated by a child fatality. Can I make the assumption, then, that every audit that is requested by the children's commissioner is the result of a child fatality?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the audits that have been sought by the commissioner to date have been subsequent to the fatalities. But that may not continue to be the case, with the examination and auditing of the care plans. The audits may be sought in that regard as well, so that may change.

C. Clark: I am guessing that not every child fatality results in a request for an audit of the office by the children's commissioner. So I'm wondering what characterizes, in general, a case that would make it something that would result in a request for an audit from the children's commissioner.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The fatality leads to the seeking of an audit by the commissioner. In a case where there is an overriding concern on the part of the commissioner that the practices that may have occurred in a particular case may be part of a general pattern in and around the particular office, that would then lead to a request by the commissioner to have an audit.

C. Clark: When the children's commissioner requests an audit, I assume the ministry isn't compelled to comply with that request. So I'm curious as to whether the ministry has complied with each request that the children's commissioner has made for an audit.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the ministry has complied with each request that has been made, and I'm just told by the commissioner that these audits are called practice reviews.

C. Clark: I'm not entirely clear on this process either, so I have just one more question to clarify how the system works. The children's commissioner requests an audit, and I understand that that would almost always result in a partial audit of 20 percent of the files. How would the decision to make a full audit be made? Would that be the result of a further request by the commissioner based on the results of the first partial audit? Or would it be up to the ministry to decide whether they were going to go on with a full audit? If the ministry decided they didn't want to do a full audit and the commissioner disagreed with that decision. . . . Has she ever intervened to ensure that they go on to do a 100 percent audit as a result of what came up in the first partial audit?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer to the latter part of the question is no; that firstly, the commissioner hasn't had to ask the ministry to go farther than the 20 percent. And obviously, if she hasn't asked, her request has not been turned down. But I'm told the ministry has gone farther on its own and in some places done a full practice review, as it's called.

C. Clark: The complaints process within the ministry is triggered when someone makes a complaint, and then the next step in the process should be the children's commissioner. It's my understanding that the children's commissioner isn't, in the majority of cases, the first step for a complaint that comes from a child or family member about their treatment at the hands of the ministry. Can the commissioner give us a sense of how many complaints come to her office without going through the process in the ministry first and how many complaints come to her office after the ministry has, I guess, failed to satisfy the complainant?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the period of October 1997 to March 1998, there was a total of 124 complaints. Some of them were sent back to the ministry because the legislation explicitly mandates that the individual or individuals exhaust the remedies available under the legislation. There were in fact 53 out of 124 that were turned back, and others, of course, were dealt with.

C. Clark: Could the commissioner tell us how many of the 124 complaints that came to her office directly were appropriately addressed to her first? I'm just trying to whittle down the 124 that went to the ministry to figure out which ones didn't start at the ministry and appropriately shouldn't have.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are, of course, dealing with the complaints and not with the fatalities. With respect to the complaints, no one can directly complain to the commissioner. Complaints always have to go through the ministry, so they are dealt with. If you're dissatisfied at the end of it, the complaint then ends up with the commissioner.

[5:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the contracting agencies are now required, as a part of contract reform, to have internal complaint mechanisms as part of their contracts. So the individual who is receiving service from a contracting agency can either go through the internal complaint process or go directly to the government complaint process within the ministry. It can be dealt with either way.

C. Clark: Is the commissioner of the opinion that the complaint system and the accountability system for the con-

[ Page 7092 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from what the commissioner has told me that it is too early to tell. These mechanisms are now being put in place, so we don't so far have the experience to base any kind of opinion on.

C. Clark: I want to finish up; I don't want to keep the commissioner any longer than necessary. I guess one of the last questions that any critic should ask of the children's commissioner is: how many recommendations have you made for the government? How many of those recommendations have been met, how many of them are in the process of being met, and how many of them do you suspect that the government is not meeting and doesn't have any intention of meeting?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I know one is not allowed to use props, so I won't show this, but the hon. member would be aware that there is a report from September '96 to January 1998. It's called the "Recommendations and Responses Tracking Document," and it would tell the hon. member what recommendations were made, whether or not they have been implemented as of the date of reporting, and to what extent. There will be another report coming in January 1999, so we'll stay tuned.

C. Clark: In fact, I don't want to continue. I just want to finish off, again thank the commissioner very much for the really admirable work that she has put in over the last year and thank her for her cooperation and her helpfulness. In my experience in my constituency office and as a critic, I have never heard a complaint about the commissioner's office. I have heard complaints on almost every other subject under the sun, but I have never heard a complaint about the commissioner's office.

Interjection.

C. Clark: So far. So I think that speaks to the good work that she's doing. I would just put that on the public record and thank her again for her time today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I may add my thanks to the commissioner. . . . She is doing great work in an absolutely independent fashion. I can vouch for it. I thank her once again: thank you for taking us through this difficult task.

G. Plant: In order to bridge the gap between what we've just done and what we're about to do -- which I'm happy to begin doing -- I might say that in following the progress of that debate, I was struck once again by the challenges that are presented by the way in which the estimates process is presently structured. The Attorney General will recall the debate of a year ago about whether or not the children's commissioner should be a statutory officer of the Legislature as opposed to an officer reporting to the Attorney General. I think that the present arrangement has probably, in an odd way, made for more public accountability than there would have been if she had been made an independent officer of the Legislature. In a way, I suppose that is less a tribute to the present arrangement than it is a critical commentary on the lack of accountability that exists in respect of the other legislative officers.

I have a feeling that the Attorney General shares my views on this. I hope that having spent the better part of an afternoon having to, in effect, act as a conduit for information from someone who is in almost every way an officer independent of his own office, he will become, by reason of that experience, an even more impassioned and forceful advocate for the legislative reform we need to enhance the accountability of independent officers of the Legislature.

I was going to move to an entirely different subject. Perhaps before doing that I might. . . . I think we're going to be moving. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: No.

I understand that ministry staff have had some expectations of where we might go at this point. I can inform the Attorney General that I have not actually expressed any concurrence with those arrangements. My intention, as I said in my remarks earlier this afternoon, is actually to turn to a number of issues that I think are foursquare within the general purview of the ministry's operations.

I can say this, though: in terms of one of the agencies or commissions that the Attorney General just referred to sotto voce a minute ago, I have not completed my consultations with all of my caucus colleagues. However, it is not my present intention to ask the Attorney General any questions in relation to human rights. I say that for two reasons. One is that I have had occasion over the past year to talk with the commissioner and with members of her staff, and I have learned something about the way in which they are seeking to meet the challenges in relation to administrative processes and the backlog and so on that we spoke about last year and probably two years ago here in this process. I have ascertained that the ministry is continuing to fund the project that is intended to eliminate the backlog. As I understand it, it was to be a two-year project; we're now in year 2. We will have an occasion next year, I expect, to determine whether or not that project succeeded or failed.

Frankly, in terms of the other issues which are of public interest, perhaps, around the mandate of the commission and the tribunal, the Attorney General referred to those in his opening remarks earlier today. I think that, in the main, they are issues around some proposals that the commission has made for legislative change to the Human Rights Code. Without in any way conceding that it's not appropriate to debate legislative changes in the estimates debate, I think that for now it's my intention to leave those.

I can't make the same commitment with respect to multiculturalism and immigration, because I can fairly say that I took a large step forward on the learning curve in relation to those areas of the minister's expertise today, and I'm just beginning to absorb the information I acquired from his staff. I'll determine whether there are any questions that I need to ask about those issues in the fullness of time.

With all of that, my intention is now to move to a number of issues that are probably more political in nature and that relate, generally speaking, to the main functions of the minister. I'm proposing to do that. I'm hoping that, in the main, the staff who are now here will be able to be of assistance to the minister, but if there is an urgent need for staff from a particular department or branch on an issue, then we can make the arrangements that need to be made.

The first subject I want to ask the Attorney General about is this: as he is no doubt aware, the B.C. Civil Liberties Associ-

[ Page 7093 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, firstly, I think it's appropriate for me to say that in that particular issue, as in thousands of other cases, the Attorney General cannot personally know of any deadlines that might exist. It is almost humanly impossible to do that. Yes, I did discover that the time period for filing a statement of defence had expired, and a letter for an extension had been forwarded to the counsel for the petitioners. From the moment I discovered that the time period had expired and that an extension had not been received -- and I would say that was about 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. . . . By 11 a.m. the next day the extension to file the statement of defence had been sought and received, and the date is May 1.

[5:30]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Plant: I think the public will be assisted by the process which it appears the minister has now implemented to deal with this potential problem. I should also say that it's no part of my brief to challenge the abilities of any of the lawyers in the legal services branch or within the ministry. As much as anything, when I hear stories like this, one of my concerns is a question about overwork, about adequacy of resources, within the legal services branch.

But the other part of the reaction, and an important part, is to ask whether there is some other motive, reason or explanation for the delay which is more political in nature. That's why I think it's good that the Attorney General has recognized the problem. Let me now ask the question: is it the Attorney's intention to vigorously defend in the courts of British Columbia the law which his government enacted and which I think resulted from his own personal efforts, while a backbencher, as the chair of a standing committee?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I express no personal implications to the hon. member, but it is in fact odious on anyone's part to ask a question as to whether there are any other motives of any Attorney General. That's not to say that my hon. friend is doing anything wrong; it's just generally important for people to know that as a principle, the Attorney General always defends, without exception, the constitutionality of any piece of legislation that's been passed by the Legislature unless he receives an opinion from constitutional experts that tells the Attorney General that whatever the Attorney General may be wanting to defend is patently unconstitutional. Nobody has done that to me. The standing instructions apply in this case as well. I understand -- it's part of the media report -- that that point was made by the lawyer concerned. If I might just say this, this kind of thing happened with respect to the gaming case, as well, which the hon. member might believe may have been important for the government. A notice of appeal was filed but not served in time, and an extension had to be sought by an application to the court.

I think these things do happen. I've expressed the concern to the ministry. There is no doubt that they have a lot of work and sometimes a lot of burdens to carry in terms of all these issues -- in terms of overwork sometimes. I've expressed the concern to them that on these kinds of cases, be it somebody's perception that it is in the government's interest or not in the government's interest, if they are issues of high public profile, that they particularly be dealt with extremely cautiously and quickly.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's extraordinarily strong statement of position with respect to the role of the Attorney General in defending the constitutionality of provincial legislation. I must say that I don't want to engage in a debate on that point. I have personal experience which causes me, in the most general way, to say that not every decision taken by an Attorney General with respect to defending the integrity of the laws of British Columbia over the last 15 years that I've been a lawyer has been so full of the same -- I won't say self-righteousness, although I'm tempted to respond to the term "odious. . . ." More seriously, that's an important principle, and it's good to have it here, on the record. I'm sure that members of the public will now watch the further proceedings in this particular case with whatever interest they have in them and certain in the knowledge that the government will defend the law that's now being challenged.

The issue that I want to turn to now is the issue of RCMP auxiliaries and the decision which the Attorney General made in concert with the RCMP. My note tells me that on April 3, the E Division of the RCMP issued a memo stating that they and the Attorney General's ministry had jointly agreed to suspend the authorization of auxiliary constables to carry firearms. My first question is this: is the minister aware of how many auxiliary detachments and officers themselves have now suspended their activities as a result of this order?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. I am aware, though, from a conversation with Chief Superintendent Bob Swann today, that some have suspended them and others haven't.

G. Plant: My own information does not come from anything like as official a source, I suppose, as an officer within

[ Page 7094 ]

Perhaps I could move to this question. Bearing in mind that in 1996 RCMP auxiliary officers provided over 250,000 hours of volunteer service across British Columbia, is the minister aware of how many volunteer policing hours have been lost as a result of the decision made on April 3?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I'm not aware of the general hours.

I think perhaps I should take the time to make some general comments about this issue, which has been much misunderstood across the province. In 1997 the ministry commenced a review of this matter, the auxiliary reserve program, because of controversy over the role played by auxiliaries and reserves -- liability issues, training issues and concerns about the program's focus and management. Early on in the course of that review, auxiliaries themselves raised concerns about their safety in high-risk situations, because they do not believe that they are properly trained in the use of firearms. In too many cases there was no training at all. Auxiliary program statistics for 1997 show that only 15.6 percent of the total program hours were spent on training. This is an average of about 24 hours per auxiliary, but as I said, in too many cases there was no training at all.

I was faced with a recommendation from the ministry's review, which I believe is being done in conjunction with the RCMP, indicating all those concerns about auxiliary safety, regular police officer safety and public safety. When an Attorney General is faced with a recommendation from the ministry -- supported fully by the RCMP and supported fully by the Vancouver police department's Chief Chambers -- that in the interim, pending the review, we need to suspend the use of side arms by auxiliaries, I think it's only appropriate for the Attorney General to take that step, out of an abundance of caution.

The other issue we need to remember is that no other jurisdiction in the country -- auxiliaries or reserves -- has side arms. Furthermore, when auxiliaries and reserves go into volunteer work with the police. . . . Ask any of them today: "When you go into volunteer police work, do you go into police work with the intention that you would be able to use side arms; is that the dominant consideration?" If you ask them to honestly answer that question, all of them without fail would say: "No, we go into volunteer police work, auxiliary work, not for the use of side arms but to do other things -- community policing, crime prevention and assisting the police in every possible way that we can."

I think this side arms issue is an important issue, but it is an issue which I believe has received unnecessary focus. The question is. . . . Even in Vancouver, out of the independent municipal police forces -- there are 12 in British Columbia -- only six of those allow their auxiliary officers to carry side arms and only when they are in the company of regular police officers.

I think the larger issue is that the RCMP have indicated, firstly, that this was a recommendation they fully supported. The Vancouver police chief has indicated that this is a recommendation that he has supported. He, in fact, has put in place new guidelines in the interim, pending their review, with respect to his own reserves.

I think the larger question is: do we value the work done by auxiliaries and reserves? Yes, I think most British Columbians, all British Columbians, would say that these people do invaluable work and are a tremendous service to the communities.

But the question is: where do we want them to do the service and in what capacity? If you ask ordinary British Columbians under what circumstances the force should be used and whether or not an auxiliary or reserve officer less trained -- less trained than a regular police officer; not less competent, but less trained -- in the use of force should be able to use side arms almost on a regular basis like an ordinary police officer, sometimes in extremely difficult situations, I think an ordinary British Columbian would say no.

Police officers are well trained. They receive intensive and extensive training, both in terms of handling difficult situations as well as in handling arms. Shooting a gun does not make a police officer. It is not the most important thing in a police officer's life. It is rare, fortunately, in British Columbia that a police officer has to use a gun. So in that context, we need to look at the role of the auxiliaries, and we need to say to people, as the RCMP have said, that there would be no reduction in the number of patrol cars out in the streets of British Columbia just because auxiliaries don't carry arms.

[5:45]

This is an issue that the RCMP feel very, very strongly about. People of British Columbia, because of the statements that have been made, feel that somehow there is a reduction in their safety. That is not the case. RCMP have assured me and they have assured the public that there would be adequate and the same level of protection afforded British Columbians as there has been. They are trying to persuade the auxiliaries to continue to work, because we value their work. These are men and women who spend thousands of hours over the years doing volunteer work. But one doesn't need a gun to do traffic control; one does not need a gun to do crowd control; one does not need a gun to do community crime prevention; one does not need a gun to do education and prevention at schools.

I think that we need to look at the whole issue of what role, in the long run, we want auxiliaries and reserves to play. We need to separate that from the hurt that many auxiliaries may have received because their weapons were taken away. I want to say to those auxiliaries -- if they're watching or listening to me or reading my comments -- that we in British

[ Page 7095 ]

G. Plant: The minister poses the rhetorical question: do we value the work of auxiliaries? He says the answer is yes. Almost nothing about this decision or the way it was made supports his answer to that question. The decision was made, so far as I'm aware, without any consultation. The decision was made and implemented instantly. In places like Coquitlam, I'm told, the firearms lockers were broken into and the guns removed -- I suppose the expectation being that auxiliaries, having received the bad news, might act irresponsibly. The rumours swirl about whether or not there was a precipitating incident, and perhaps we can pursue that, but to date, no precipitating incident has been identified.

We have a review underway that can and will look at all of the issues about training and safety and what the role of auxiliaries is. Yet sprung in the middle of this review, without notice and almost under cover of darkness, is this decision -- which I'm sure the Attorney General thought about seriously before he made it. But it's a decision which in the way it was made and by its nature is an insult to the people who serve. I'm not surprized that hundreds of auxiliary officers across British Columbia feel that insult and are being awfully reluctant to re-engage themselves, to commit their hours and volunteer time in the service of their communities. If I were in that situation, I think it would take some persuading.

I hear what the Attorney General is saying and have heard the argument, yes, that this is the only jurisdiction in Canada where RCMP auxiliaries carry firearms. I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. Tell that to the people in Ganges or Houston or the small towns in British Columbia where, because of this government's failure to ensure that there are adequate, real, fully-trained police officers on the streets of British Columbia, they depend on their auxiliaries to do the routine patrol work that conceivably could be and ought to be done by fully-trained RCMP officers. But apparently there aren't enough of them to go around in those communities.

More to the point, in December 1996 there was a memorandum that went out from the Ministry of Attorney General that said: "The Ministry of Attorney General is of the opinion that an auxiliary is on duty when he/she is in uniform and armed. Under no circumstances is an auxiliary to be in uniform unless they are armed" -- a completely unequivocal statement by an official of the Attorney General's ministry. Perhaps the minister could try again and explain what it is that changed between then and now.

I don't think anybody wants there to be guns in British Columbia. I agree with the minister when he makes the point that if you were to ask auxiliaries, "Is the real reason why you want this job because you want to carry sidearms?" they would say no. They want to serve their communities. But increasingly, the auxiliaries of British Columbia are serving communities which are less safe than they were ten years ago. They are being put in situations where they are at risk. If the minister believes crime statistics, I'm happy to engage in that debate. But the fact is that crime. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Plant: I understand that the minister thinks crime is at an acceptable level in British Columbia, because we now have some reports that crime rates have gone down. My view is that crime is at an unacceptable level in British Columbia, and we should do more to fix it. The problem is that auxiliaries have been out there helping to make their communities safe, and they've been told that they should be out there in uniform. They've been told to do their job. They've been told to get training. My information is that they get training. They were told a year ago that if they wanted to continue to serve as auxiliaries they would have to take the new training to go along with the nine-millimetre handgun. It may be wrong, but my information from the auxiliaries who have contacted me is that they did take that training and that if they didn't take that training, they shouldn't be allowed out with side arms. If training is an issue, then deal with it as a training issue. But for the auxiliaries who have said that they are willing to take the training and who have undertaken the training, I guess the issue is: what is their role to be?

I'm prepared to have that debate, and I'm even prepared, in the fullness of time, to rethink what their role is in the way that the Attorney General contemplates, but you don't do that the way the Attorney General did it. You don't do it by issuing a memorandum on a Friday afternoon, by breaking into lockers, taking the guns away and essentially saying: "For reasons that we're not able to satisfactorily explain, we have decided to circumvent the processes of the review and make a unilateral decision without consultation, and implement it immediately." That's the way we show auxiliaries how much we value their services.

I'm sure that we'll have the opportunity to pursue this debate tomorrow, but the Attorney General apparently wants to correct some of my misapprehensions, and perhaps I'll give him the opportunity to do that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just give some statistics to the hon. member. The auxiliary firearms trainers reported that in 1996 and '97, auxiliaries who were tested showed a lack of basic elementary firearms skills. Failure rates on the firearms testing ranged from 30 to 44 percent.

We will carry on this debate next day, perhaps, and hopefully the review that is scheduled for completion by the end of September. . . . I've asked the ministry and the police to conduct that review and conclude it as early as possible so that this issue can be resolved rather than be left lingering.

One more issue. I think that the hon. member raises many issues on which the Attorney General doesn't have any control. The RCMP deal with these issues in the way they see fit, and I think it's appropriate that those questions be addressed to them. The hon. member can seek a meeting with one of them. I'm sure they're aware of the concerns that the hon. member has raised.

Hon. Chair, seeing the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

[ Page 7096 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister has an opening statement she'd like to make. We'd be happy to hear it.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to make an opening statement about this ministry. But before I do that I would like to introduce my staff. To my right is the deputy minister, Dr. Sharon Manson Singer. Behind me is the ADM of finance and management services, Cynthia Lukaitis, and on the other side is the ADM of field services and program operations, Chris Haynes.

I am very pleased to introduce the budget for the Ministry of Human Resources for the fiscal year 1998-99. Our budget target for this year is $1.563 billion. This is down from last year's budget by 9.1 percent; that's $155.6 million. But I want to make the point clearly, because there's been some misunderstanding out in the communities, that there are no reductions in benefits to clients or to the levels of client service as we achieve these targets. Also, this will be the third year of continued drops in this ministry's budget. I am very proud, and our government is proud, that we have been able to achieve these results without the kind of across-the-board cutting and slashing which we have seen in other jurisdictions.

In January of 1996, this government introduced B.C. Benefits, a comprehensive set of programs that are protecting the most vulnerable among us, including children, people with disabilities, and seniors. B.C. Benefits is removing the barriers between welfare and work, and B.C. Benefits ensures that in every case, work is a better deal than welfare. People in this province want to work, and it's government's responsibility -- all of our responsibility -- to ensure that those people who end up using the income assistance supports in this province have the opportunity to obtain the skills and supports they need to get a job and to get on with their lives.

B.C. Benefits has been a spectacular success in helping thousands of people make the move from welfare to work. We've gone from a passive system that tended to trap people in the welfare cycle to an active system that effectively moves people from welfare to work. As a result of these actions and B.C. Benefits, the last two fiscal years have seen the greatest caseload decline in 20 years.

As well as good management and making sure that we have an effective system, British Columbia is strongly committed, and this government is strongly committed, to fighting child poverty. In order to do that, this ministry has created effective partnerships with other key ministries in government. It is in fact a cross-government effort to fight child poverty. For example, the Ministry of Finance is our partner in delivering the B.C. family bonus. We all know that the best social safety net is a secure job with a decent wage. But children have to be cared for when parents are working. Therefore Healthy Kids and child care programs are developed and funded by the Ministry for Children and Families and delivered by my ministry. About 235,000 B.C. children are eligible for dental and optical benefits under Healthy Kids, which we share with the Ministry for Children and Families. About 40,000 children receive child care subsidies through the B.C. Benefits child care program funded through the Ministry for Children and Families. The Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology delivers the Youth Works and Welfare to Work programs which are designed to get people the training and experience they need to get jobs and to regain and retain their financial independence.

As well as providing needed supports to people and families, all of these programs directly impact the income assistance and disability benefits caseload for which the Ministry of Human Resources is directly responsible.

In February 1998 -- that's just this year -- about 7.5 percent of the B.C. population received income assistance. That's down from almost 10 percent in December 1995, just before we began the B.C. Benefits program. That number compares very favourably with the national social assistance rate, which recent reports pointed out is approximately 10 percent of our citizens in this country.

B.C.'s cross-government collaborative approach to social policy is having an ongoing, positive and measurable impact on our caseload. In 1996-97 the caseload declined by 9.4 percent; in 1997-98 the caseload declined by another 8.2 percent. Today there are 71,000 fewer people on income assistance than when B.C. Benefits began. That's 30,000 fewer children and 16,000 fewer families trapped in the poverty cycle.

My ministry came in $60 million under budget for 1997-98, and we expect to deliver $95.6 million in savings in the coming fiscal year, thanks to the initiatives which began last year. More importantly, we are continuing to help people move from welfare to work.

[2:45]

The Ministry of Human Resources carries the central database for B.C. Benefits programming. Our systems must be upgraded to ensure, first, that we are able to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of B.C. Benefits programs on people and families in British Columbia. Second, we must be fully accountable to the public for government policies and expenditures in this area.

We continue to improve and enhance our program integrity measures to ensure that taxpayer dollars are effectively delivered only to those truly in need. The public expects government to be fully accountable for these programs, but I have to point out that ensuring a high level of integrity and confidence in income assistance programs in British Columbia benefits everyone -- those who use the system and those who don't. We are looking for additional resources in this ministry to further enhance eligibility and verification procedures. We believe that savings can still be achieved in this area.

I want to shift my topic to a very specific one, one that I think is near and dear to the hearts of everyone in this Legislature -- certainly to mine -- and that is the issue of child

[ Page 7097 ]

In July of 1996 the B.C. family bonus program was introduced. That program provides a monthly cheque of up to $103 per child per month to B.C. families who qualify -- nearly 45 percent of B.C. families. In British Columbia, about 230,000 families with 430,000 children receive these monthly cheques. The maximum benefits go to working families with annual incomes below $18,000 a year, and about 95 percent of all benefits paid from this program go to families that make less than $30,000 per year.

The B.C. family bonus makes it easier for families with children to leave welfare and stay off welfare, because they'll continue to receive the B.C. family bonus outside the welfare system. That makes work a better deal than welfare. The B.C. family bonus is a big step up toward making work a better deal than welfare. It's certainly a huge part of the picture. It's a big step in that direction, but it's a huge step in the broader issue of addressing child poverty.

In 1997 a highly respected private sector research firm, Mendelson Associates, did some work. They stated in their report that the B.C. poverty gap, or the amount of income needed by families to take them out of poverty, has been reduced by 19 percent over the last two years. For single-parent families, the news is even better: that poverty gap has closed by a remarkable 25 percent.

Clearly we've got a long way to go, but that is a significant move in two years, and it's good news for the kids and families in British Columbia. It also, I might say, proves what we on this side of the House have always knows about parents on welfare -- that they are the most highly motivated clients we have. They want to achieve independence and make their lives and those of their children better.

This government, with child care subsidies and health care for children, B.C. family bonus, and so on, has removed the barriers between welfare and work. These have all been very important to young parents trying to succeed at entry-level jobs. With the barriers removed, parents left our caseload in record numbers, and they're still leaving. This philosophy has been what one social policy analyst -- the Ottawa-based Caledon Institute -- is calling "British Columbia's quiet revolution in social policy." Clearly, B.C. Benefits is working.

In July of 1998, the national child benefit will be introduced across this country. I am proud to say, as are all members of my caucus and our party, that it's modelled on B.C.'s family bonus. The national child benefit will be Canada's landmark social policy of the 1990s, just as medicare was the social policy milestone of the 1970s. As medicare began with an NDP government in Saskatchewan, the national child benefit began with an NDP government right here in British Columbia, and we should take pride in that.

British Columbia has been pioneering good social policy through B.C. Benefits and the B.C. family bonus for the last two years, and finally, in July of 1998 -- this year -- Canadian children outside B.C. will benefit as well. While I applaud the federal government for catching up in this area, I also want to point out that the federal government has dedicated only $850 million to this national program. In British Columbia, we spend an average of $400 million per year on this province's children alone. That's 50 percent, and it's spent in British Columbia, compared to what the federal government is planning to spend for the entire country. I will continue, on behalf of this government, to urge the federal government to adequately fund this landmark social program so that all Canadian children can benefit. We estimate that there needs to be an expenditure of about $2.5 billion.

The best social safety net is always a secure family-supporting job. Between 1990 and 1997, employment in the whole of Canada grew by 5.9 percent. During that same period in British Columbia it grew by 18 percent. More than 275,000 new jobs were added in B.C. -- more than one-third of all new jobs in Canada. Although growth has slowed this year, there are still many opportunities to move people from welfare to work. In partnership with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and through the federal-provincial labour market development agreement, we're working to ensure that people get the help they need to move into employment.

In B.C. there are more than 400,000 hirings each year, according to Statistics Canada, because of business expansion and the need for new employees and replacements for employees retiring or those who are moving to other jobs. Even in this current economic slowdown, growth in job creation this year is forecast to be about 9,000 new jobs, and every one of these transitional or new jobs is an employment opportunity for MHR clients. It's useful to note that despite concerns about the province's unemployment rate, B.C.'s employment rate is now very high. In fact, it's higher than it was in the 1970s. Today, 59 percent of the population is working, compared to 56 percent in the late seventies. At the same time, there has been a trend to earlier retirement and increasing numbers of full-time students.

Changes in our economy and society demand new and innovative ways of supporting individuals and families and communities to achieve and maintain financial independence. We changed the system, but it's clear, from all the best minds in the world who deal with this subject, that we need to continue to change and evolve the system to find ever-increasingly better ways to support families and individuals to move from welfare to work.

I want to conclude by applauding the work of the former minister and of the staff in this ministry. They have done a remarkable job over the last two years, led by my exemplary, outstanding deputy minister here, who is an expert on these issues. I look forward to discussing the issues in this ministry with the opposition. I simply want to say that we are proud of what we've done, and we look forward to continued success for the people of British Columbia and the public in this province.

G. Hogg: I'd like to start by extending our appreciation to the ministry staff for the three briefings which they provided to us. The background and information they provided to us make it possible for us to be prepared to deal with these issues today.

You have given us an outline with respect to the plans you have. You've given us an outline with respect to the employment that you see coming forward, and we share an agreement that jobs are the best and finest form of a social safety net. Given that the projections with respect to our economy are down dramatically, how do we meet the expected movement from welfare to work when we see the economy dropping and look at the projections? Can you give us a little bit of the philosophy behind your intent to move in that direction -- the philosophical intent behind the programming and planning that is going forward?

[ Page 7098 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Our philosophy underlying what we're doing is that people want to work. People need support to help them move from welfare to work. Given the appropriate support such as available training -- which is more available in this province than any other in Canada -- and things like child care, which is also more available here than anywhere else in Canada, they will do that. That's the philosophy.

In terms of the slowdown in the economy, clearly our government has taken a number of steps to assist with what's possible to assist with, to try to kickstart the economy and get it moving -- $450 million in tax cuts to business, cutting red tape and so on. I'm very pleased to see that, because that obviously affects what we do in this ministry.

I would simply like to point out to the member that despite the slowdown that has been ongoing for some time, the trend, while it always varies seasonally, remains the same. We are still on a downward trend in terms of the caseload in this ministry, which is very good news indeed. We fully expect to meet our targets.

G. Hogg: It's true that we saw a doubling of the costs associated with our welfare programs from about $800 million in 1992 to about $1.5 million -- a dramatic increase. It's nice to see us being able to bring those numbers, in these past two years, to a downward trend. My question was whether or not there are, in fact, some contingencies built into the budget, some way to deal with an expected slowdown beyond the projections that you've shown within the context of this budget.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We have budgeted for what we believe we realistically can do this year, taking into consideration the economy that is with us today.

G. Hogg: Then I'm assuming there is no contingency, and that the exact budget that's built in there is the projection that you're responding with.

A reference was made to the B.C. family bonus and the processes that are contained in that to deal with poverty --particularly poverty amongst children and youth. The recent report card that came out -- Campaign 2000 -- talked about 180,000 youth within our province who are currently living in poverty. Can you reconcile that for me with respect to the B.C. family bonus and the attempts to manage and work with that type of poverty? In fact, do you concur with the statements that there are a 180,000 youth in poverty in this province at this point?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I welcome that question. It underscores quite clearly what phenomenal success we've had in British Columbia with the B.C. Benefits program. Those numbers in the Campaign 2000 report that the member points to are from 1995, just before we brought in B.C. Benefits and the B.C. family bonus. Since then we have seen a 20 percent drop in caseloads. In single-parent caseloads, we have seen some 16,000 families move from welfare to work. That means that over 30,000 kids who used to live on the poverty end of the scale are now moving out to work, with all of the supports we have provided.

G. Hogg: If I understand the response correctly, the figures -- which were 180,000 -- are now reduced by 30,000. Would it be correct to assume that we have 150,000 youths currently living in poverty in this province, based on those numbers?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would be happy to attempt to answer the question, but I would appreciate it if the member would define "youth" for me. Is he speaking of 19 to 24 or under 19? A little clarification would be appreciated.

G. Hogg: I would be happy to deal with any one of those numbers under the programming. I believe that Campaign 2000 was defining youth as under age 19. Is that a figure that we can deal with? I'm also happy to deal with those under 24. Either one of those figures would be useful.

Hon. J. Pullinger: After some number crunching. . . . The total of under-19-year-olds on welfare in British Columbia is 103,000 today. That's an 11 percent decline from February '97 to February '98, which is the date of the figures. So it's 103,000 as of February of 1998 -- 11 percent less than the previous year.

[3:00]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The numbers that I have just given are the measure of the number of children on welfare in British Columbia. In the report that the member has read, the Campaign 2000 report, they used the low-income cut-off measurement, which is currently under review from the federal government.

I would like to point out, however, that what we've done with B.C. Benefits is move from treating people on welfare as the only ones who are low-income in this province -- and, quite frankly, setting them up as separate and an object for attack -- and instead draw a line across the income level and say that if you fall below that income level, you need some support, whether it's social housing, which we're the only province in the country to continue to build after the federal government cut it's funding, whether it's childcare, training or, in fact, the very successful B.C. family bonus, which has closed that income gap for those families.

G. Hogg: I'll ask the minister if she could provide me with a rationale for the difference between the low-income cut-off lines which have been developed and the current levels at which we provide support within this province.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would be interested to know for the record if it is the opposition's position that the low-income cut-off rates should be used for welfare benefits. I would be very interested to know if that is what the opposition is putting forward.

G. Hogg: I wasn't taking a position on the low-income cut-off lines; I'm simply interested in the rationale that's being applied with respect to the difference. Another way of phrasing that may be: what is the rationale for your current levels of assistance? We don't have to compare the low-income cut-off lines; we can use any basis or method of determining it that you may choose. So simply the rationale with respect to the current levels.

[ Page 7099 ]

So, you know while there is no absolute way to measure where one ought to set the rate, I can tell the member gladly that we're doing the absolute best we can to keep a decent rate of assistance while we move people as quickly as possible from welfare into a job.

I want to underscore the philosophy of this government and ministry, and that is that a decent job at decent wages is the best social safety net there is. Our object is not to keep people on welfare. Our object is to move people off welfare and in fact to find every other means, such as the Job Start program, which catches people before they actually sign up for welfare and moves them directly into a job. With a decent minimum wage, with child care, with social housing and supports such as that and the B.C. family bonus, B.C. Healthy Kids, medicare subsidy and the highest minimum wage in the country, moving therefore into a job like that is in fact feasible. That's where I want people to be.

So there is no absolute answer to the member other than we have protected rates in most cases in British Columbia, unlike other provinces, and are moving people from welfare to work.

G. Hogg: It is important that we have a great deal of detail and data with respect to the programming and policies that we're making. Certainly the auditor general, in his report, has talked about the need for accountability and the processes by which we develop accountability. A number of reports out of UBC have suggested the same, in looking at some of the longitudinal studies that have made reference to welfare and the movement of people off welfare. Some of the numbers that Madam Minister gave to us and referenced in her opening comments made reference to some fairly impressive statistics with respect to reductions of those numbers on the rolls.

I'm wondering whether or not there are, within the accountability framework or any of the assessments which are being done, any studies or follow-ups that have been done with respect to where people who are moving off the rolls are going -- whether or not we can say 100 percent of them are moving into jobs -- or 5 percent or 10 percent -- or whether they're moving out of the province. Where in fact has the follow-up gone? And what has that led us to believe?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't follow people once they leave the system. We simply are vigilant in working with people while they're on the system, and we want to get them off.

There are, however, some indicators and some measures. One is the total caseload reduction, and another is the uptake on the transition-to-work benefits, etc. So we do know that people. . . .

Also, for instance, in British Columbia, attendance at post-secondary institutions is among the highest. So people are moving off assistance. They're going into training programs, into job placements through the very effective programs we have though ASPECT, the community-based trainers; through the Destinations program, which is an arrangement we've made with the tourism industry; and through Business Works, which is a deal we have with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. All of those programs work with our ministry and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to take people who have fallen through the cracks and move them into the training and the jobs that they need.

So, you know, we do have records of people moving into those programs and beyond, But we don't have aggregate field numbers. We don't track people once they leave the system. If they go on to further education or move into a job, we don't track them after that.

I simply want to say that we have fabulous staff all over the province in this ministry, staff who have been unbelievably innovative in creating new means and ways of helping people move more quickly off welfare into work. Certainly we have lots and lots of anecdotes from people, feeding back to us about how effective that has been in their lives.

G. Hogg: I would like a response from the minister with respect to making reference to anecdotal information which has been received. I too receive anecdotal information. In conversations I've had with the Newton advocacy group and with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, they have told me anecdotally that they believe that a number of the people who were previously receiving assistance have currently given up on the program and the system and are living on the streets. They are telling me that there are unprecedented numbers living on the streets in both the Vancouver and Surrey-White Rock areas -- some horrendously large numbers in Surrey-White Rock. Anywhere from 2,000 to 6,000 people, they're telling me, may be living on the street. At Downtown Eastside they are telling me that there are thousands of people living on the streets -- actually, in many cases, living in underground parking garages during the evening, moving into cars and moving outside of those and around.

I wonder if there's some type of response that can be given to that type of anecdotal information that's fed back. I understand that they are actually doing some studies on that. In the near future, we'll have some more specific data with respect to the numbers, they feel. But their sense is that because of the rates, because of the involvement with the ministry and some negative responses they've received from that, a number of these people are in fact not taking advantage of programs which are available. In fact, they've given up on those and have therefore turned to the streets as a method and a place to live.

Hon. J. Pullinger: First of all, I appreciate the sentiments of the member opposite. Obviously, I have concern about people in this province who are living in poverty. I want to do everything I can. In fact, I have spoken with huge numbers of advocates in the short time that I've had this job. So I'll continue to work with them.

But I also want to say a couple of things. One is that there is no hard evidence to suggest that there's been a dramatic increase since 1996 -- in fact the contrary. I don't mean to say that there aren't huge problems in the downtown east side; there are. I want to continue to work with the rest of government to try to resolve those problems.

But I have to confess that I find it a little difficult to pursue this line of questioning when the opposition members ran on a platform of cutting 27 percent out of the social assistance budget. That means there would be no B.C. family

[ Page 7100 ]

I also remember standing in the Legislature here and listening through the media and to members from the other side saying the federal government, which has cut $669 million out of social programs in British Columbia alone -- and that's not counting all the little programs they've cut. It was from '94-95. Not only did they not help this government try to fight those cuts, they stood up and said they fully endorsed the cuts -- and cut more. Forty percent has gone from federal medicare; low-income people depend on that system and must have that system. We've had similar cuts from health and social services.

We've seen a change to the CHST, which means that many provinces -- especially the ones that the members opposite endorse and applaud all the time, such as Alberta and Ontario -- have simply gutted their social assistance budgets and thrown people on the street or given them a one-way ticket to Fort St. John. For a period of time, we had 2,000 people here, coming primarily from Alberta and Ontario to this province as a result of the punitive workfare programs in Alberta and Ontario.

So I appreciate the sentiment. But I would like to point out that we have protected rates, introduced new social programs and just bought two hotels in the downtown east side. We're working through co-ops, through community and through volunteers to try to support people better. We're the only province in the country building social housing, the only province in the country with a child care infrastructure. We have the highest minimum wage in the country, which the members opposite continually cry about and say we should drive down. We have the most accessible training and education. All of those things work to relieve poverty.

I welcome support from the members opposite to help me do that and to support us as we try to move forward on all of those things that relieve poverty in this province, in a way that they have in no other province.

G. Hogg: I'm sorry that the minister is unable to understand the course of my inquiry, but let me try to clarify that a little bit. I live in the riding of Surrey-White Rock, and within that riding we have a number of people who are living on the streets, who throw sleeping bags over camp facilities and in public parks in order to sleep and to live. My question was simply: are there strategies in place to try to start to focus on and deal with those? That was clearly my intent in looking at that. Certainly the anecdotal information. . . . We all receive a lot of anecdotal information which accurately reflects our constituents' perceptions and concerns and the issues that come forward.

[3:15]

My intent is not to debate the budget; my intent in questioning about people living in poverty and living on the streets is simply to respond to my constituents with respect to the questions that they bring forward to me concerning that. It's not to get into reviewing things other than the budget that we have before us and the intent of this minister, but to look at strategies, focuses and policies which may assist and support that. My intent was not to get into a debate on policies from years gone by; however, if the intent and the wish of the minister is to take it in that direction, then we may be able to refocus. My intent was specifically to deal with some fairly meaningful, dramatic concerns that people in my riding have. I would like a response in terms of the policies, practices and procedures which we might look at or implement in terms of being able to respond to their very genuine and real needs -- not to lose those in statistics, but to have those found within the real living, human drama that exists out there.

Hon. J. Pullinger: My point was simply to say that it's very difficult for this government to move in the direction we are moving in -- and want to move in -- with a powerful force in our face all the time saying that other priorities are higher, such as the federal government cutting spending. That's simply my point: we are moving in a direction that few, if any, other provinces are. I welcome the support of the members opposite in doing that.

With respect to the specific problem. . . . I absolutely appreciate and share the sentiment about the difficulty people are having, and I'm certainly going to work in a number of ways. In terms of homelessness in the member's riding, there are ten emergency-shelter beds for women, 20 for men. None of them are at capacity. If they were, we would make alternate arrangements for people to have accommodation in a hotel or somewhere appropriate. If somebody comes to the ministry and requires housing, we will find a way to get it for them. So we do, in fact, have a very clear strategy in place, and we certainly intend to continue with that.

V. Anderson: I listened to this with great interest, as I have for the last seven years in these estimates -- and over a number of ministers, some of whom are present at this time. Just to confirm where we might be at this time, I made some phone calls this last week -- even up until yesterday -- to a number of people in the province to just confirm what the situation was as they saw it at the present time. Some of these people are working with low-income people; others of these people are low-income people themselves.

As I listened to the presentation of the minister, the image that comes to mind is. . . . I grew up in the thirties in the prairies of Saskatchewan. The same would be true of British Columbia or Alberta or any place in the west at that particular time. One of the things we had was a lot very old, grey-looking buildings throughout the area. By the standards of today, none of those buildings would have been habitable. They wouldn't be fit to live in. None of them had conveniences; none of them had running water. None of them had heating systems; none of them had insulation. And in 40-below weather, you really knew what that was about.

One of the ways that people tried to keep up their morale in those situations was with a bucket of whitewash. They would whitewash the building on the outside. When you drove by, they looked great -- wonderful. But if you went inside, the building were just as decrepit, just as rundown, just as cold and inadequate as they had always been. So nothing had really changed except the outside description.

The minister has presented one description as she sees it. I understand where she comes from, and many of the things

[ Page 7101 ]

I'm not going to read all of the article, but I just want to read the pertinent parts of it that deal particularly with the welfare system and the part of it that we're discussing today. They go on to say: "Of all the areas the B.C. government has touched in the last six years, the greatest changes have been in services to people." On this, if I can pause a moment, the minister and I would agree. We might talk about different services and different directions as a result of it.

I'll go on:

"The welfare system has been rebuilt. Services to children and families have been transformed. Human rights legislation has been greatly expanded. The health care system has been turned in a new direction. In many ways, it's been a bitter experience. B.C. Benefits" -- this is what we're discussing today -- "the New Democratic Party government's large-scale restructuring of the province's welfare system, has earned failing marks from the activists who are traditionally the NDP's strongest supporters. While even the Liberal opposition applauded the intent behind the new Children and Families ministry, which puts protection of children at the centre of its mandate, the mechanics of the change and the spotlight on continued child abuse have fostered doubts and criticism."

"'Now in B.C., we have NDPers like myself who are staggered to find that the very reasons we were committed to, belonged to, worked for and voted for the NDP are no longer a reality,' he says. 'Compassion is seen as weakness. Caring for the poor is seen as mismanagement.' Turvey sees fewer services now than were available under the Social Credit, while the situation in the downtown east side is spinning out of control.

"Turvey is not alone. Vancouver police are worried, and Dr. John Blatherwick, medical health officer of the Vancouver-Richmond health board, has expressed concern about the lack of treatment services. Turvey believes the government simply doesn't understand the problem.

"'I really feel our leadership, like a lot of mainstream people, see members of the addict population in the downtown east side as disposable people. You know: "We'd be better off if they all died." There is that kind of attitude.'

"The NDP's tougher approach to welfare came after it took a beating because of rising caseloads during the early years of the Mike Harcourt administration. Its new program is known as B.C. Benefits. 'More people are having to beg for a meal as a direct result of the B.C. Benefits,' says John Shields, president of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, which represents social workers."

One of the questions that I would put to the minister in a very specific way when she talks about rising rates and better services is about those who are on the singles rate. The rate for those people in 1980 was $191 -- apart from their housing allowance. The rate for those people today is $175 a month. It's gone down, from $191 to $175. The cost of living has gone up in that same period of time by 106 percent. When we talk about services, one of the realities is that if you take that $175 -- and that has to go for all of a person's needs; that has to go for their food and their health care and for their extra expenses -- it boils down to $5.83 a month. On that, people are supposed to have the clothing to look for work. People are supposed to have the transportation to look for work. People are supposed to have the opportunities to go out and present themselves with haircuts and the kind of cleanliness that they would like to have, while at the same time they're living in very shabby, run-down accommodation at $325 a month -- if they're able to get it.

What I'm saying to the minister is that there are two pictures. I'm not saying necessarily that the pictures that she's presented are untrue; I'm simply saying that that's one picture. Welfare was to present quite clearly the other picture. It was to deal with the real needs of the people who are hurting the most and whose circumstances are most difficult. So we have to put those two pictures side by side. If you like, they're two parts of the same coin, and people move back and forth between them. What we're hearing from the community today right across the province is that more and more people in our province, instead of moving out of that most urgent situation, as the minister has said, are falling into that circumstance.

I'd like the minister to look at the other side of the picture, to acknowledge the difficulties that thousands of people in this province are facing and to say what she's doing for those who are in those other circumstances, rather than the ones she has presented to us -- which is the good picture. I'd like to balance that with the other picture.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to make a few points. One is that change is always difficult, whether it's Children and Families or whether it's B.C. Benefits. It's extremely difficult for people to move when there's a change, and I think the member opposite knows that. However, I have clearly outlined. . . . There is irrefutable evidence that the changes that we have made have overall had a very positive success rate -- better than any other jurisdiction in this country. Secondly, I would like to say that the article the member read extensive amounts of into the record was anecdotal, one-sided, and there was no input from the ministry. The reporters didn't even contact the ministry to find out what's going one. There was a counterpoint, an editorial written by my predecessor in this ministry, that clearly laid out the other side.

I have a little bit of trouble with the member, I must say. Although all of us would like to see higher rates, sometimes it's a choice of whether you buy accommodation -- which is a long-term solution for large numbers of people -- or have a tiny amount on a rate. In these very difficult circumstances, I'm going to go for the most effective solution. But, for the record. . . . Maybe the member opposite. . . . I very much appreciate his sentiments; I know they're real. But how can he stand up in this House and complain about what our government has done when he was going to reduce those very same rates by 27 percent more, down to $145, and end capital spending, which meant no more social housing, which meant

[ Page 7102 ]

[3:30]

I have met with the downtown east side groups. I will continue to meet with them and work with them, and I will do everything possible to continue in the direction that we've been moving in in this province and in this New Democrat government to alleviate poverty -- better than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I would be delighted to hear from the members opposite that they're going to stop trying to drive this province into a low-wage, low-value economy where we have minimum wages that people can't live on. That, after all, is where huge numbers of youth, huge numbers of single parents and huge numbers of parents are in terms of wages. Those 100,000 people that earn minimum wage aren't just 15-year-olds; they're families trying to make ends meet.

So, as I say, I have a little bit of trouble with the member opposite. Perhaps it's just that he's different from so many of the other members in his caucus. Saying on the one hand that we're not doing enough. . . . I agree, and I hope we will continue to move forward, as we are doing, in consultation with community groups. But you can't have it both ways. You can't run on a Ralph Klein-Mike Harris budget and then come here and complain about us, who are going in the other direction -- the direction the member says he wants to go in.

V. Anderson: One of the realities of the discussion here. . . . I'd like to give a little symbolism to it. What we're trying to discuss here is effective government policy. The government at this time controls the overall finances of the province. What we're trying to get at, whether it's in health care or. . . . We're talking about health in another sense at this moment. Let's take the analogy of health care for a minute. It's somewhat like saying that we'll take certain diseases and look after those diseases, and we will ignore other diseases, because they're not on our agenda at the moment. So if some people get that disease, then too bad; we're looking after all of the people with the other disease.

What we're trying to say is that it's not a question of either-or; it has to be a question of both-and. It has to a question of not neglecting one element of society to give help to another element of society, because these people are intertwined with each other.

One of the realities I'm also very aware of, which is another way of approaching this same problem. . . . In our school system, where a few years ago the counsellors in our public school were working with children in grades 6, 7 and 8 who were having troubles with their changes in life, a good many of those counsellors -- if they're still in the school system -- are now finding the most troubled children in our school system are in kindergarten and grades 1, 2 and 3.

That's where the problems of the society have accumulated, and those young people have been responsible for it. So we're talking about those people where the accumulated neglect of the community -- not necessarily the neglect of this government -- has centred upon certain groups of people. By dealing with only part of the group, we neglect to deal with the whole of society.

What I'm trying to say to the minister is that I was surprised, if you like, that in her presentation she didn't acknowledge the other elements of the society whose needs are not being met at this time. If she had acknowledged them, I probably wouldn't have had a problem. If she had simply said, "I know who they are; I've been there; we haven't been able to meet their needs, but this is our plan for their needs," then they would have known they'd been recognized. They would have known they'd been heard. They would have know that they'd been listened to.

As I've said again and again in our discussions, historically those people in the community that I'm talking on behalf of now have come out of a CCF tradition. They expected this government to meet their needs because they were the most in need of needs being met. And for many of them, they're not hearing it, they're not knowing it, and they're not finding it. Some of them are; I'm acknowledging that some of them are finding that. The ones you've talked about, are getting the help. They are getting the support they need. I'm talking about the others.

Our task as opposition is to talk about the ones who are being overlooked, the ones who feel they're being overlooked -- regardless of what you're doing for everybody else. That's not the question. Regardless of how well other people are doing, regardless of how many young people are getting jobs, there are still 17,000 unemployed people out there with no prospects and no future at the moment. That's what people are saying.

There are still people who are living on the streets in increasing numbers. There are still the people on the present bonus who don't have enough to eat, and they don't have fit places to live. They have inadequate education and inadequate skills to enable them to go forward. The programs that are available at the moment, even though they are new programs and expanded programs, are not meeting their needs.

What I'm asking the minister is to recognize that there are unmet needs out there. There are people for whom there are no programs. There are people who are not getting support. There are people who don't have food to eat and don't have the care they need. I'm asking about those others, rather than the ones she talked about in her earlier presentation.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Unfortunately, the member doesn't seem to have heard all my comments. I've said very clearly -- and I'll say again -- first of all, that I appreciate his sentiments. I fully agree with them, absolutely. There is a lot more that we can do, a lot more that we need to do and a lot more that our government is committed to doing as quickly and as effectively as we can.

Again, it's a little bit difficult. We've just had an announcement that we're going to focus on K-to-3 and really focus on supports for kids in those first four critical years of school. We've brought in inner-city school programs. We're bringing in early prevention programs for kids. We brought in school meals -- all those things that when that coalition was in government as Socreds, they didn't do. In fact, they refused to do them. How in the world can the member be critical? I agree that there's a lot more to do. There are wonderful advocates in the communities, advocates that this government is funding. We are funding the people that the member is speaking of to

[ Page 7103 ]

Let's remember, too, that in the downtown east side, all things going well, we've just committed to buying two hotels. Where have the members opposite been on capital spending? They've said: "Don't spend another cent." That means no more schools, no more day cares, no more hospitals and no more hotels for the downtown east side. They can't have it both ways. I remember standing up in the Legislature when Jim Green, a wonderful advocate for the downtown east side, and the current Premier, who was then Minister of Employment and Investment, came to the Legislature with the Four Corners bank, which has been wonderful for the people who use it -- people who had no access to financial institutions -- and the members opposite stood up one after the other after the other and trashed that idea. They tried in every way to throw in obstacles, pretending it was some kind of a conflict, etc. So they worked against that. They've advocated that the federal government cut more out of social programs. While we've protected rates, they would cut 27 percent more out of the rates. They're complaining about what we've done. I agree that it's not enough. I agree that the people in the downtown east side and everywhere in this province that work in communities are doing a fabulous job in raising the issues, which sadly there is very little attention paid to, including by the members opposite -- except during this brief period.

We are focusing on education in a way no other province has. We are building infrastructure, such as buying the two hotels and looking at other options for the downtown east side. We are funding advocacy groups that have never been funded before. We are moving people from welfare to work. This isn't about a static group of people that we're trying to create a life of poverty for; this is about a ministry that's working with those people through all sorts of innovative programs. Whether it's inner-city school programs, Night Hoops, diversion programs, or whether it's moving to a system of health care where we have health goals for the first time ever in this province -- looking at a holistic community and the effects of poverty and the need to raise minimum wages, etc. -- we have moved on every single front across this government to try to find ways to fill the gaps, while protecting ourselves from the huge federal Liberal cuts to health, education and social services.

While we're trying to move forward on that agenda with school meals, with inner-city school programs, with the Bridges program for women, with safe houses for women, with supports for advocacy groups -- $4 million -- beefing up drug and alcohol recovery money. . . . While we're doing all of those things, the members opposite are saying: "The federal government should have cut more out of social services, health and education." They're saying: "We would drive down the minimum wage. We would take 27 percent out of welfare, knock singles' rates down below where they are today, and we wouldn't build any more housing or introduce any new programs, because we're going to do what Mike Harris and Ralph Klein did." Well, we have seen very clearly what Mike Harris and Ralph Klein did. They have introduced punitive, ugly workfare programs; they have given people one-way tickets to B.C. We've heard on the radio recently that their hero Mike Harris has taken $37 away from pregnant women so they won't spend it on beer -- as well as to turned everybody in the world into informants in something that's reportedly and frighteningly like a police state.

The members opposite can't have it both ways. They're driving an agenda that looks like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein; we're driving a far more compassionate agenda that's going in the CCF-NDP tradition of being the leaders in this country in fighting poverty. There is a huge amount more that we have to do; there's a huge amount more that we must do. I would encourage the members opposite to stand up with this government and say: "Yes, it's okay to spend money on capital projects like buying the Sunrise Hotel and others in the downtown east side. That is a good social investment, and as long as our debt is the lowest per capita in the country, do it. That's good." I would welcome that. I would welcome them to say: "Look, there are 100,000 single moms and their kids and young people and families that are trying to live on a minimum wage, which is very difficult to live on. We're happy to see it go up by the cost of living." I would welcome that kind of support from the other side. I know the member is sincere, but really, you have to support the reality of the programs and the money that funds those programs, not just complain about it.

I just want to say that I absolutely do appreciate the sentiment. We're on the same wavelength on that, and we are moving ahead the best we can. We have protected rates in the best way we can. We will continue to move ahead to try to make life better for people during the time -- which we hope to shorten increasingly -- when they need to depend on the system of last resort, which is welfare.

G. Hogg: I was a little distressed to hear the minister identify for me who my heroes might be.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I don't think I've ever said to you who my heroes are. I'm not even sure I know who my heroes are.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

G. Hogg: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was delighted to hear the minister's comments with respect to Night Hoops, which was a program I initiated and brought forward. Action is coming with that, and I hope that this program will continue to get independent support from the business community to allow it to continue.

A number of the programs which have been referenced are clearly programs which we believe are needed. We appear to have an ideological separation with respect to them, while we support a number of those programs which we think should be out there. We also believe that we have to have an economy and a fiscal situation which will support those and our ability to provide those. We don't at this point in time believe that all of the steps have been taken to put in place that economy that we believe is necessary to provide all of those social programs that we're wanting to move to.

[3:45]

[ Page 7104 ]

G. Hogg: I have a copy of "The Dynamics of Canadian Welfare Participation," which was done through the department of economics at UBC. In it they make reference to the growth in the number of persons who were receiving welfare in B.C. While Canada was growing at a rate of some 38 percent, the B.C. growth rate was at 75 percent. This report is dated February 1995.

Within the report they say that in order to effectively move people from welfare into workfare systems, or into any type of work models, it's important that we have two types of strategies, one focusing specifically on the short term and one for those persons who appear to be using welfare as a substitute for labour market participation. Therefore this research, which was, I think, one of the first longitudinal studies that had been done in this field, is saying that there has to be a clear definition and separation between the policies that focus on short-term and longer-term targets for each area. I wonder if the minister could provide for us a specific explanation with respect to the targets which have been planned for both the short-term and long-term areas, consistent with the expectations that are laid out within the context of this report.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Just for clarification, I wonder if the member would be so kind as to tell me who the author or authors of that report are and the date again.

G. Hogg: The authors are Garry Barrett and Michael Cragg, February 1995.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate that information. For the information of the member opposite, Garry Barrett was a student of my deputy minister, who has taught welfare economics at UBC and is known to be an expert in the field. I understand from my deputy, who supervised his dissertation, that Mr. Barrett was studying the long-term effects of welfare with respect to attachment to the labour market. One of the things Mr. Barrett concluded in his work was that people are far better off on what used to be UIC than they are on welfare for future labour market attachment, which is what we're looking at here -- it's about getting people off welfare into work. In the political realm one has to conclude from that research that the federal government's gutting of unemployment insurance, which has seen large numbers of people -- the graph is dramatic, and I'd be happy to provide the member with one. . . . Where the federal government has gutted employment insurance, an almost identical number of people have moved off EI -- or what used to be UIC -- onto welfare.

So what the federal Liberals have done by gutting UI is counterproductive in terms of getting and keeping people attached to the labour market, which is where we want and need them to be and where they want and need to be. I certainly applaud his work, but the argument he is making underlines the changes that we have made, which are to stop a passive system that effectively traps people on welfare and to move to a very active one that moves people from welfare into work. Unfortunately, the federal government is going the other way, which is counterproductive according to Mr. Barrett.

G. Hogg: Perhaps my question wasn't specific enough. My concern, specifically with respect to the policies that we focused on. . . . There are those persons who receive benefits in the short term, and there are longer-term ones which are defined and referenced within the report. There are separate and distinct policies that have to be focused to be effective in terms of targeting each of those user groups. I was specifically looking at a delineation, so that I could better understand the targeting process that takes place within the ministry for both the shorter and the longer term, and at the effectiveness of those targeting procedures, which both Barrett and Cragg identify as having to be distinct and separate procedures -- not a homogeneous practice policy but one that delineates those in a method which will be effective in both identifying and targeting those people to move off the system.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The ministry does in fact differentiate, and we have moved to a system where front-line staff work very actively to determine, for instance, if they can prevent somebody from coming on assistance if they have other sources of income that they might be entitled to. With the Jobs First program, for instance, you get people back into the labour force before they hit the welfare rolls, etc. So there's a very active agenda for people who are likely to be short-term. In fact, it's prevention to keep people from coming onto assistance. So our front-end staff works very closely with Human Resources Development Canada and with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to move people as quickly as possible from welfare to work.

The longer-term issues tend to be with people who have a little longer history of needing assistance. Those programs tend to be delivered by Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Those are programs such as ASPECT, the association of community-based trainers. There are programs for workplace training like Destinations or Business Works. Youth Works and Welfare to Work are programs designed to deal with the barriers that people face and to move them into training and into jobs and sometimes a variety of other supports to help them change their situation and get on with their lives. So in fact, we do have that strategy for people who have a longer-term situation. But this ministry works very, very actively on the short term to either prevent people from coming on the system or help them find jobs or other sources of income to which they're entitled.

I would simply like to advise the member that if he wants to ask questions -- and I encourage him to do so -- about those longer-term programs, they are the responsibility of my colleague, and I would appreciate it if he would direct them there.

G. Hogg: I'd like to shift a little bit and deal with a few more specific questions. The minister made reference to the two hotels which were recently purchased. I'd ask if she could give us some outline with respect to the process that was followed for the purchase of those hotels, the intent of that purchase and the long-term plan with respect to their usage.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I thank the member for his question. I want to clarify that we have not yet purchased them. We have indicated an intent to purchase. We're working with the federal government and the city of Vancouver, and hopefully,

[ Page 7105 ]

G. Hogg: With respect to the intent to purchase those, have there been any plans expressed with respect to the usage? I am assuming that prior to any expression of intent, there will be some type of assessment done with respect to the value associated with it; some long-term planning with respect to the administration of it; some type of appraisal -- if it in fact has gone to that extent; some type of evaluation with respect to a cost per room for the type of housing that's being provided; and some type of budget process for the management of same.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Just for the member's information, this kind of purchase goes through the BCMHC, which falls under the Minister of Employment and Investment. He may want to direct some questions there as well. However, I am happy to say that we're doing our own due diligence in this ministry. We're looking at the feasibility and planning and so forth, but we're not there yet. I would be delighted to brief the member when that time comes, but at this moment we are simply doing due diligence and hopefully moving ahead in concert with others to purchase those buildings.

G. Hogg: Throughout our offices in the province we've received a number of questions with respect to the issue of bus passes, and a number of those persons who are on disability and are moving on to federal forms of support are dropped from the bus-pass system. Can you provide us with a rationale and/or explanation as to how these persons have been dropped from the bus-pass system, why they've been dropped from the system and whether or not they seem to be less in need of it because they are receiving support from the federal system?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I will give a very brief answer and then direct the member toward the Ministry of Finance, which is responsible for the bus-pass program. We have grandparented everyone from the old program into the new, so no one who had been on it has been cut off. I'd also like to say that a very, very small number of people are affected. Beyond that, I would appreciate it if the member would direct that question to the Minister of Finance. She'll have the details in her estimates.

G. Hogg: I don't know whether the minister is able to provide us with the number of persons affected, but I would certainly be interested in hearing that.

The member for Okanagan-Penticton has expressed particular concern with respect to the ceiling for levels on disability currently being based on gross rather than on net earnings. A number of constituents in his riding have been affected by this decision with respect to the calculations. I wonder if we can hear a rationale with respect to the calculations being based on gross rather than net earnings.

[4:00]

G. Hogg: My understanding is that it's for all persons with respect to their earnings. When they are on disability and they are making calculations with respect to their eligibility for any type of services, they are receiving those based on a gross calculation of any type of earnings they may have had -- whether they are self-employed or. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would appreciate clarification from the member about whether he's talking about a situation where somebody earns some money selling Avon and the gross amount that person earns from that self-employment is used as a calculation or whether the member is talking about a paycheque and income tax deductions -- CPP or whatever.

G. Hogg: The issue is the former: the $300 ceiling that's in place.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you. I got it. Yes, I recognize that that's a problem, and I understand that deputies across the country are looking at ways to find a policy solution that works. Obviously it's a difficult area to adjudicate. I recognize, coming from the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism and co-ops, that self-employment is one of the fastest-growing areas of employment in this province. In particular, we are more entrepreneurial in B.C. than anywhere else in the country. I have been talking with staff about some ways we might look at that question constructively. I do recognize that it is a problem, and it's a problem across the country, one that hopefully we'll resolve first in B.C.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could update us on the status of the shift from disability and special needs to disability 1 and disability 2. What's happened in that process? What's happened with the numbers that have been processed, and where is that at the present time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: First, the good news is that people with disabilities, happily, frequently go off welfare as well, which is great news of course. The remaining number for the process of applying for the disability 1 category, the disability 2 category or elsewhere is 8,000. So there are 8,000 left to sort through, which I understand is about a third of the total.

V. Anderson: Is the minister saying that there are about 16,000 yet to be processed? Is that what you're saying?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Eight thousand.

V. Anderson: There are 8,000 yet to be processed. How many were processed, and of those that were processed, how many went into disability 1 or disability 2 or dropped out altogether? There were some 17,000 or so that were being catalogued. Of those 17,000, which of the categories did they end up in?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Part of the B.C. Benefits shift was to move to the broadest definition of disabled in the country. We have the best definition, if you like, in the country. That, along with some of the other processes we've engaged in, has meant that the disability caseload is the only one that has actually significantly increased since December '95. It's gone up by 30.1 percent, which is good news.

[ Page 7106 ]

V. Anderson: I appreciate the comment, but I was still trying to get at the fact that there were 17,000 of the old, and I assumed there would be new. There were probably 20,000 people last year who had to be dealt with; 8,000 are still to be dealt with, so there are 12,000. . . . How many of them went onto disability 1, how many went onto disability 2, and how many were dropped out of those two categories into the regular stream?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't have that level of detail here, but I'll get those numbers to the member as quickly as possible. I would like to point out, though, that it's not like all the rest of the caseload. The numbers are not static. There are people coming and going from the system all the time. I'll be happy to provide the member with those numbers in writing.

V. Anderson: Could the minister also indicate what the current regulations are for people who have disabilities with diet -- diabetic diets and other things? We're getting reports that some of the diet for diabetics, for instance, that used to be available aren't available now for people, particularly in the lower categories. They're finding that that's a very difficult thing for them at the moment. The categories have been shifted, and some of the supports they did get are not available to them now.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The condition or illness that an individual has determines what allowance they get. The government hasn't changed that; the ministry hasn't changed that. In fact, the decision is made by a physician, who writes a letter or a note to the ministry saying that this individual has such-and-such a condition. Based on the medical assessment, an individual qualifies for a specific allowance for such things as restricted sodium, diabetes, kidney dialysis, high protein, gluten free, dysphagia, cystic fibrosis, etc. If my memory serves me correctly, we have expanded the list somewhat. Cystic fibrosis is either new or increased or something, and there are some other changes, I'm sorry that I don't recall those off the top. The list is there, it's clear, and qualification depends on your physician.

V. Anderson: I understand that perfectly well, with regard to disability 2. Is the same thing true with disability 1? Are those same provisions in health care and diet allowances available on disability 1?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, actually it applies to all recipients.

This is familiar. We did this last year, Ida -- sorry, through the Chair.

I. Chong: Yes, it's déjà vu time for myself and the minister.

I just came in to listen to a bit of the estimates here. A couple of the questions that my colleague asked reminded me of some questions I received this past fall when I was in my riding. A number of calls came in with regards to the amount of income assistance that someone on disability receives from the provincial government: what other additional sources of income that person is entitled to receive and the level or cap that they're permitted. Can the minister give me some clarification on that? What other types of income, whether they're other pensions or perhaps other small employment incomes. . . ? Just what level of income are you permitted on a monthly basis when you're on disability social assistance? What additional amounts is a person entitled to earn?

Hon. J. Pullinger: First, I'd like to clarify for the member that income assistance is a payer of last resort, so the first cut is to say that essentially all other income is counted. If someone qualifies for another program or has another source of income, that is counted as income. What B.C. Benefits does, essentially, is say: "Well, you've earned this much money, but we don't think you can live on that, so we'll top you up to X amount." Those vary, depending on family size and so on.

For people with a disability, recognizing that there are frequently different circumstances, there are some exceptions. One is some kinds of trusts for people. The other is that there is a flat $200. An individual breadwinner with a disability who has a family can earn an extra $200 a month, which is in addition to the basic rate.

[4:15]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Close. The way it works is that when an individual comes to government, to this ministry, and says, "I need income assistance," the process is that a series of questions are asked. We work through it with the client to determine whether or not they in fact have other sources of income that they may not be aware of. Some people don't know that they can qualify for CPP, etc. If you have a disability, then whatever assistance rate you're entitled to after that intake process. . . . You're allowed to have on top of that $200 of that of earned income, if you like, from a variety of sources. You can augment your income by $200. Someone on disability, then, would have the basic rate, whatever additional medical supports they're entitled to, plus this $200.

The issue of trusts is a little bit separate. It's a lot more complex, but it has to do with, say, somebody who has a profoundly intellectually disabled child setting aside a trust for their future support or something. It's complex. If the member is interested, we. . . .

An Hon. Member: The trust pays for medical equipment.

[ Page 7107 ]

I. Chong: What I was leading up to -- and the minister briefly mentioned it -- was in fact various kinds of incomes. Some people don't know that they're qualified, whether it be a veteran's pension that they suddenly realize they're entitled to or what have you. What the minister mentioned was, of course, the CPP disability benefit, which I recognize that a lot of people aren't familiar with. Sometimes it takes a while before they're even advised that they should be applying for that. If in fact someone is currently on assistance and has been on assistance for, say, five years when it's realized that they are entitled to receive a CPP disability benefit -- because in coming to the ministry they had filled out all the forms, and this never came to light -- does the ministry therefore assist that person to immediately transfer to who the payer is? Is there a transitional time? What would happen to the person who is on this income? They can't afford any time lag between waiting for the CPP amount from the federal government versus what the provincial government is providing.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member certainly identifies an issue that was out there. In the past, prior to the changes that we've made over the last six years -- we're cleaning up to the changes and beyond -- there wasn't a lot of work done to identify other sources of income. I don't know why that was. Once we did the B.C. Benefits system, we recognized that there was a serious problem: a very low uptake in British Columbia for people who were eligible for CPP disability, for instance.

We have worked through that backlog and continue to work through that backlog. But now the system is different, and when one applies, the appropriate questions are asked. Individuals are walked through all the processes to determine much earlier whether or not there is another source of income, specifically CPP. That's the process now. I think it's much easier for everybody if those issues are dealt with upon application rather than later on. So that's the system we've moved to.

I. Chong: That certainly would make the system work better -- looking to identify immediately so that there is no transition when moving someone off the provincial rolls onto the federal rolls, if that was the case.

The minister mentioned you are working through the backlog. Can the minister advise what kind of backlog we still have? Can the minister or the ministry estimate: are there 3,000, 5,000 or 10,000 cases out there still that need to be reviewed at this time -- people who have been on social assistance for a time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There was a total of 8,000 backlogged. We've done 5,000 and we have 3,000 to go.

I. Chong: There were 8,000. At what point in time was that? Was that six years ago, or was that three years ago? I'd just like to get an understanding of how quickly we've dealt with the 5,000 that have been cleared up. Did that take a year, a year and a half. . . ?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It was sometime last year that we identified that. It was part of the roll-out of the changes. We identified that problem last year, and to this point 5,000 have been determined. We have the last bit to go. We don't expect it will be too long.

I. Chong: In those 5,000 cases, can the minister advise if there was a transitional adjustment for those who you moved off the provincial rolls onto the federal rolls? Can the minister advise what kind of transitional time period there was for those cases, on average?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The transition is as seamless as we can make it. We don't take away any income. I think that's what the member's looking for.

I. Chong: Certainly that is what I 'm looking for, because I would be very concerned if there had to be a delay of cheque writers. The person on assistance is the one who needs the help, has rent to pay and food to buy, etc.

When we worked with these 5,000 cases, was there opportunity for retroactivity? Was there opportunity to determine when the person should have applied for CPP disability benefits? If there was, at what point back does one go? Or does your ministry help to collect the funds? What agreement is there with the federal government? Can you go back a whole year, or can you go back six months?

Hon. J. Pullinger: As I understand it, you can't go back at all. It's just on application. You can't apply and say: "Gee, I was able to apply three years ago, so I want to collect all that money." It's just that if you apply today and if you're eligible, then the benefit begins from the application date.

I. Chong: In theory, it would seem that that would work very well. You go and apply, and suddenly you qualify for CPP disability benefits. At the end of the month, instead of your B.C. Benefits cheque, you would get a CPP disability benefit cheque. But as we all know, everything takes a little bit more time. I would imagine that if it takes six months to process and you still had the person on benefits, would the federal government not in fact process it from the time that the application went in? How would the minister know that there would not be a month when there would be two payments coming to that individual? Of course, if someone is on disability, they might not realize they've got two cheques. They'll cash them both, and there could be money out there that should not have been disbursed.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The transition clearly is one that needs to be. . . . If one is moving from welfare essentially, or income assistance, to CPP pension, with or without additional income assistance, clearly the member is absolutely correct. That shift needs to be done as effectively and as easily and as seamlessly as possible without creating a problem for the client. So we have undertaken during this process to work extremely closely with the federal government. It's my understanding that the federal government has put on extra staff to try to resolve any problems and make sure that the system works as quickly as possible. We are moving in that direction and making sure. . . .

I can assure the member that there is no big hole that an individual falls into. In this ministry, obviously we are used to dealing with people's needs very quickly. As long as they don't have any other source of income, this ministry will make sure that they do have adequate income during that hiatus. Effectively, the short answer is that we're working with the

[ Page 7108 ]

I. Chong: I have to agree with the minister that there has to be a very good mechanism to allow that meshing to work so that the client doesn't feel that there's any change: the cheque still comes in the mail at that particular time of the month, and they carry on with their life. Less disruption for them, I would agree, is the best thing. However, knowing the different levels of bureaucracy and the different departments that have to work with it, it would be almost a miracle if that can occur. My concern is whether or not there have been months. . . . I wouldn't say double-dipping in the sense, because the client doesn't really know what's going on at times. But have there been instances that were not caught in time where there have been two cheques issued for three or four months? Has the ministry identified that? And if the ministry has been able to identify that, what would the ministry then do if in fact the person who is on disability has spent it, not knowing that they weren't allowed to spend it?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The ministry works very carefully with people to try to make them absolutely aware of what their responsibilities are, and it is an individual's responsibility to abide by the rules. I think we would all agree with that -- that there are rules. Welfare is a payer of last resort, and one has a responsibility to report all other income. If in fact there is a situation such as the member outlines, where somebody has inadvertently or unknowingly or for whatever reason had the two cheques for a short period of time, then the ministry would work with them on a repayment agreement to pay back the money they weren't entitled to.

I would also just simply like to say that. . . . If the member knows of any circumstance where someone does have funds that they're not entitled to, I would assume that she would bring that information to the ministry forthwith, so that it can be investigated and resolved.

I. Chong: Certainly, if I knew of specific cases, I would have by now been able to try to look into those as well, as someone who certainly wants to make sure that everybody gets their fair share and that no one pays more than their fair share either.

What I'm concerned about are the comments the minister just made. If in fact there had been months during that transition period while the application was being processed when there were two cheques being issued, unknowingly, and if someone on disability -- perhaps with a mental disability, for example, who is not able to identify what's happening and not able to bring that information forward to the minister -- has spent that money, in whatever way they've spent it, how would you be able to make a repayment schedule for that individual? The money's not there, and they're now going to be living off only what they get from CPP disability. It would almost be impossible, I would imagine. You know, 5,000 cases have been dealt with. I guess what I'm asking the minister is whether all 5,000 cases have been absolutely perfect. Has there not been a single glitch in the whole system? It would be great if that was the case.

[4:30]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Where there are cases where someone has received public money that they're not entitled to, the ministry works with them very sensitively. Where it's inadvertent, where it's somebody with a disability such as the member is pointing out, certainly it works very sensitively and closely to ensure that the payback is in a way that is not detrimental to that individual. And yes, it's not easy.

On the second question -- whether we've gone through the 5,000 perfectly -- I would say that the staff in this ministry are about as close to perfect as you can get. In fact, they have received numerous accolades, applause, letters of appreciation, etc., in respect of and in thanks for the work they've done. They are very, very good. They've done wonderful work on this issue and many others. So in terms of perfection, we're about as close as we imperfect human beings can get in this ministry, and I applaud the staff of this ministry for the work they've done. I'm sure those sentiments are shared by the opposition member.

Having said that, I am sure that there are problems. Obviously, there's nowhere where you deal with large numbers of people that there aren't some problems. But where the problems arise, they are dealt with as quickly and sensitively and effectively as is humanly possible. We've got great staff in this ministry.

I. Chong: I'm sure, then, that the minister is glad to now be minister in this ministry. She seems to be very happy in this particular role, and I'm very glad for her.

But the question I had was: recognizing that everybody is trying as hard as they are to ensure that there is no duplication -- as I stated earlier, there are these 5,000 cases that have been resolved -- is there someone within the ministry who is keeping track of the duplication so that you know what receivable, I guess, you've got coming in the following years?

You're talking about developing repayment schedules, so therefore you're developing repayment schedules. Of those 5,000 cases, are there 2,000 or 3,000 cases for which repayment schedules have been done, or are there only a few hundred? If there are repayment schedules in place for those 5,000 cases, then what is the dollar value? Is there someone in the ministry who is assigned to deal with that so we don't lose track of this?

Also, if an individual gets in really dire straits and cannot meet those repayment schedules, there must be a mechanism to write those off, as well, just as a business does. What is the ministry's policy on those? It's fairly new, I guess, in the sense that it was only determined last year. I can't imagine that the ministry would have a policy for writing off repayment schedules until at least a year had passed, so I would imagine that this year you would review the whole system. That would be my suggestion, anyway -- if it's not already in place.

But 5,000 cases have been dealt with. I'm not trying to discredit ministry staff, but surely not all 5,000 cases have rolled through without a glitch. There must be some accountability as to what dollar values we're looking at here if there is in fact some repayment that is meant to come back into the ministry.

Hon. J. Pullinger: First, I want to clarify that there's not a little target for people with disabilities and for this issue.

[ Page 7109 ]

What happens is that as soon as an error is identified as such -- if indeed it is an error -- then a repayment agreement is struck. If there's difficulty with that, then the worker sorts that out according to the reality of the situation. There isn't a separate sort of compartment for those particular cases where there's an overpayment; they're dealt with like any other overpayment, although the CPP-IA overlap was a particular issue that we dealt with, the. However, if there's an overpayment there, it's dealt with like any other overpayment.

The third point I want to make is that any write-offs are done according to the Financial Administration Act. Funds are recovered where they can be recovered. But clearly, as I know the members opposite appreciate, there are some circumstances where that simply isn't going to happen, for a variety of reasons.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's clarification. For my benefit and for the record, I just want to be clear. Of the 5,000 cases, not each and every one of them had a problem in terms of duplication; that's what I was trying to get at earlier. Of the 5,000, were there 1,000 that had a problem, were there 2,000 that had a problem, or were there 3,000 that had a problem? And of those cases that were identified, as the minister said, surely there must have been some accounting treatment of it that does earmark that and say: "These are the ones that we have to work on. This is our repayment schedule file. There is someone assigned to work on that." What I would like to find out -- if the minister is able to provide it, whether it be now or later -- is the dollar value and number of cases identified where repayment schedules had to be set up, and what staff resources were available for that. It would be great if there were none, but I find it really difficult to believe that with 5,000 cases you didn't identify quite a substantial number.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The 5,000 people that have been contacted and have been dealt with are in various stages of application. Some are on CPP or whatever, but those 5,000 cases are in the process of being sorted out. There are 3,000 left, which the workers haven't been able to get to yet -- in terms of backlog -- to sort out whether they can apply or whether they can't or whatever. So there are 5,000 in progress and 3,000 yet to be done.

In terms of determining what percentage of the 5,000 who have met with their workers and dealt with this issue -- how many of those have resulted in overpayment. . . . We simply don't have that number. In this day and age I understand that not having that kind of data might be amazing, but if you looked at the technology and the system, which is 20 years old and quite frankly would look more at home on Noah's Ark than in the ministry, you would understand why we don't have that data. I apologize to the member, but without a huge amount of staff work, which is better left -- I'm sure she would agree -- to deal with human beings and the processes to do with the ministry. . . . Without a huge amount of staff work, I am simply unable to provide that number to her.

I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that we don't want to spend a lot of staff time and a lot of resources trying to get this figure, if in fact that's what it takes. But just as an example, if there were 3,000 cases where there was even one cheque that was duplicated, that's $300 and, you know, that would amount to almost a $1 million. I guess that's why I'm leading to it, and I would expect that you would hit a button and say: "Oh, that goes into this account." Again, maybe I'm thinking too much like an accountant right now, but when it goes into this special account, you would say: "Gosh, the dollars are really getting up there. We better have someone looking at this and making sure that we collect all those $300 over payments from those 3,000 cases." If that in fact is the case. . . . If it's $600, we're looking at a substantially larger amount, and I am concerned that there could be substantial dollars there. It may not appear like it in the normal course of things, but as we all know, when we're all looking for savings. . . . This side of the House is very much in favour of protecting health care and education as well, and we are looking for every $1 million we can find that's available. If it's possible to identify that without too much time and without too many resources from the ministry staff and financial resources, I'd certainly like to be given that information, or our critic would perhaps like to follow up on that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the member was here earlier. We've had spectacular success since we changed the system, effective in the middle of 1996. There has been a decline in caseloads, which we haven't seen for years and years. Before that we changed the system to catch errors, overpayments and fraud. There is a certain percentage of people out there, a tiny minority, who have a dozen identities or who collect assistance in a variety of provinces or from a variety of sources. That's a very small amount.

We've moved over the last few years to ensure that difficulties, inadvertent problems, etc., are dealt with, that the system is clear and that there are repayment schedules. For instance, if somebody is awaiting a Canada Pension Plan payment, the client can sign a consent-to-deduct form, which means that the transition or, if you like, the repayment is automatic.

But we have done spectacularly well not only in decreasing the caseload and moving to diminish child poverty significantly and putting more supports in the system and so on; we've also done fabulously well in recovering overpayments and dealing with fraud and protecting the integrity of the system. We have saved huge amounts of money -- millions of dollars -- through our prevention, compliance and enforcement branch, and we will continue to do that.

My position is that there are very few people who are deliberating engaging in fraudulent activity, but we're going to root out each and every one. Where people have simply made an error, we're going to work with them for repayment. People must be treated respectfully and sensitively when they've made errors. It's in everyone's interest, whether you're a user or potential user of the system -- which I guess virtually anybody can be -- or the taxpaying public, that the integrity and credibility of the system are extremely important to the continuance of the system. I want to make sure that we have the highest level of integrity possible in this system. Certainly the integrity of the system has increased dramatically over the last few years with the efforts of this government, and we will continue to do that.

I would just like to point out, too, that on the consent form that has been the subject of debate, we get specific consent from people so that a front-line worker can work

[ Page 7110 ]

I. Chong: I wouldn't dispute that the integrity of the system has to be prevalent in the minds of all taxpayers -- for all of us to feel comfortable that our tax dollars are going to the social safety net and the purpose it was meant for. But the integrity of the system would have to rely on some accountability -- some ability, I suppose, to identify these problems. I understand that in the last session or the session before there was a change in legislation so that there was more cooperative work, more sharing of information with the federal government. I recognize that, and I appreciate that.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to clarify it for the member. I'm starting to glean that there's a misapprehension about what's happening. The 8,000 individuals in question who we're talking about with income assistance and Canada Pension Plan. . . . It's not the case that these are people who were collecting both; these are people who. . . . Through our new agreements with the federal government -- with the Canada Pension Plan -- we were able to work together to determine that there were 8,000 people who probably have an entitlement to the Canada Pension Plan. The overwhelming majority simply hadn't taken it up for one reason or another. So these are people who are receiving their income from the provincial government, who in fact have a federal entitlement. Given that the income assistance program is a payer of last resort, the rules say, then, that you've got to go and get income from that other source. It's simply an entitlement that wasn't taken up by these people. It's not a case of double-dipping or people receiving two cheques.

In the case of these 8,000 people, essentially what we've done is we've said: "Aha! There are 8,000 people who in fact could have a pension to which they are entitled. We're going to work with each of those individuals to make application to that program." Therefore the worker is inserted in the process, if you like, from the beginning, and the management of the transition is done. Where there is, inadvertently or because of a waiting period or some other reason, a payment of income assistance when the entitlement to CPP has been confirmed -- in other words, they've made an application and been accepted but the cheque isn't there yet. . . . So for that reason or any other, if there's an income assistance payment and the individual will then later receive that income from another source, there's frequently an agreement signed by the individual that then allows the federal government an agreed-upon way to pay those overpayments directly back to the province. In the case of the 8,000 individuals, the process is working very well. The ministry is involved at the front end proactively with the individuals, so the opportunity or the likelihood of an inadvertent overpayment is extremely small, if it's possible at all. This is a proactive step taken by the ministry with the individual and with the federal government. Everybody's at the table at once and is aware of how the transition is being made. There's just not likely to be a problem there.

I. Chong: Again I appreciate the minister's clarification. I do understand that there are certainly individuals who are entitled to the federal program and are not requiring the use of the provincial funds that we have. When the minister mentioned the 8,000 cases, it was good to hear that that was, I guess, a good program to embark on.

The difficulty I had, of course, was that those inadvertent payments. . . . Respecting that the caseworker would be very involved immediately, there would likely -- I won't say always -- be the chance. . . . But the minister is, I guess, trying to give me assurance that inadvertent duplications of those cases are very, very rare. Is that what I'm hearing from the minister? They are so rare that that is why no one is assigned to follow up and check on those things? No one specifically is assigned to look at that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The 8,000 people in question that we're dealing with are walked through this process with a worker, so there is virtually no chance of an unknown cheque coming. There's coordination between the two levels of government, and with that coordination the individual is assisted to apply for benefits for which they have an entitlement. In other words, they've paid into that plan, and they have an entitlement to funds that belong to them and that they ought to be receiving.

The process is that the individuals are identified by working with the federal government; they have information and we have information. Then the individual is approached and helped to apply for those funds. If there's a gap. . . . Part of that process is to sign the agreement where, if there is an overpayment, the money will come back to the province. It's pretty seamless and, as I say, the odds of a problem being there are just about zero. But I would offer to the member that if she has concerns or wants more information, I would be happy to sit down with her here in Victoria and just simply walk through the process. I hope that I've given her an idea of how it works.

Hon. Chair, I did ask if we could have a very short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 4:57 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: In our brief hiatus, I got some numbers for the member for Vancouver-Langara, who was asking about the sorting out of old categories into the new categories of disability 1, disability 2, etc. The numbers I have are as of December 31, 1997, and 2,000 more people have been approached since then and their situations assessed.

As of December 31, 1997, there were 10,600 still to be assessed -- that is obviously down by 2,000 at this point. But to that point, of those who had been assessed previously, there were 8,368 who moved into disability 1; 2,462 individuals who

[ Page 7111 ]

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

[5:00]

Earlier I had asked some questions with respect to bus passes and was referred to the Minister of Finance for the funding with respect to those. I have not yet learned to appreciate the complexity and intricacy of the filing system on my desk, but I have now found the letter which I wished to reference at that point in time.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I hear a clean desk is the sign of a sick mind, so you're okay.

G. Hogg: Well, I'm pretty healthy, thank you. I see that we have here the proof of these statements.

Hon. Chair, I have a letter from the minister that's undated, but stamped April 14. I read one paragraph, in which it says: "You have raised concerns about the need to pay for your bus pass as a result of your Canada Pension Plan income and noted that this placed an additional strain on your financial situation. The ministry is currently reviewing situations such as yours, and we will be notifying you of the results of this review in the near future." My question to the minister is: what is the format of this review? It appears to me in fact to be making reference to the bus plan and the intent of the ministry to review the current bus plan funding process.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The review is complete. C'est tout à fait complet. What we did was. . . . The front-line workers -- the field workers -- sat down with the individuals affected by the change. As I stated earlier, people were grandparented in terms of the eligibility for the annual bus pass of the former disability benefits level 2 recipients. Those individuals were grandparented. The review has actually been done, and it's over and dealt with. So that's the review, and it was a very small number of people involved.

I wasn't trying to duck, but the reason I suggested. . . . We had reviewed our caseload. . . . That's an absolutely legitimate fair-ball question. What I was trying to determine for the member was that, if there are questions about the program, they need to go to the Minister of Finance. I don't have the program, but we did review the situation of our clients.

G. Hogg: So that I'm perfectly clear: all those on disability 2 who have been grandfathered will all still receive the bus passes. Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct.

G. Hogg: Are there any others who are funded by the ministry who will be receiving bus passes, or are they all now moved out?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to clarify the question, if I might. Is the member asking about the transitional group? Or is the member asking if there are other people on assistance of one kind or another who get a bus pass?

G. Hogg: If there are other persons on assistance of one sort or another who will be eligible for bus passes and receiving them.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are indeed a number of categories, and I'll read them into the record. I should also say that the way an individual obtains a subsidized bus pass is to apply to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Here are the categories: individuals who are receiving the federal GIS -- the guaranteed income supplement -- or widowed spouse's allowance; individuals aged 60 or older who are recipients of income assistance; recipients of disability allowance; persons in special care who are designated as disabled or aged 60 and over and receiving the comforts allowance, or for whom MHR is paying the facility user charge on their behalf; and individuals with disability designation who live on reserve and receive assistance from the agency that issues assistance on the reserve. So I hope you made some sense out of that. But that's the list, and it will be in the record, or we can provide it to you.

G. Hogg: I appreciate that the ministry is in its first full year of functioning as a ministry distinct and separate from Children and Families. I have documentation from a resident of our province that he was approved for funding for a preschool program by Children and Families. Then he was refused the funding after the funding that actually comes from Human Resources was turned down, because of a lack of harmonization with respect to the rules that exist in the two ministries. I'm just wondering if there is a process which is in place and which has looked at harmonizing the rules, policies and regulations between the two ministries, so that we don't get people caught in that type of situation. And if so, when has that taken place, and when could we expect it to be completed?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's not as confusing as it would appear. The Ministry for Children and Families has responsibility for policy and programs. So the policies are set by Children and Families. But this ministry, because of the nature of the ministry, is best able and therefore does administer the programs. So the policy is consistent across the two ministries. There may have been some glitch. . . . We deal with such huge number of people; lots of times there are misunderstandings, etc. I'd simply like to say to the member that if there is in fact a situation, please, call my office now or anytime, and we'll ensure that it's worked out as quickly as possible.

G. Hogg: I had not wanted to bring this forward, because this matter has gone to the tribunal; it's gone to an appeal to be reviewed. My concern was simply whether or not there has been a review. It appears from this matter that there has not been harmonization. He clearly did hear from Children and Families that he met the criteria and that everything would be applied. Then when he went to the ministry for the funding, it was not available. So my concern was with respect to that. I trust then, if there has been some harmonization, that the matter will be revealed through the appeal process.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Two points. One is that it's not a case of harmonization. There is only one policy, and that policy is created by the Ministry for Children and Families. We receive the policy, and then we simply administer the benefits based on that single policy. So there aren't two conflicting policies. Obviously I can't comment -- the member is clearly aware of that -- on a case that's under appeal, so I won't do that. I will

[ Page 7112 ]

Again, if the member has difficulty or his constituents are having difficulty, I'm more than happy to work with him to try to resolve the problems.

G. Hogg: I'm pleased to hear that the policy is one policy. Hopefully, the practice will be as one, as well as the policy.

As I mentioned earlier, we had the benefit of an overview of the budget. I'd like to go through a couple of the line items which I didn't fully grasp at our meeting or which became more apparent to me subsequent to that. Firstly, with respect to the budget forecasts of a decline in caseloads -- just when some of your staff members thought they were going to get away without any questions. . . . I noticed they also have messy desks.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: A very healthy group.

The budget forecasts a decline in caseloads and the costs associated with those. . . . I'm wondering how many recipients currently on welfare must leave the rolls to ensure that the savings which are projected in that will be achieved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll give it a shot. If that doesn't work, I'll let my deputy explain it, because she understands it much better than I do or ever will. My understanding is that we came in with better success last year than we intended and that this year we have simply budgeted for it to continue at that same rate of decline.

G. Hogg: Were you able to quantify that rate as actual specific recipients? Are we able to make that quantified number. . . ? If there's a rate in existence and we're able to see a continuation of that rate, I wonder if we can quantify that rate so that I'm able to look at it in terms of actual numbers.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Last year the number of individuals on income assistance decreased by 27,000, so this year we're starting from a lower base. The same percentage this year will be a smaller number of people, which will be 25,000 to 26,000 fewer -- somewhere in there.

G. Hogg: With respect to the FTE increases which are shown -- and there was some discussion with respect to the programs that they went into -- I wonder if you could give me some specifics as to where those FTE increases will be and an explanation as to why I don't see commensurate cost savings being found with the FTE increases.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sorry, say that again.

G. Hogg: The FTE increases: where specifically are they coming from? I'm unable to find within my reading of the budget where commensurate cost savings are to be found that are being generated specifically from the FTEs -- other than in what you've just told me with respect to the caseloads. Are there some other areas on the program side of that where we would expect to see some cost savings?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The new FTEs are allocated thus: the labour market development agreement that we're undertaking with the federal government means that there will be 64 additional FTEs there; program integrity initiatives such as assisting people with the federal entitlements, which the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and I just finished discussing; verification programs; the summer compliance project; and a variety of other kinds of compliance-integrity initiatives, if you like. That would be 43 full-time-equivalents. Labour market attachment services and programs that we're anticipating would be roughly seven new programs. So that's the allocation of the new FTEs.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Oh, sorry. I lost two. We have two others who are involved with the liaison with our closest partner in B.C. Benefits, the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training. They develop and administer the training programs and provide the opportunities for people. We obviously need to be involved with that, because it's in those programs that our caseload decline happens -- whether it's Youth Works, Welfare to Work, Jobs First, etc. That's essentially where the FTEs are.

The reason that it saves us money is because the better those programs work, the greater our success is in helping people to either move on to higher education or get skills training and other kinds of education and move into a job.

G. Hogg: With respect to the unpaid damage deposits, or the recoveries that don't show in those, there appears to be an increase in the line budgeting with respect to the unpaid damage deposits. I'm wondering if recoveries are down or what, in fact, we would be looking at with respect to those.

[5:15]

G. Hogg: Am I to understand that damage deposits which were paid by the ministry on behalf of people receiving benefits were not recoverable in the past when somebody moved out?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct, and that is one of the positive changes that our government has made to ensure the integrity of the system, as part of B.C. Benefits.

G. Hogg: I'm surprised that they were not recoverable and am wondering whether there is a rationale for them not being recoverable. It seems to me that if a deposit is made -- invested by the ministry on behalf of a client -- those moneys sitting there should not be deferred to the owner of the building when people leave, rather than coming back to the province. I would be concerned if there are large sums of money -- which I have reason to believe there are -- sitting

[ Page 7113 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: In the past the amounts were recoverable from the landlords, which was, I think, paternalistic but probably had all sorts of good intent in it. The shift is that now the individual, like anybody else, is responsible for the repayment of that amount.

G. Hogg: Are we then taking any action to recover those funds which were payable to the landlord in the past? Do we have a chance of recovering those funds that are out there, on behalf of the people of this province? Is the plan just to adjust the policy and to let those go off to various landlords?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, we do make every attempt to recover all moneys outstanding that are owed to government, including those.

G. Hogg: I would be interested in what actions we do take with respect to those. For instance, do we go to the extent of putting a lien on buildings? Are we able to take that type of action? What type of actions do we take to ensure that we are recovering all the moneys that are placed in deposits on behalf of the people of this province so that people can receive those?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Those who owe money to the ministry are contacted individually. Every effort is made to get the funds back.

G. Hogg: With respect to that, the individual contacts are made. Is there anything done beyond that -- beyond a letter? Do we employ collection agencies? Do we put on liens? Do we do anything beyond just a contact with them saying that they owe us money? Is there any action taken beyond that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's an area that's still under development, and I take the member's question in such a context. There is a call centre, but the front-line workers generally, in the communities around British Columbia, will go and contact the landlord or the individual, obviously, who is receiving benefits, so that's a tad easier to deal with. They will go after the landlord to attempt to get it back. It's a policy area under development.

G. Hogg: Do we have a sense of the dollar value that may represent in damage deposits which have been placed and left unrecovered over the past whatever period of time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: As of the end of the last fiscal, landlords in this province owe the government $31 million.

G. Hogg: I assume that it's not $31 million that is in existence as a result of people having moved out and are therefore owing. I'm assuming that a large portion of that $31 million is still damage deposits for people who are living within those domiciles. Do we have a sense of what the numbers are with respect to when people have moved out and the damage deposit has been left there and may be recoverable by this province? Do we have any sense of what percentage of the $31 million that may represent?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We do have some historical outstanding amounts owed by landlords under the old system, as the member will appreciate. I'm sure that in many cases the individual is still living there, so it's simply a historical situation. With the shift to treating people on assistance like everybody else is treated -- i.e., they are responsible for their own accommodation and deposit and the circumstances under which they leave, etc. -- the ministry is no longer involved between landlords and tenants, as it should be. It's the responsibility of a landlord to check references as they would with anybody, whatever their source of income. It's the responsibility of the person that's renting the accommodation to abide by the law and not to damage a place and to deal with all the rules and regulations just like everybody else. So the ministry isn't involved between the client and their landlord. That's a private arrangement, whatever their source of funds. The client is responsible for their own actions and for the money they have in their possession.

G. Hogg: I appreciate and support the shift in terms of responsibility. My concern is focused on that percentage of the $31 million which may in fact be in existence out there. But as we've moved in the shift, it seems that this money may. . . . We don't appear to know what percentage that is or how much money that represents. I just want to be sure that there's not a large amount of money left with landlords as a result of people having moved on -- which is sitting there, and landlords are laughing and saying: "Oh, the province paid this deposit; the people have now moved out, so I will pocket the money." My concern is: of that $31 million, do we know how much that is, and are we sure that we're doing everything possible to get that money back for the people of this province?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, I think the member accurately described the situation that used to exist in this province. In fact, there were large numbers of deposits left with landlords, which shouldn't have been there but were uncollected. With the shift, the repayment is much better.

For the record, I want to be very clear that people on income assistance are like everybody else. The overwhelming majority are very responsible tenants, as I know the member appreciates. Some mess up or are irresponsible, just like everybody else amongst the public. The overwhelming majority are very responsible in how they treat the place they live in, and some mess up just like the broader population.

With the shift, we now have a much better situation where people do in fact take full responsibility. It was much more difficult to deal with in the past. As a member who sat on the committee to develop the B.C. Benefits act, I know that one of the problems identified was that it was a sort of paternalistic system where government dealt with the landlord, and the ability of government to effectively recover those moneys was much less. The system is far better, and it works much better both in the interest of the individual who is on assistance and in the interest of the taxpayer and as part of increasing the integrity of this system. Where there are amounts outstanding, we make every possible effort to recover that money.

G. Hogg: I appreciate the shifts that have been made. I'm assuming, then, that we do not know what that volume represents of the $31 million. Is it fair for me to make the assumption that we don't know how much money sits out there in damage deposits which have been left, which are currently unsecured and which we don't have any access to? We just don't know what that represents. Is that a fair interpretation of what I've heard so far?

[ Page 7114 ]

G. Hogg: If I may move on to the budget and the line items with respect to the budget of the minister's office and the increase reflected in that, could I get some clarification with respect to the FTE utilization within the minister's office -- the increase and what the intent of the expenditure of that increase is?

[5:30]

G. Hogg: I'd like to move on and talk a little bit about the family maintenance program. I'd like to know whether or not there are any initial results from the legislation which was introduced last year -- whether we have any reviews, studies or interim reports with respect to the effectiveness of the family maintenance program.

Hon. J. Pullinger: About 25 percent of single parents on assistance have maintenance income in any given month. There are fewer than 8,000 families on assistance who are currently enrolled in FMEP. The annual number of new orders has tripled since '93-94, which is good news by any measure.

This year we're expecting savings to the public, to the government, of just over $8 million -- $8.14 million -- from family maintenance enforcement.

G. Hogg: I'm sorry, I may have missed the figure -- the assignment of maintenance rights. The number of assignments that we actually have now assigned, was that the 8,000 figure?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes. There are 7,951 currently enrolled in FMEP. In 1997 there were 3,311 new family maintenance orders obtained on behalf of clients.

G. Hogg: Is the minister or the ministry aware of any duplication with respect to legal services, between Human Resources and the AG's office, that these people have been receiving? Maybe I can. . . . The confusion suggests that I have to try and clarify.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yeah, there's a puzzled look on my face.

G. Hogg: We have received word that in some areas we've seen both Human Resources and the AG hiring lawyers for one person, taking different approaches to it and different approaches to one person's review for maintenance. If that's ringing bells. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is another one of those easy questions. We don't do any legal counsel; it all comes from the AG. So whatever legal counsel this ministry uses is the Attorney General's.

G. Hogg: Thank you, I appreciate that. However, it seems that we are giving some direction to legal counsel on behalf of the ministry to carry out some actions, which seems in some cases to be in conflict with directions which the AG is giving. I know that it's perhaps a difficult problem to respond to without having the specifics of that. But there are instances where it appears as though two ministries are hiring two different lawyers for one person to pursue one event. Again, it's the issue of the ability to harmonize our policies and practices within that framework.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's only one lawyer. So if there's a difference, then we're right and they're wrong. But if there is some confusion, obviously we want to work that out. I'm sure that if there is some confusion, the person -- the meat in the sandwich -- would make the appropriate noises, and we would fix it. But if the member's aware of a problem that isn't being fixed and that should be fixed, I'd appreciate having that information, and we'll fix it. But there is just one lawyer that acts on behalf of our client.

G. Hogg: With respect, there are occasions when there is more than one lawyer acting on behalf of a client. They may be brought in for different matters, in terms of those.

If I could move on to some issues with respect to the earnings exemption policy, it's my understanding that the Premier had made a commitment to address the issue of the cuts or changes in the earning exemptions. This policy is perhaps, some would argue, acting as a disincentive for clients to find work. I'd like to have some sense of the philosophy behind the issue -- whether or not it is a disincentive -- and a comment with respect to the Premier's suggestion that it would be reviewed or looked at, and whether or not in fact that has taken place.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't know which particular comment of the Premier the member is alluding to. But I would propose that questions about his comments are best directed to the Premier.

I undertook a review, actually, for the party last year. I chaired the committee that undertook a review and was a member of the team that developed B.C. Benefits. Concern about earnings exemptions is one of many legitimate concerns. When a system changes, people obviously have concerns. Our party policy for years and years has been to have a percentage deduction. A percentage deduction is obviously a little more open-ended, and it encourages people, assists people, to move from welfare to work, which is the object of the exercise. I'm certainly looking at all sorts of options and ways to better support people, but whatever decisions are made by me and by the ministry will not serve to increase the welfare wall, which a great body of evidence says that flat-rate exemptions do. Rather, they will be designed to assist people to move out of the welfare system into independence and a job with all the other supports our government has put in place. The essential argument by all of those who are best informed and have done the greatest work on this issue is that a flat rate tends to strengthen the welfare wall, or the poverty trap -- whatever you want to call it -- and that there are better ways to assist people in getting back to work and increasing their own level of independence and income. I'm certainly open to any suggestions.

[ Page 7115 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is, of course, asking me to speculate about future announcements or policies, and it would be inappropriate for me to do that. Suffice it to say, I am meeting with all of the advocacy groups and listening very carefully to the concerns that they lay out, and within the context and my very strong belief and insistence that any move that we make will assist people to move from welfare to work -- which I'm sure the member agrees with. . . . As I talk to the advocacy groups and people on assistance who use various programs of ours, any new designs, programs, changes, reviews or whatever will be done in that context. Beyond that, the member is asking me to speculate on the future, and we're not there yet.

G. Hogg: Rather than asking you to speculate on the budget, then, is it fair for me to say that within the budget that you have presented, there is no provision for any changes to the program with respect to earnings exemptions?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct; there is no such line item.

G. Hogg: If I could move to the B.C. Benefits appeals process for a moment. . . . That's another chapter within the book. I would first be interested in what the overall cost of running the tribunals is.

Hon. J. Pullinger: If I might, I want to clarify that the member is asking just about tribunals and not the more formal appeals process or the entire process.

G. Hogg: I was going to get to that, so I'd be quite happy to roll the tribunals and appeals both into the one process and one review.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Part A of the answer I have before me is that the 1997-98 budget for the appeal board. . . . The blue book amount was $747,000. The announcement about their exact budget for this year hasn't been made to the appeal board yet. On part B, last year the cost of tribunals was $190,000.

G. Hogg: Could you tell me the majority of the makeup of those expenditures? Are those honorariums, travel, various administrative functions? How are those broken down?

Hon. J. Pullinger: For the tribunals, which is the community-based process, the majority of the money goes to honorariums and training. Honorariums, of course, include the expenses that an individual might incur serving their fellow citizens and the general public. For the appeal board -- it's a higher-level, much more formal process -- the 1997-98 budget was $214,000 for salaries. If you add benefits and other bits and pieces, it comes to roughly $260,000 for salaries and all the bits and pieces that go with that.

For boards, commissions and courts, it was $271,000. Operating costs: travel was $6,000; professional services, $50,000; information systems, $60,000; office expenses, etc., $20,000; notices, reports and all those kinds of papers and things, $5,000; materials, supplies and utilities, $2,000; building occupancy, $46,000; and $25,000 for acquisitions of a variety of kinds.

G. Hogg: With respect to the appeals and the appeal board specifically, could you tell me how many appeals we've had in the last year and whether or not they're increasing or decreasing, as well as the categories of those appeals?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to point out that we came in under budget. The numbers I've given you are budget numbers for the appeal process. We came in considerably under budget, by almost $200,000 last year. Way to go, Jack Allard.

The number of appeals received from January 1, '97, to December 31, 1997, was 236; that's at the appeal board level. That number is waning; it's declining. So the number of appeals is going down -- which I would imagine has to do with change, as the member would know. When you change a system, there's always a blip. I think we're probably sorting it out, and the numbers are going down.

We don't have the exact categories of appeals with us -- they tend to be pulled together with tribunals -- so I'll get that to the member.

[5:45]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I could certainly provide some of that information in terms of that kind of breakdown. Of the 236 appeals received in last calendar year, there were 43 percent initiated by the ministry and 57 percent initiated by individuals. Fifty-two percent were decided in favour of clients and 38 percent decided in favour of the ministry. To make the numbers balance, appeals filed late or dismissed for one reason or another was 6 percent; partial decisions where nobody's case clearly carried the day was 5 percent. There are five decisions pending, which make up whatever the loose change is in there.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada