[ Page 7117 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Joy MacPhail -- people from her riding. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sure you recall that we do not name names here.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I know.

The Speaker: Except in special circumstances.

Hon. I. Waddell: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I'm pleased to indicate to the House that we have 25 grade 10 students, wonderful young people from Templeton Secondary School, with their teacher Mr. Kuniss. I ask the House to warmly welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

URANIUM MORATORIUM ACT

D. Symons: I move that the bill now be read a first time.

I remind members of the House that this week is Earth Week. It's a time for us to reflect upon our stewardship of the environment and to possibly consider how we might do better. The Uranium Moratorium Act is, as the name suggests, an act to protect the environment and the health of the citizens of this province from the harmful effects of radiation that is released into the environment when uranium is mined. The moratorium would be achieved by amending the Mineral Tenure Act to ensure that mining for uranium is prohibited.

The act recognizes and makes allowances for the fact that trace amounts of uranium are found while mining for other minerals. This is not intended to, nor would it, inhibit normal mining operations for other minerals.

This act is not new. I freely admit to plagiarism from the moratorium regulations brought in by the Social Credit government, which were in effect from 1980 to 1987. When the regulations expired in 1987, the then opposition, the New Democratic Party, strongly advocated the reinstatement of this moratorium. This act does precisely that. Because of that past support for such an act, I would expect all-party support for this moratorium act I'm bringing in.

I ask the government to allow the bill to come forward this week as an appropriate sign of support for Earth Week.

Bill M203 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.

Point of Privilege

Yesterday, during question period, the minister was asked the following three questions. Question: ". . .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." Answer: "No, hon. Speaker."

Question: "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?" Answer: "Hon. Speaker, I've answered the member's question."

Third, a question from the Leader of the Opposition: "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?" Answer: "I did not write to the Premier on that matter."

I have attached as an exhibit to this submission a copy of a memo dated September 23, 1996, from the member for Kamloops to the Premier, with copies to two other ministers. The subject of the memo is stated to be: "Six Mile Ranch Development Proposal." The member for Kamloops in her memo wrote: "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. . . ."

I believe that these facts establish that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks did mislead this assembly and therefore establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege. If the Chair agrees with my submissions, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion -- a copy of which is available now.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. In response, I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I reserve the right for the member to make a response at the appropriate time.

The Speaker: That's appropriate. When we hear that, then I'll reserve the right to reply at a later date.

Orders of the Day

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
(continued)

G. Plant: Yesterday at the close of debate the Attorney and I were discussing the subject of auxiliary police and the firearms issue. In closing debate yesterday the Attorney General provided us with some statistics. My note is that he said

[ Page 7118 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have that information at hand here. Let me just reassure the hon. member, as well as the auxiliaries that might be watching or listening, that I have not made up my mind on this issue and the RCMP have not made up their minds on this issue. Vancouver police and other detachments are reviewing their reserve matters, and we have a review that's being undertaken. I've asked for that review to be expedited. I'm hoping that it will be in our hands sooner than September, and we will deal with these issues.

[10:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I am awaiting the arrival of the ADM that deals with statistics with respect to police services. He might have an answer.

But I think that the general issues I indicated yesterday are the issues. It's the safety of the auxiliaries, the safety of the regular police officers and the safety of the public. In the course of the review, some auxiliaries themselves raised these very issues. I think it's important that we take a look at that. I heard the Vancouver chief say in the media just the other day that they are also concerned about the liability issues. As well, fewer than 50 percent of the auxiliaries put in the minimum required 160 hours per year. These auxiliaries are obviously tying up program resources that could be used to support new volunteers who are willing to put in the required number of hours.

So there are many, many issues. This is not a one-issue matter; many issues are involved in the review. This decision was not taken lightly. What was impressed upon me in the discussions that I had were the issues around the safety of the auxiliaries, the regular police officers and the public, and the lack of adequate training. Whether it relates to the earlier kinds of guns they had or the newer kinds of guns they have, I don't have that specific information. But the fact is that that issue has been raised. So there are many issues. I think that at the end of the day, we should allow the review to proceed. This is a very important issue. These are volunteers that we value very much, and they should continue to do the kind of work they can do without guns in the interim.

G. Plant: The minister is right to point out that this is a complex issue, and there are many aspects to it. The minister is right to point out that there is a review and that the review should be allowed to proceed. Unfortunately, what happened was that during the review a decision was made that auxiliaries should be disarmed. That's the kind of decision which I suppose one might look at one way or the other at the conclusion of the review, but nonetheless it was made while the review is underway. In an attempt to understand the reasons for it, there are questions that have to be asked. I'm not sure that the reasons which have been advanced so far are terribly persuasive on the question of whether it was right to make the decision when it was made and in the way it was made.

We're talking about firearms training and the extent to which auxiliary officers are or are not adequately trained in the use of firearms. Yesterday I took from the minister's comments that it was of considerable importance to him that there was a high failure rate in firearms testing. That, I assume, was the kind of evidence that was to be trotted out to say, "Yes, there's a risk to public safety, a risk to the safety of auxiliaries and so on" -- the implication being that auxiliaries were not properly qualified to handle firearms. Now when I look more closely at those numbers, I find that the numbers -- at least the numbers that the minister uses -- are not terribly on point to the issue.

I'll ask the minister one more question that I'm sure he won't have the answer to, but I'll put it on the record to begin with: does the minister know what the failure rate was for RCMP regular officers in the lower mainland in their annual requalification for the nine-millimetre pistol?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: I encourage the minister to make the appropriate inquiries around that, because I'm told that the failure rate for regular RCMP officers in their annual requalification exam may be as high as 25 percent. If that is the case, I think we would then have an opportunity to examine this issue of firearms safety and auxiliary training in a statistical context that would be somewhat different from the context we were left with yesterday. That's why I raise these numbers now. I hope that the Attorney General will take the opportunity to ensure that if he is presented with statistics from within his ministry which justify the decision he took, that he takes the time to ensure he has the proper statistical context.

Let me pursue another aspect of this. There was, I am told, a centralized firearms training initiative that was underway. The police services division in the ministry was, I think, the branch responsible for that. Yet that initiative -- which I assume was related to ensuring that all peace officers, or at least auxiliaries, were properly trained in firearms -- was abandoned last October. Can the minister explain why that decision was made?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm unable to decipher which particular training initiative the hon. member is referring to. Perhaps he can restate the question.

G. Plant: I'm told that there was a firearms training initiative that was underway at least with respect to the lower mainland. Now, I expect that this may have been training that was taking place at the Justice Institute. I may be wrong, and maybe that is the potential confusion. I'm told that the training initiative was abandoned last October, and that's what I'm pursuing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've been advised that no particular program was abandoned, so perhaps the hon. member can

[ Page 7119 ]

G. Plant: The minister knows that there are peace officers or public protection people in a variety of places across his ministry. We discussed the Police Act last year, which defined a whole variety of different types of peace officers. There are people in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks who operate as conservation officers. There are people in other ministries who carry side arms as part of their duties. Is the minister able to comment on the extent to which the training of other peace officers or people like peace officers compares with the training which auxiliaries have in the use of firearms?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some of those peace officers that the hon. member is referring to don't carry side arms, and some do. But in the various institutions where they work, their training is controlled by them.

G. Plant: I may return to that, but let me turn to another aspect of what I think is currently a problem in terms of the fallout from the decision. There are a number of communities in British Columbia where the auxiliaries have suspended their service or where detachments have suspended the work or the service of auxiliaries. There are cost implications of that, because, as I'm sure the Attorney General knows much better than I do, auxiliaries generally provide their services without cost, and when those services have to be replaced by the services of regular RCMP officers, there will be an additional cost. That will particularly be the case, I suspect, as we move closer to the summer season and the kinds of events that make British Columbia the tourist destination that it is loom on the horizon.

[10:30]

I'll carry the facts further for Kelowna. It's not just limited to this event -- although I expect that there are other events in Kelowna where this is an issue. I have a letter from the mayor of Kelowna that speaks more generally about the problem, urges the Attorney General to reconsider his decision and says that his information is that the cost of providing additional RCMP members for this summer alone will be $240,000. Now, I don't want to give up the observation that it's always difficult to put a price tag on public safety. But given that I don't think the public safety argument has yet been made by way of substantive support or evidence, we have here a situation where, at the very least, the way a decision was made and the actual decision will, among other things, increase costs for the delivery of policing services across British Columbia over the ensuing months. I guess my question here for the Attorney General is: what does he say to the people of Kelowna about the fact that they are now on the hook for these additional costs? What does he say to the organizers of the Molson Thunderfest, who might not be able to hold their event, about the way in which the decision was made and its implication?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First, I say to the auxiliaries: "You did not go into volunteer service with police officers exclusively for the guns. You went in to serve the public and this province, and we value your services. You did that so that you could do community policing, crime prevention, neighbourhood crime prevention, school programs and other programs to assist the police in maintaining the peace in cities and towns across the country." So I think they should really think about that issue.

In terms of the larger issue around Kelowna, if one takes that logic to its conclusion, then no province should hold any festivities, because they don't have any auxiliaries or reserves that carry guns. I think it's important for us to just come down to earth for a moment on this issue. People do not go into this service to use guns. And I'll tell you that if anyone goes into volunteering with police for community policing or for crime prevention only on the condition that they be able to bear arms, then I am extremely disappointed. I think the people of British Columbia would be disappointed. As I said yesterday, if you asked any of these individuals, they would tell you that they went into this service to do all of the work with or without guns. I think it's important to recognize that.

In terms of Kelowna, I'm hoping that the auxiliaries right across the province will recognize that their work is valued with or without guns and that they can do over 90 percent of the work that they do in supporting police and communities and in maintaining peace without those guns. They should at least return to those duties pending the review. And I'm hoping that situations such as that one in Kelowna can be recognized by the RCMP. They can try and deal with the issue and talk to the auxiliaries in that area and try to bring them back to do the work that needs to be done. Crowd control doesn't always need guns.

G. Plant: There are at least two aspects of this issue that have created a problem. The first is the way the decision was made, and the second is the actual decision. I am sure that the Attorney General is right when he says that auxiliaries do not enrol and give their time to this program because they want to carry guns around. But I also think the Attorney General has to be, I guess, more respectful of the status quo -- a status quo which deals with the reality of the existing complement of fully qualified RCMP officers in British Columbia. That status quo will not be changed this week or next week or this year. Policing decisions and police funding decisions have been made over the course of time by the province and by the municipalities and cities of British Columbia. I suspect that in large measure those decisions have been made over the last half-dozen years by people who have been mindful of the fact that in addition to funding a pool of fully qualified RCMP officers, there is also available a complement of auxiliary police officers.

I suppose that for better or for worse, the duties those police officers and auxiliaries have been asked to do represent the status quo in British Columbia. There isn't much that we're going to do this week or next week about that status quo, but I think we do need to be a bit more honest about what that status quo is. I'm afraid that we mislead ourselves if we think that the answer to this problem is that we will send auxiliaries -- the 1,100 men and women who do this job -- into school classrooms to talk about public safety. That is not what we have been doing with auxiliaries; that is not what auxiliaries do. What auxiliaries have been doing is participating in and assisting with front-line policing.

Let me move for a moment to one of the excuses that has been offered from time to time over the last couple of weeks since this decision was made. It is that there is something in

[ Page 7120 ]

We'd all like the reality of public safety to be different. It seems to me, though, that it is no answer for the Attorney General to say, in response to my question about the taxpayers of Kelowna, the people of Kelowna and the visitors to Kelowna: "Well, I guess that means that we shouldn't have public events in other provinces in Canada." To me the challenge is to recognize that the status quo in British Columbia is that we have asked auxiliaries to do crowd control, we have put auxiliaries on the front line of policing. It may be that a properly conducted review will come up with recommendations that will, properly implemented and over the course of time, change the role of auxiliaries. It seems to me that the way you do that is carefully, thoughtfully, reasonably and rationally, and not the way this decision was made.

To come to a question: what does the Attorney General say about the fact that Mr. Justice Oppal appears to have recognized that at least the status quo in British Columbia is that there are safety issues? Isn't it the case that his decision -- at least in the way it was done -- is a denial of that reality?

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us today in the gallery are 29 grade 5 students from George Jay Elementary School. They are not exactly in my constituency, but they are on the border of the constituency; I share some of the students, in terms of their residence, with the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill. Accompanying the grade 5 students today are their teachers, Ms. Dianne Boyce and Ms. Geri Itterman, and a parent as well: Mr. Lepetit. I'd ask the House to make them very, very welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, that gave me some time to think about the answer. I think we've debated this issue thoroughly, but let me just say that this wasn't an easy decision. The RCMP and Vancouver police chief were of one mind on this issue. Justice Oppal supported our decision to do what we did and said that a review should be completed around issues of training and, in fact, around what we want auxiliaries and reserves to do. That's the question he raised. He felt that that was important in terms of their ongoing role.

My report could be incorrect, but I hear this morning that Vancouver police chief Bruce Chambers is also taking guns away from his reserves. I understand he stated that this morning on one of the radio stations, and he also stated his support for the decision that has been taken, though it has been a difficult one.

B. Penner: First of all, let me just say it's a privilege to have an opportunity to participate in the debates concerning the Attorney General's budget estimates for this current year.

Just to explore the issue of auxiliary policing a little bit further, there have been conflicting reports through the media just when it was in British Columbia that auxiliaries first started carrying side arms. Some people in the RCMP told me it goes back about ten years. More commonly, I've seen reports of 1986 being the start date and I was told by another member of the RCMP that originally some -- not all, but some -- auxiliaries were authorized to carry side arms beginning in 1982. I'm just wondering, for the sake of clarification so we can establish a time line, if the Attorney General can tell us when it was that auxiliaries were first permitted to carry side arms and when they were required to carry side arms.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there was permission granted for auxiliaries to carry firearms around 1985 or 1986. I don't have the exact year. This wasn't a requirement, and obviously that permission has been rescinded pending the review.

B. Penner: My understanding is that auxiliaries, at least in some locations, were told -- not that long ago, a couple of years ago -- that in fact they would have to carry side arms, and my colleague from Richmond-Steveston referred to a memo from the Attorney General's ministry itself, stating that auxiliary should not be on duty unless equipped with a side arm. This sounds to me like a requirement: to be equipped with a firearm or a side arm. What was the date of the decision that auxiliaries should not be out performing their duties without carrying a side arm?

[10:45]

Let me just think about this for a moment. What happens when you do carry side arms? Someone might have said: "If you are taking auxiliaries into dangerous situations, they should have better training and they should have side arms." And that comes back to the issue of the role of the auxiliaries on an ongoing basis. That's what this review is going to determine. This review may determine, as I've said before, and may recommend that auxiliaries in British Columbia should be allowed to carry side arms. If it does, so be it.

B. Penner: It's my understanding that when the Ministry of Attorney General started telling the detachments and auxiliaries that they were to be equipped with a side arm whenever performing their function, this entailed additional training requirements. That's obvious. My question to the Ministry of Attorney General is what the cost was, around British Columbia, of equipping auxiliary police with, first of all, I believe, .38-calibre handguns and then, secondly, the new nine-millimetre firearm.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In 1996-97 the gun training consumed substantially the bulk of the funding, which was approximately $400,000 for that purpose. In terms of the cost of arming the auxiliaries when they were first allowed to carry arms, that would be dating back several years. I don't have that cost.

B. Penner: Did the Attorney General ministry fund the entire cost of equipping and training the auxiliary police, or was that a shared-cost program with the RCMP? If so, what was the share of the Attorney General ministry?

[ Page 7121 ]

B. Penner: There is an additional cost that was borne, of course, and that was borne by the various volunteers who comprise the 1,100 auxiliaries across British Columbia. When the decision was made that the training would have to become more centralized -- and I believe it was performed on the gun ranges in and around the area of Coquitlam -- various auxiliaries from around British Columbia ended up taking time off from their own paying jobs and spending up to four days at a time undergoing firearms training in the lower mainland. This was for people all across British Columbia.

In the example of my own community of Chilliwack, the local detachment was apparently told that RCMP-certified weapons instructors in our area were not going to be authorized to perform the training for the auxiliary members in our community, despite the fact that we have a number of firing ranges in our community, with the existence of Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack there. As a result, the various volunteers -- I think there are close to 30 auxiliaries at present in Chilliwack -- had to go for training in Coquitlam.

From speaking to them, this meant spending about four days in a row undergoing this training in Coquitlam, taking time away from their families and time away from their jobs. And, of course, there was the cost -- which I believe was borne either by the RCMP or the Ministry of Attorney General -- of paying for their travel expenses and meal claims, as well as hotel accommodation costs. That's the point I'm trying to get at. What was the cost of underwriting all of this training, which has now been put on the shelf?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've given the total cost of the program. If the hon. member is looking for specific figures, perhaps he could approach the ADM, who would be happy to provide those figures to him in terms of all the minute details -- but important details, of course.

With respect to the use of the Coquitlam range, that is because the RCMP uses that range for training purposes. That's the only one available to them in that area. That's why people had to travel.

B. Penner: I will be following up in writing to the Attorney General, asking for a specific breakdown of the various costs incurred in training the auxiliaries and equipping them with firearms. Those firearms are now presumably collecting dust somewhere in storage.

Finally, I'd like to respond to the Attorney General's comment that auxiliaries should only be out performing their duties when it's safe to do so. Again, the suggestion is that the appropriate venue for them to be performing their volunteer duty in is classrooms, to perform educational functions like that. It's a fact that the majority of auxiliaries have day jobs. That means that the time that they're able to volunteer is in the evenings. Just again, from the example in my community, the majority of auxiliary hours are worked on Friday and Saturday evenings. Schools are not in session during that time. The regular members that they have to be accompanied by are out performing duties on Friday and Saturday nights. They are some of the busiest nights of the week for the police and pose some of the greatest risks. That's the reality. Auxiliary members perform their duties in the evenings -- by an large, on Friday and Saturday evenings. In my own experience, at least, those are the heaviest crime evenings of the week. Those are the comments that I would like to leave with the Attorney General.

G. Plant: Before I leave the auxiliary issue, I asked questions of the Attorney about the cost questions that have been raised by the mayor of Kelowna and by the organizers of the Molson Thunderfest. I understand that the Attorney General's response to those concerns was to encourage the auxiliaries to resume their duties. Does the Attorney General intend to do anything else to help the people of Kelowna to deal with the potential cost issues that have been brought to our attention?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is difficult for the Attorney General to be responsible for policing costs in different communities, because the costs of policing are borne, appropriately, by municipalities and towns.

The RCMP reassured British Columbians, through a press release, that there would be no reduction in the level of policing, despite the fact that guns, side arms, have been taken away from the auxiliaries. I'm hoping that the auxiliaries will reconsider their position. I'm also hoping that RCMP management, the senior people in E Division, will sit down with the auxiliaries and speak to them and try and bring them back to do the volunteer work that they are supposed to do and that they want to do. I think it's important that the RCMP and the auxiliaries work together, as do the reserves and the other independent municipal forces. I think it's important that we encourage them to do that. It is also important for us to reassure them that this review, which I have asked to be expedited, will make final recommendations on this issue, which I would consider very seriously. The RCMP are concerned about the fact that some auxiliaries are not reporting for duty, and so are other police chiefs that have reserves.

I think it's important for us collectively as legislators, not just for the Attorney General, to urge them to reconsider their position. Whether or not at the end of the day the recommendations indicate that they should or should not have guns. . .should at this point be left for that review to be completed. I would hope that members would join me in that request to the auxiliaries.

G. Plant: Well, let me respond to that invitation with this question. The memo that came from the RCMP on April 3 announcing the suspension of firearms also notes that auxiliaries will continue to receive upgraded soft body armour, and they will be trained on pepper spray and batons. I suppose the rhetorical question is: why would all of this extra protection be necessary if auxiliaries are not in danger? What, then, is the message we give to auxiliaries? How is it that we're to persuade them to go back to work, other than by reminding them that they didn't sign up to serve because they wanted to have guns and all of the other things that the Attorney General has so far offered as reasons to encourage the auxiliaries to believe not only that their services are valued but that they will be able to continue to perform those services in a way which makes sure that they're safe and that those they are serving are safe?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I believe that by that memo, the message the RCMP are sending to the auxiliaries is that they will be placed in situations where those are the appropriate kinds of devices they would need. The RCMP are fully trained in dealing with the use of force, in crowd control and in doing all of the policing duties, and they would use their judgment in determining where, under changed circum-

[ Page 7122 ]

G. Plant: Well, we'll see what happens as the weeks move forward. I can say that my apprehension at the moment is that, to put it one way, the problem is going to get worse before it gets better. I think that is not only unfortunate but unnecessary -- in large measure unnecessary -- because in part it was the way the decision was made, the way it was announced and the way it was implemented that created the crisis that I think currently exists among auxiliary detachments in British Columbia. If the Attorney General has means at his disposal to encourage the completion of the review, I urge him to exercise those means.

[11:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The ministry has just. . . . I have just received the report, and we are considering all of the recommendations that have been made. It will be released very shortly, hopefully. I haven't reviewed it fully.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that. I'm sure the minister will appreciate that there is public interest in this issue. It would, from my perspective, obviously, be helpful to have an opportunity to discuss the issues. If there are issues that need to be discussed during the estimates process, let's do that before we leave the estimates process. I encourage the Attorney General to stay up late reading the report and to complete his review as quickly as possible so that we have an opportunity to discuss it here in committee rather than leaving it for another year.

On another issue -- and it's an important issue -- I want to talk, from a criminal justice perspective, about the changes in Crown counsel policy around diversion. Diversion is, in this case, the sort of catch-all phrase for alternatives to traditional criminal prosecution that have been made available in the past to some categories of offenders and that are to continue to be made available as part of the day-to-day administration of the criminal justice system by Crown counsel. There has been a lot of public debate and discussion about diversion and the kinds of programs that can be brought under that umbrella, and I hope to pursue some of these issues from a community justice perspective later in these estimates.

For the moment I want to take the discussion about diversion into two particular places. One is to ask the Attorney General what he expects to unfold during the course of this fiscal year in respect of further policy developments or changes. The first question is: what's going to happen in the next year? The second question -- I might as well get them both on the table, and then we can have a discussion -- is to ask the Attorney General to examine or to think about the issue of diversion from the perspective that the deputy ministers in the province and the auditor general have encouraged all of us to examine: government programming initiatives. What are their objectives? What are the things that are expected? How will we measure success? What are the measureables that are expected for diversion?

I know it's always easy to speak about those in very general terms, and the Attorney General did so at some length, I think, when he opened the debate. My question is more specific -- what is it that the Attorney General expects, specifically and concretely, to occur over the next 12 months? -- so that we can look back a year from now and ask: "Were the objectives met, or were they not met?" Those are the two aspects of the issue I want to pursue now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is an evaluation process. That will work in conjunction with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, and we will continue to monitor and evaluate as the program develops. As we now have the ability, as I mentioned earlier, to prosecute for the original offence if the diversion agreement -- if one can use that term -- isn't complied with, we will, of course, be expanding diversion and community accountability diversion.

I think it's also important to remember that we have just recently made public the guidelines with respect to all of this. We're hoping that communities will respond, and they have responded, I understand. We've received several applications from communities to set up those programs. It would be very difficult for us to set targets or quotas for that kind of development, because this is essentially a community-driven development. We've provided the guidelines, and communities can craft their programs within the context of those guidelines if they so choose. I am hoping that they choose to do that.

I guess, and I could be wrong, that success could be measured firstly in the number of communities that are already applying to set up these programs. Secondly, at some point when there is some experience under our belt on this issue, we could then assess how effective those programs are. As you know, in Maple Ridge and Sparwood the reoffence rate, or the recidivism rate -- a much more technical term for me -- is less than 5 or 6 percent, so 94 or 95 percent of the people who go through these programs, both in Maple Ridge and Sparwood, never reoffend. They've been able to reduce the number of offences that young people, particularly in Maple Ridge and Sparwood, engage in that eventually end up in court.

G. Plant: I think that government programs have traditionally been evaluated on the basis of inputs and outputs and numbers and quotas. Clearly, in the case of the community accountability initiative, the government is, in effect, extending an invitation to communities. Some may accept the invitation; some may not. I think that the deputy ministers' ideas of enhancing performance and accountability within government try to take all of us involved in public administration to a new level of understanding about what it means for a government program to succeed or not succeed, a level which is not simply conditional upon numbers.

The Attorney General has said that there is some monitoring and evaluation underway, I think with the police chiefs. I suspect that has more to do with the Crown counsel side of the diversion initiative. But that invites the question: what are the criteria for evaluation in that context? And in the other context, it's nice to say that the success mark is that at

[ Page 7123 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that in these kinds of situations the first year wouldn't usually tell you very much. It takes a couple of years -- two to five years -- to adequately evaluate the program. The kinds of things that we would have data on would be the number of cases, the types of cases, conditions of the programs and how those programs have performed at the end of the day. I think the nature of the reception that we receive from the community in terms of their desire to partake in the program would be a sign as to how things might go at the end of the day. Who knows?

G. Plant: Well, I think community response is undoubtedly a valid way of determining whether the program is at least getting up and running successfully. I guess the challenge is to see if we are able and the minister is able to identify something more specific, more analytical than the typical antennae of political life and those sorts of things. Again, I understand that the Attorney General will take comfort from the extent to which the program initiative is well received in communities. I'm sure the Attorney General will take comfort, or not, according to what the community newspaper clippings tell him is happening. The Attorney General will also be monitoring some statistical information. But I guess I want to pursue it just one more time. Is there something more? Are there some criteria in place that will allow the government to say at particular points in time -- and it may be two to five years down the road: "Yes, this was a good idea, and here is how we have determined that it is a good idea." I'll leave that question before I pursue the issue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: After my visits around the province, particularly to places like Maple Ridge and Sparwood, and a visit to Britain and Australia, I generally believe that this is a very positive direction that we're moving in. It would hopefully increase the confidence of people in the justice system. It would reduce the reoffence rate with respect to young and adult offenders and less serious and less violent offenders. Hopefully, it would also lead to more of a sense of participation by the victims and communities in the whole process of justice. Obviously those are things that we can't measure in any statistical fashion, but those are some of the outcomes that we're hoping would result from this process.

[11:15]

I. Chong: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

I. Chong: Thank you, hon. Chair. I would like to at this time introduce the House to 20 students from Braefoot Elementary School. They range from grades 3 to 7. I know they're very much enjoying this debate; I see many of them peering over and watching the Attorney General and the Attorney General critic. They're accompanied by several adults, as well as their teacher Mr. Campbell -- no relation. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Plant: Perhaps I'll pursue the issue a little bit further this way. In the course of the last answer the minister spoke about the usual statistical information. Am I right that as far as the implementation of Crown counsel policy goes within the criminal justice branch or whatever branch it will be, there will be monitoring of the things that need to be monitored, ranging from the number of cases which get fitted into different categories to the types of decisions that are made by counsel? And in cases that go into the justice system, will there be tracking of sentencing disposition and, at the end of it, recidivism rates and all of that?

There are two questions, I suppose. First, will that information be gathered? And secondly, will it be gathered in a coordinated way so that the head office is going to be able to make the kinds of decisions which it can't now make very well -- for example, in relation to Askov cases? I understand that the ministry doesn't yet have the ability, although it's working on it, to collect that kind of data. So will the data that will assist in understanding how diversion programs are working be gathered, and will it be gathered in a way that will allow the ministry to make the right kinds of decisions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answers to both the questions is yes.

G. Plant: That, then, moves me to the community justice side of diversion again. I understand the Attorney General is probably right in saying that measurables in that context are going to be harder to come by. I don't think that's a reason to avoid the challenge. But let me come back to something I raised earlier, which is around more specific initiatives further to what has already been done in the community accountability programming. For example, I understand that funding is available to retain Lola Chapman, who now has a role in educating communities across British Columbia, telling them about the work that she has done in Maple Ridge. I assume that that is an initiative that is going to take place or continue over this fiscal year. Perhaps the Attorney General could just confirm that that's so and how long that initiative, that particular job, will take place. Secondly, what else specifically is going to happen over the course of this year further to the community accountability program announcement that was made a little while ago?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That initiative will continue, yes. Lola Chapman will continue to do the work for one year. It will then be evaluated. We are evaluating as we are going forward. Applications, as I said, are being received from various communities. We have received six proposals from communities, and four of them have already received some funding.

G. Plant: From an internal management perspective, is that funding coming from the community justice branch or from some other place within the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: From the $1 million that was announced when the guidelines were announced.

[ Page 7124 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Community justice.

G. Plant: I want to move to a different aspect of criminal justice. The ministry staff provided me with a copy of a survey of sexual assaults reported to police in British Columbia in 1993-94. It was actually prepared by the police services division, but I think it has implications for other branches of the ministry.

The report is dated December 1997. Clearly, what took place here was a fairly comprehensive survey of a range of statistics around sexual assaults reported to police. The year chosen was presumably a year for which. . . . The statistics have only recently become available, so the report itself is pretty new. This is clearly relevant to the context of prevention of domestic violence, and I suspect that we may have a few questions about that.

Some of the information in this report is of interest to me in terms of noting that as far as the police processing of sexual assaults goes, the percentage of incidents which are cleared of charges is less than 50 percent. The number of incidents -- that is, incidents of sexual assault reported to the police that are disposed of without a conviction on any charge -- ranges between 29 percent and 40 percent. The percentage of total charges resulting in a stay of proceedings is 30 percent or 28 percent.

Those numbers seem relatively high to me. I am aware of the many reasons why those numbers may be high. They range all the way from one end of the spectrum -- incidents where the victim or the perpetrator may have died, or there may no longer be any point at all in prosecution -- to another part of the spectrum, where the complainant or informant, having made the initial report, is no longer willing to testify. There are other excuses and reasons for these numbers. They do, nonetheless, seem to be high enough to warrant attention and consideration with respect to whatever the criminal side of the justice system can do to continue to enhance protection of members of the public, primarily women, from sexual assault.

My question after all of that is: does the minister have underway any review of policies and practices which would take into account some of the information in this survey? If so, what can we look forward to over the next little while in terms of these policy changes and initiatives?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As we all know, this is one of the most difficult areas for prosecution, particularly the historical sexual abuse. That is very, very difficult to deal with. The criminal justice branch is developing a new policy on prosecuting sexual assaults and is also reviewing our performance and practices in this area, including particular reference to restored-memory issues.

G. Plant: I'm sorry -- I had trouble hearing the Attorney General. I just didn't hear the last part of that answer.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The last issue mentioned was the restored-memory issue.

G. Plant: Well, that is a very interesting and difficult and troublesome issue. Am I right in my understanding that what the minister has said is that within the ministry there is consideration being given to that very issue?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The criminal justice branch is currently developing guidelines for prosecutors in that very area.

G. Plant: In addition to a range of perspectives on that issue, there are, of course, a range of ways in which those issues and questions could be responded to. Some members of the public have approached me to suggest that there needs to be legislation around this issue. Others have suggested that the best way to test the competing perspectives on the theory of recovered memory is in the courtroom, where, over time, with -- perhaps in this case -- the virtues of the adversarial system, the competing theories will have their day, will have their airing, and perhaps one version of one theory will come to predominate.

Am I right in inferring that the criminal justice branch's perspective on this at the moment is perhaps more in the latter area than in the former -- that is, to deal with these issues as they arise in the course of criminal litigation and to test the competing theories, I suppose, in the courtroom rather than in some other place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The criminal justice branch is obviously putting together some guidelines with the assistance of the experts but would not be adopting one or the other approach. It would look at each case in the context of those guidelines to see if it could be legitimately advanced with the use of expert evidence under those guidelines.

[11:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that perhaps the hon. member is not reading the numbers correctly, but we would have to check; we don't have that report at hand. That information can be directly accessed from the ADM responsible, Mr. Quantz, at any time.

G. Plant: I look forward to the opportunity to pursue that. I think we'll probably get to the issue of backlogs and so on not very much later, actually.

Another document I have is a copy of the ministry's response to the Vernon tragedy and subsequent reports. This document, my copy of which is dated April 21, 1998, contains a total of some 29 recommendations, with a statement of the ministry's response and identification of target dates and initiatives. A lot of these relate to such matters as the ministry's Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. Some of these recommendations speak about education, about training, about policies for police practice and about risk assessment tools. One of the challenges here is the way that policing is delivered across British Columbia. Policing is generally done independently. Policing takes place in a variety of jurisdictions, the majority of which are not really under the direct control of the minister. Of course, Crown counsel ought to be politically independent also.

When we have recommendations brought forward like this, the question that arises is: to what extent is the minister of the view that he has the tools necessary to ensure that the

[ Page 7125 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the criminal justice branch agrees with all of the work that's been done in this area, all of the policies that have been put in place and the target dates that are assigned to each of those. And so does the RCMP: they have implicitly stated that they would follow the policy of the Attorney General. Their policy is very similar and they are, as you of course know, reviewing the policy in light of Mr. Justice Wood's pending report.

G. Plant: Are the resources in place to ensure that within the criminal justice branch, for example, policy implementation and recommendation implementation can take place within the target dates that are set out?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no resource issues, because in these recommendations there isn't a significant change to what the criminal justice branch already does, and they will be able to deal with those issues. I have not heard of any concerns from the police with respect to this matter. I understand that we will be holding discussions with them if there are any issues. I think there are some, perhaps.

G. Plant: The member for Peace River South wants to pursue an issue. I think it may have something to do with Bill C-68, and since we're talking about criminal justice, this may be as good a time as any.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, I would like to try to get a sense from the Attorney General as to the direction he and his government are taking on Bill C-68. Many, many British Columbians are concerned about this legislation. Many watched the actions of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, and of the territories, in their challenge to Bill C-68, and many are disturbed by the silence of the Attorney General and the government on that issue. I am particularly interested in knowing from the Attorney General whether or not he has had second thoughts about joining -- and I use that term rather broadly -- the other western provinces in their challenge to Bill C-68. If he has in fact not decided to do that, I'd like to know what representations and what position his government is taking with respect to Bill C-68.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is one of the very difficult issues that I've been dealing with. I have stated many times -- both publicly and in terms of the correspondence that I have received and to which I have responded -- to the effect that, while we support wholeheartedly the provisions with respect to the anti-smuggling provisions and the provisions where there are stiffer sentences for use of guns in committing offences, there are some reservations that we've always had. They've been expressed. The way that the registration scheme may be implemented may be cumbersome; it may in fact criminalize, if I can use that term advisedly, legitimate gun users. So our effort has been to make sure that the way the whole process is implemented is simpler and does not unnecessarily inconvenience or criminalize legitimate gun users.

There are, of course, on this issue two British Columbias -- and maybe there are many. But there are regions in British Columbia where this is an issue from the perspective of this being seen as an infringement of people's rights to have arms in their homes and the like. Whereas in other parts of the province, it is not seen to be legislation that is bad.

I think that I have said publicly that I am awaiting anxiously for the results of the Court of Appeal decision. That case has been argued, and it is now reserved, and I'm hoping that the decision will come down. Once the decision comes down, we will, of course, take a look at our position in the context of what the decision might be and possibly make the decisions that the hon. member might want us to make. But I'll certainly review the whole matter at that point.

J. Weisgerber: There are a whole range of issues that arise out of this legislation, and I think some of them need to be discussed; some of them need to be answered. I'm curious with respect to registration because I think that is the area where most people who are in disagreement with this legislation come down. There are very few people who talk about having concern about the areas of stiffer sentences for the illegal use of firearms. Indeed, most people who oppose Bill C-68 would like to see much stronger legislation in those particular areas. So I'm putting that issue aside and focusing on the registration.

I'd like to know what steps the government of British Columbia has taken, first, with respect to the cost of registration, because that remains a very big issue. People are concerned that underlying this initiative is a desire to actively discourage people from owning firearms. Many people have significant collections of firearms as a hobby and are very seriously worried about the effect of a per-gun registration fee that might escalate. We've heard time and time again costs projected in the neighbourhood of $75 to $100 a year per gun. For someone who happens to have 200 or 300 guns, which might be a collection of old Winchester lever-action rifles or any one of a myriad.. . . There are people -- like people who collect cars and stamps and everything else -- who have valuable and interesting collections who feel very much threatened.

So could the minister tell me what representations the government has made to Ottawa on that issue; what the position of his government is; whether or not the minister is alarmed by the fact that guns -- inoperative guns -- are seized out of museums in British Columbia because they somehow fail to meet a test that has been rather arbitrarily foisted on us by the federal government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of the reasons we adopted the approach that we did in terms of working with the federal government was to ensure that however the registration scheme is devised, (1) it does not criminalize legitimate gun users; (2) the costs of registration to gun owners are not prohibitive at all, but in fact are very cheap; and (3) the scheme and the way it works is relatively simple. You should be able to have registration done by mail and the like. I think in the scheme as it is currently being devised, the hon. member would see. . . . I don't have all the information here, but if he's interested, I would urge him to speak to Hank Mathias, the chief firearms officer of British Columbia. He's been working very closely and taking those concerns from British Columbia to the table, in view of the fact that there has been concern in some parts of British Columbia that the way this scheme is being viewed, or at least perceived, might be a hindrance rather than a help to British Columbians. I think that I would urge you to approach Hank Mathias and get assistance in terms of how this scheme works. If the hon.

[ Page 7126 ]

J. Weisgerber: Well, I certainly will take up the offer, but I don't think that he is in a position to deal with this issue of registration costs. He's not in a position to negotiate with Ottawa or to make representation to Ottawa with respect to this issue of how much and how registration costs are going to be applied. As much as I'm prepared to take up the minister's offer, there are some issues which simply must be dealt with by the minister on a government-to-government level, not by some registration officer working within the bureaucracy.

The minister obviously wants to clarify that. While he's doing that, could the minister tell me whether or not he has taken a position with respect to the cost to the province of British Columbia, by way of officers' time on this issue of registration and the costs from the police side, of maintaining a registry here in British Columbia?

[11:45]

On the other issue, the reason I referred the hon. member to Hank Mathias is because he has the scheme in his possession. I've been briefed on it. He'd be happy to brief you. It has the costs of registration attached to it. I don't remember them. They are relatively cheap. In fact, I understand that with $5 or $10 the first time around, you could register hundreds of guns if you have them, and then they're good for however long. I will stand corrected if my memory doesn't serve me appropriately. But I think you should have that checked out, and if you have any concerns, feel free to speak to me. If you want to do it together with me, I'll be happy to sit with you, because I need to learn a little more about it too.

J. Weisgerber: That's an even better offer, and certainly I'll take it up.

Let me conclude this little bit of discussion by saying that people who have these concerns fully understand the approach being taken by the federal government to make initial registrations painless. What they see is a series of escalating fees coming down the road. If, as the minister says, the province is going to have full recovery of costs from the process, and the registration itself is to be self-supporting, then that arithmetic applied to the registration costs initially put forward by the federal government simply won't add up. You can't maintain a registry. . . . And there are examples of the costs around the world. We have a handgun registry. We know the costs of maintaining a handgun registry. You simply can't maintain the system for the introductory fee, the no-cost offer that people are being encouraged to enter into the program with. These people aren't fools; they know that once all the registrations are in place, somebody will come forward and say: "Gee, we've done a calculation. This program is costing us ten times what we recover from registrations." You don't have to be a financial genius or a genius of any kind to understand what the next step is going to be. Those are the concerns of the gun community. Those are the concerns of these very legitimate, very sincere people who see down the road a serious impediment to the exercise of their rights or their interests with respect to ownership. They see the federal government encroaching into an area that they believe to be provincial in nature, and they have those concerns.

I understand that I'm not going to change the Attorney's mind or the province's mind on this issue. I think it's important to have it on the record. I will take up the offer if the Attorney is sincere in meeting with Mr. Mathias to examine those fees and the process the federal government has laid out for registration.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, I would invite some members of my own caucus who have similar concerns as the hon. member to that briefing, if that's appropriate. I think some dialogue can be had on that issue. If perhaps there are concerns for future increases, at least for a certain period of time we could urge the federal government to guarantee in writing that there would be no increases for the next 20 or 30 years or whatever. I think there are ways of approaching the issue that we can talk about.

G. Plant: I made reference a few moments ago to the ministry's response to the Vernon-tragedy document that we received. I actually only received my copy just this morning while the estimates debate was underway. I know that my colleague who is the critic for Women's Equality received her copy perhaps yesterday. I'm going to take the opportunity to look at it over lunch. There may be more specific questions that arise immediately after lunch.

There are one or two questions on a quite different matter that I may be able to pursue before we adjourn. This has to do with information and privacy -- freedom of information and information requests. There has been some discussion in the media about the suggestion that there are budget cutbacks in respect of information and privacy officers who do their work within each individual ministry of the Crown. This is more a corporate services kind of issue. My question is going to be with respect to the implications of this funding decision within the Ministry of Attorney General. Maybe I'll just ask it, firstly, as a rolled-up question: how many FTEs within the Ministry of Attorney General have been processing freedom-of-information requests; has there been a funding cut in respect of the FTEs and the operation costs for processing FOI requests; and will that result in a reduction in staff, and what will the reduction be?

The Chair: The Attorney General, noting the time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll be very brief.

Yes, there have been cuts throughout government on this issue. We're looking at the implications. There are currently seven FTEs dealing with this issue within the ministry. We don't know at this point how many would be impacted.

G. Plant: Noting the hour, that's perhaps a topic which we'll conclude this afternoon.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Page 7127 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:16 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

The Chair: I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock.

G. Hogg: Thank you, hon. Chair. A question, through you to the minister: with respect to those persons on disability who are able to volunteer and therefore receive a payment of some $300, could you explain to me how that is contained within the budget? How many persons on disabilities have you budgeted for to receive such a type of payment?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to clarify with the member that he is talking about the community volunteer program.

G. Hogg: That's right.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The community volunteer program allows for an individual who is developing their skills by volunteering in the community to receive an honorarium, essentially, of $100 a month. That program is capped at $2.6 million a year. It's shown in administered benefits in this schedule.

G. Hogg: With respect, is there a higher cap for those persons on disability, or does the same cap of $100 apply to those as well?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's the same.

G. Hogg: Could you please tell me the process for applying for that? Is the capping process based on a set of criteria, or is it first come, first served? How is that matter. . . ? I understand there is a substantial waiting list within a number of areas of the province for this program. I'd be interested in how many people we might have waiting to be accepted into that program and how in fact they do get access to it.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't have the wait-list centrally. But $2.6 million is our budgeted amount; that's what we can afford in British Columbia.

I want to clarify, first of all, that this program is for disabled people. Also, I'm very pleased that we were able to keep this program, along with maintaining benefits for disabled people, in the face of some pretty dramatic cuts from the federal government. You know, the kind of off-loading that we've had over the last few years has meant that we've simply had to draw some lines, and this is one of them.

G. Hogg: I'd like to move to talk a little bit about the much-discussed consent form, which was first mailed out to some 75,000 recipients, including the disabled -- a form which at that point was seen at least as being confusing and perhaps at best as misleading. It seemed to be quite demeaning to a number of persons when it first went out. I understand that the minister or the government has apologized for some of the intent contained in that.

I'm just wondering: the evolution and development of that first consent form. . . . Was there legal advice received? What type of comments were put into the development of that first form and the changes that have been made to the second form?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am only able to talk about what happened since I was minister. I, quite frankly, wasn't around when that happened. I'm sure that there were all sorts of legal and other advice obtained. In my view, the missing part was to do a very broad-based consultation. That was clearly an error. I've been very up front about that. But I think it's fair to say now that we probably have at least one of the clearer forms, in terms of what it is people are signing, in the country. I think you could also argue quite fairly that it's also one of the most sensitive and respectful forms. I'm very pleased to see headlines like: "Reform Gets the Nod from Advocates." Obviously some people think that we should have, essentially, an honour system. I understand that sentiment, but we do have an income- and asset-tested program which requires such a form. I think in that context we've done the best possible and certainly have one of the best in the country.

G. Hogg: Could you please describe for me the type of consultation process you went through for the evolution and development of the second form, and the current type of feedback you have been receiving from the groups which originally expressed so much concern with that form?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sure. We worked very closely with the privacy commissioner, for which I'm very grateful. We also undertook legal counsel, of course; it's a legal form. I asked that the form go to front-line fieldworkers, and it did. It went to a number of MLAs. As the member speaking knows, I also invited his input on behalf of the opposition caucus. We contacted a number of constituency assistants, who deal with these issues on a regular basis, to get their feedback. I met with advocates and people with disabilities from Victoria, Vancouver and beyond, where possible. The form itself has gone to a number of people.

More importantly, I have sat down and listened to the concerns about the previous form from quite a broad-based number of people, including the folks who came to the Legislature two days after I was appointed to the ministry and a variety of other groups. End Legislated Poverty was one; I can't remember them all, quite frankly. It was all in the first two or three weeks of my mandate that the very broad-based consultation took place. Certainly I have listened to all of those who have had expressed concerns -- in some detail.

The feedback I'm getting now is essentially that the form is a significant improvement and that if there's got to be a form, they're happy with this one. As I say, some people would prefer not to have a form, and I understand that sentiment.

I simply would like to say that I am very grateful to the privacy commissioner, David Flaherty. His office spent a considerable amount of time with my staff to ensure that we met, hopefully, every nuance needed under the privacy laws.

I want to make one final point -- that is, that we have some of the best privacy laws in the country. Although the

[ Page 7128 ]

V. Anderson: I recognize what the minister has said -- that the content didn't really work as a form -- but the explanation and the wording of how it was presented was quite clear. One of the comments I received back from one of the advocacy groups is that the difference now is that if you're strip-searched, you can still wear your socks. Everything is out in the open; everything is presented quite clearly.

One of the concerns the minister might respond to is that the form allows the ministry in a very legalistic sense to go to everybody and anybody that's listed -- which is almost everybody who would know anything about you -- to get whatever information they feel is relevant to them for use in the ministry. This means that there's a lot of information on record, probably the most intensive information, the most complete document of information, of anyplace else in the country is on record for the people who are in Human Resources. This collects information from employers, from provincial government, from federal government and from other ministries. The question that I would raise on this complete dossier of information on an individual, more complete than anyplace else, is: with whom is the information that is in this dossier shared?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member appears to believe that there's some sort of a witch-hunt that happens in the collection of information and that there's some humongous file somewhere. That is simply not the case. We have very strong privacy laws in this province, the strongest in Canada. We have a government that is working hard to be very respectful, as we have a responsibility to be -- unlike what Mike Harris's government is doing in Ontario, for instance.

We have opened up the process and made it very clear to people what their privacy rights are, what government's responsibilities are, what their responsibilities are, and then have asked respectfully for permission to verify the information that they provide to us on application, simply to verify the eligibility. It's an income- and asset-tested program. Therefore we must check eligibility. There's not some huge gathering of information. We have neither the time nor the interest to do that. We're simply verifying information presented to government to ensure that a person is indeed eligible. The overwhelming majority of people who come forward are simply those among us, who could be any of us, who for some reason or other need short-term assistance while they get on with their lives.

However, as in any part of society, any part of government or the private sector or anywhere else, there are always people who want to break the law. There are fraud artists; there are people who develop multiple identities. It is a tiny percentage, but they're there. Government has a responsibility and I have a responsibility as the minister to protect the public interest by verifying information in this income- and asset-tested program. That's what we do.

But there is no huge bank of data. So I would direct the member to the privacy legislation. It lays out, I believe, the rules under which all information is collected, stored, accessed and so on. We abide by that legislation.

V. Anderson: I'm not suggesting there's a witch-hunt. I'm just trying to understand the process. If Jim comes in to apply and. . . . Does every one of the people who apply have their application, and the information they have provided upon it for income and other information, circulated to all the people who are on this list for verification? How does it go? Is the choice made that only some are circulated and not others? What's the process of finding out the information? The process as well as the information is a concern.

[10:30]

There is one other thing that we do, which one of the member's colleagues was discussing yesterday. That is, we help individuals who have an entitlement, for instance, to Canada Pension Plan -- something they've paid into, and it's theirs. It's owing to them and can either result in the same benefit or sometimes higher benefits. Then our staff will sit down and use this consent to check to see if they are eligible for some of these programs. But that would be done discreetly with the federal government, who are also required to follow privacy law. So it's done. . . .

Well, let me say this to the member: the information that government requires and verifies is far better controlled than information in the private sector. Government actions are guided by our privacy laws, which are the strongest in the country. There is no such thing for the bank you go to to give personal information when you want a loan or a mortgage or something. People are, in fact, protected very well. There is not any kind of broadcasting; we certainly don't give out private information to the public. There is simply careful verifying of information where necessary.

V. Anderson: It indicates that you will be going to financial institutions, like banks, credit unions or whatever else, and these will be in the local communities where people live, no doubt. What's the process? Does someone from the ministry phone up and say: "I'm from the Ministry of Human Resources, and I want to verify the account of this person? Do they have an account, are they in debt, or do they have loans?" At the very least the process says to the bank or the other group that this person is on Human Resources payments. It is indicated that they are now. . . . Is the reason for asking it given to the people? That's what I'm trying to say.

[ Page 7129 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The only difference over the years, as I understand, in the collection of information is that we brought in very strong privacy laws to protect that information in the best way possible. There has been a consent form of some kind or another in this province, as I understand it, for about 30 years. What we have done is upped the ante for government, as ought to happen, by bringing in both freedom-of-information and privacy laws. The freedom-of-information part has resulted in shedding some light on the process, so people know exactly what their rights are, exactly what government's responsibilities are, and what their responsibilities are. Instead of signing kind of a blanket form saying, "I authorize my information to be checked," where they don't know what the heck is going on, they know they're giving consent and they're getting examples of information that they might give that would be checked. So we have thrown light on the process, in a way that has never happened before in British Columbia. That in and of itself has created some concern, unfortunately. But it's a concern about knowing, not a concern about a change of process.

At the same time we've brought in the strongest privacy laws in the country to protect people's privacy as best as possible. Yes, information is verified, and while I understand the point the member's making, I quite frankly don't know of a better way. . . . Obviously, the ministry has to identify itself to verify the information. You can't say: "It's Jane Blotz calling, and I want to know what rent Ms. X pays." You have to identify yourself. You have to acknowledge that you have consent to do this, to ask the question -- as it should be. I don't know of a better way to do it. If the member has some advice about a more sensitive way to do it, I would welcome that, but all of our collective wisdom on this side of the table has not come up with a better way to ask other than to identify yourself and ask. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life that if you want to qualify for an income- and asset-tested program, your information must be verified.

V. Anderson: I'm sure that this will continue to be discussed in the community. I appreciate that everything has been put out up front so that everybody understands that. Hopefully, then, they can talk about the real issues, rather than the imagined ones.

One of the questions that I wanted to ask -- and let me quote from the form as I understand it now is: "This authorization is valid for the taxation year prior to the year of signature of this consent, the year of signature and each subsequent, consecutive taxation year for which assistance is required." If I apply in '98 for assistance, then all of my records in '97 can be verified and my records in '98 can be verified. It just goes back one year, it goes to the current year, and it continues for every year that I continue to receive assistance. If I go off in '99 but there are still outstanding liabilities that carry into the year 2000, even though I'm not on assistance anymore, will verification continue into the following year, until I am judged to have paid back what I owed? That's the question I have. How far does it continue? When does it automatically drop off? Is it when I go off assistance, or is there some continuation lag beyond that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: First of all, the part of the consent form the member is reading from is a Revenue Canada consent, and that language is put there by the federal government. We are told that it is not alterable. That is the federal government's language and form. It's probably the least clear part of the form, but I wasn't able to change it. I wish I could have.

This ministry neither has the interest nor the ability to check people's information, beyond what they absolutely need. There simply isn't enough (a) time and (b) interest from government. I mean, who cares? Nobody wants to go out to check somebody's information if there isn't a need to do that. It's simply a routine thing that happens.

As the member, I'm sure, is aware, sometimes what happened on last year's tax form affects benefits that happen in this calendar or fiscal year or whatever, so that would be a reason. Once a person is no longer on assistance, there is no longer any reason to check anything. If they owe money to government, it's treated like a debt to government and pursued for repayment.

I want to point out one other thing. In a number of things that we mentioned yesterday, when we were talking about overlaps of benefits and overpayments and things like that, what our government has done in this process, as well as many others -- and I think this is very significant for people who need to use the system -- is that in every case we were trying, wherever we could, to move the process up to the very front. Rather than having a sort of sloppy process, where people can inadvertently or otherwise get into trouble, we do the checks up front. This form allows that. It says what we're doing. We make those checks up front in terms of whether somebody is eligible for something else. It's very clear what the rules are and what will be checked, etc., and so it prevents problems. In my opinion -- and I expect the members across the floor would agree -- it's far preferable that the front-line workers have the ability to work with people and to be clear in the first instance rather than trying to mop up problems which cause everybody angst, and sometimes worse, after the fact. So what we have in this form is the ability to check up front, in the least invasive way humanly possible, and as respectfully as possible, to verify information and ensure that people are indeed eligible for this benefit. So that's the shift we've made as well, and I think that's good news.

V. Anderson: There are two questions that come out of the response -- and I appreciate the response. One is that I recognize that the time frame I was talking about was in the Revenue Canada section, but the implication was that it applied to all of it, not just to Revenue Canada. Maybe that's a clarification which could made in the form, because it reads as one form and doesn't say that there's a different time frame for the province from Revenue Canada. So that's one additional suggestion I would make to you: if that's a different time frame, there might be an addition to the form above the Revenue Canada one to clear up that uncertainty. That is the one comment I would make.

The other comment I would make is: as I understand it, the new process means that when Jim comes in to apply, the

[ Page 7130 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: On the first item, I thank the member for his input. As he's probably aware, we have created a handbook as well. My staff has put together an excellent handbook that individuals can now take away with them that provides all sorts of clarification. In the next round, we will add something to the handbook to clarify that. However, my preference would have been to put that one at the bottom, kind of separately, so that it was clear. But our legal advice said it needed to be this way, for some strange legal reason which isn't as clear as it could be. But I will add that clarification to the handbook.

[10:45]

V. Anderson: Thank you, minister, for your response. Two questions come out of that. Normally there would be a week delay: you come in on Monday, and it's going to be the following Monday before you would get your cheque. That's what I hear -- five days, normally. That's what I'm trying to clarify, on the one hand. On the other hand, just on the question. . . . Since the responsibility for the judgments and the decision and the verification now lies with the front-line staff, what particular training or expertise or upgrading has been given to front-line staff across the province to undertake these new responsibilities?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll answer the second part first. We have put verification officers in place around the province to assist the process and to work with the field staff as part of the field staff. This budget provides for 18 more to make sure the process is as speedy as possible. What was the first part of the question?

Oh, the timing. It's not necessarily five days. It can be shorter or longer; it depends on the individual. I think the key point is that nobody is left to sleep outside the door until we get through a bureaucratic process. If somebody needs help right now, we help them get it. Depending on their circumstance and the information that they give, it may take an extremely short or a slightly longer time to do it. I think the average is around five days.

G. Hogg: I'd like to refer back to some issues regarding earnings exemption policy, and I'm making reference to the report to Treasury Board on B.C. Benefits. Changes to earnings exemption policies were introduced with the goals of increasing the affordability of income support programs and increasing individual's incentives to become independent of income assistance. The status report stated that for '96-97 the forecast was savings of $30.7 million, and those were expected to be a direct result of the policy changes surrounding earnings exemptions. My question to the minister is: how close to that target did we get? Is there some explanation for any disparity between the target figure and what the actuals may have been?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The target was $31 million, and we came in much lower than that -- at $8.2 million. That was '96-97, so I don't know. . . . The good news is that that's because there was such a huge caseload decline.

We discussed yesterday that the earnings exemption, the way it was, was not useful to people in terms of helping them walk a path from welfare to work. Some of those changes have allowed us to do things like increase those bridges and those supports that help people move from welfare to work. We have dramatically. . . .

As you know, in this province we used to have K-to-12 and advanced ed, which was essentially universities and colleges. We` have a very broad range of skills training through a very broad range of means. The Island Highway project tripled apprenticeships and included 15 percent equity groups that wouldn't have otherwise had that kind of training in a job. We've got innovative workplace-based training, like Destination Business Works. Community-based ASPECT trainers are fabulous in terms of dealing with individuals and a diversity of businesses to get people back to work.

So we have a very broad range of training that didn't exist before, and training is one of the most significant barriers for people getting on with their lives. We're filling that gap in B.C. in a way that's just not happening elsewhere in this country. Along with things like child care, which is another significant barrier for women, and the B.C. family bonus, which has had a remarkably positive effect on large numbers of people. . . . Over 40 percent of all families in B.C. have benefited from that. Those tools have really helped people become independent and to get the skills they need to either move from welfare to a job or to stay in the workforce when they might otherwise have come onto assistance. So, with that, we were astounded by the positive effect of the changes. It exceeded our wildest imaginings, and I'm so very happy to say that the numbers therefore varied. There were simply not as many people on assistance.

G. Hogg: When the flat-rate exemption on earned income was cancelled for all income assistance recipients except those on disability benefits, Treasury Board in their accountability documents was asking the ministry to look at the impact that that was having. They were most particularly interested in what the characteristics of the population most affected by the population change were.

I understand that as part of that, the Ministry of Human Resources was conducting a study to address that question, and that they were looking at the number. . . . Based on data and information, the study was to provide information on the number declaring earnings and the average earnings declared, the number of crisis grants and other benefits awarded, maintenance orders, movement off the IA caseload, labour force attachment and barriers to employment.

This study was to reflect the impact of the specific change to earnings exemption policy. Apparently, the results of that

[ Page 7131 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I understand the information that I've given the member is from the work that we've been doing, but it's ongoing work. We haven't published a book. It's sort of ongoing tracking that's happening, so it's still a work in progress. The preliminary results demonstrated what I've indicated to the member are the numbers. For instance -- and I can give him a little more information -- we've determined that there are 19,000 recipients each month who received reduced exemption due to the changes. We're just continuing that work, so stay tuned.

G. Hogg: You're telling me, then, that the study which was to be available in 1996 has not been completed or compiled in a format that would allow us to review that. Are we able, anecdotally, to quantify whether or not the clients most affected by that policy change leave the caseload more quickly than they would otherwise, or are there for more extended periods of time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the best evidence is the fact that single parents, for instance, instead of being able to go out and earn a couple of hundred bucks, now have the option of taking up to $103 per child per month with them, plus dental, optical, medical, child care and transition benefits up to $150 a month. They can take that with them into the workforce. That clearly has a far more positive effect for single moms on welfare. It allows them to. . . . Also, with the $7.15 minimum wage, they can actually earn something, and that allows them to achieve independence.

It has had a dramatic effect, a huge effect -- the biggest caseload drop in 20 years -- which was far greater than we had anticipated. So on the one hand, we shifted to a percentage in terms of earning exemptions. Then we moved the resources to assist people to get training and also take a package of supports with them into the workforce so that, quite frankly, they can afford to work. They certainly couldn't with a $5-an-hour minimum wage and essentially no child care infrastructure and less accessibility to training, etc. I mean, you were trapped on welfare; it was pretty hard to get off. Now it's significantly easier, and the result is that there is a 22 percent drop in the number of kids on welfare. Welfare is where poverty is, and a job is how you get out of it. So that has a dramatic, significant and beneficial effect on child poverty and on individuals' lives -- especially kids -- in this province.

G. Hogg: What are the social costs of the earnings exemption policy? I ask that based again on the Treasury Board submission and the question that they asked the ministry to examine.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to report again on the social balance sheet. The social balance sheet has been a stunning success. The Ottawa-based Caledon Institute, which is a highly respected private sector research firm, has said that the changes we've made have resulted in a 19 percent decrease in the poverty gap -- i.e., between what you need and what you've got -- for families and a 25 percent narrowing of that gap for single-parent families in British Columbia. They're looking at British Columbia and saying that it is the star in Canada. This province, with the B.C. family bonus, the Healthy Kids program, child care, housing, training programs, a decent minimum wage, changes to employment standards that have brought a significant number of low-income women up to employment standards so that they can get a decent job at decent wages. . . . All of these things have had a dramatic and positive effect on kids and their parents, notably single parents, in this province.

So the social balance sheet in this province is a very positive one. In fact, we're leading the way. British Columbia is leading the discussions at the federal-provincial-territorial table for a national child benefit. As I said in my opening comments, medicare started in Saskatchewan with an NDP government and has become one of our finest social institutions. Socialized health care is great stuff. The child benefit began with an NDP government in British Columbia two years ago and is soon to become a national social program. It's going to be the hallmark of the 1990s. The federal government needs to increase its funding at least to the level that the provincial government has for it to really be effective. But we have a start, and it started right here in British Columbia. I'm really proud of that fact, and I know my colleagues and most British Columbians are.

So the balance sheet in British Columbia. . . . While acknowledging that there is still an awful lot left to do and we're moving in that direction, overall, with all of the things we've done -- whether it's minimum wage and employment standards or the family bonus and the Healthy Kids program or child care or housing or any of those things -- we are moving in the right direction in British Columbia faster than anybody else, with significant positive benefits to kids and their parents.

[11:00]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Do you want to repeat that? Do it again, Gordon.

G. Hogg: It was so eloquent. . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: It was, but you know. . . .

G. Hogg: . . .and so beautiful, and you missed. . . .

An Hon. Member: Actually, it was put together very well.

G. Hogg: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

G. Hogg: I appreciate the response that was given, which was a general response to the whole programmatic issues that we've been looking at. The questions I've asked that come out of this documentation are very specific questions, and they're very specific questions which Treasury Board and others have

[ Page 7132 ]

The response to one of the questions was that that study has not been completed as yet, and then in the last portion, it was a general response in terms of the overall impact. I appreciate that. My intent was to try and move into some of the specific impacts that specific portions of that social policy have and that social action have.

The statement in this Treasury Board document was that this data was going to be available in December of 1996. The response I was given to the question from the minister was a very general response -- rather than being able to home in and look at specific impacts of different portions of that policy. So I'm interpreting from that that we do not have the data to look at and be able to break out the elements of the social policy as it's been implemented and the overall impact that has on the bigger picture, which has been portrayed. Is that an accurate interpretation of the response to those specific questions?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is asking me to take apart. . . . What we've done is a huge fundamental shift, what's being called a quiet revolution in social policy. He's trying to say: "Well, take that little part out and tell me the effect." But you can't do that, because we have moved to a very comprehensive program. Instead of having a little circle of people out here who are on welfare and we then allow some people in society to blame them and say, "You're the bad guys," what we've done is pull us all into one circle of human beings and say: "Some people are falling below the line, and if you fall below that income line, you don't have enough income. Therefore we as a government are going to try to rectify that in a number of ways."

The barriers are things like. . . . If you can't get training, you can't get a job in this day and age. If you can't get child care. . . . As one who was a single mother almost all of my life, and I was there when the child care we had from '72 to '75. . . . We started to build an infrastructure then, and it, along with funding for safe houses and so many other supports, disappeared under the Socreds. I was there. You can't go to school, and you can't go to work, and you can't put your kid in the closet, so you've got to have child care. So you can't say: "Well, this little piece over here did that."

The fact is that we have brought in a package of supports. We have changed the system from a passive system that traps people over there in welfare. Then we had everybody and their dog blaming them for being there, when in fact they were there because that was their last resort. Now we have a system whereby we recognize that if you're low-income, you're low-income, and we provide supports. One of those supports is welfare.

We've taken kids off welfare and put them on an entitlement instead of on an asset-tested program. That's revolutionary. So children on welfare get an entitlement of about $103 per month. Low-income kids also have an entitlement to dental and optical care. We have dramatically expanded the number of families that receive reductions in their MSP payment. We built a child care infrastructure in British Columbia. We're the only province left in the country building social housing. We've raised the minimum wage so that along with the other supports that we've built, you can actually afford to work. You can't even support yourself -- and you certainly can't afford to support yourself and a kid or two -- on $5 an hour.

Employment standards. Women who work in the home, people who are agricultural workers, people who work in other people's homes. . . . We've brought a whole lot of people in under employment standards, which means they have a little better job security and some minimum levels of employment standards, so that makes them better off.

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

We have this huge package of supports, whether it's Business Works, whether it's $4 million for people in communities that have multiple barriers in their lives, whether it's increased drug and alcohol funding, whether it's a child care network with increased support funding for people to access it, whether it's the family benefit, Healthy Kids. . . . That whole package has made a tremendous difference in people's lives. It's making a tremendous difference in the amount of money that we need to spend to support people who have fallen through the cracks in British Columbia. Quite frankly, it's treating people far more respectfully than the old system, because it assumes that everybody has abilities, it assumes that everybody wants to work, and it assumes that if they have the opportunities, people will take advantage of them. That has been demonstrated overwhelmingly to be true in such a way that B.C. is leading the way particularly this country in quite a spectacular way, in the fight against child poverty. I am extremely proud of that.

I would just say to the member that I'm a little frustrated. I can't take apart this program and say that we built this housing over here, and that had this effect, and we changed the earnings exemption to a different form and added more supports over here. I can't take it apart like that. The overall effect has been incredibly positive, particularly for our kids. It's been positive for their parents; it's been positive for the overwhelming majority of people who need to access the system. We continue to move in that direction to see if we can help people in more and better ways.

G. Hogg: Let me say that I'm equally frustrated. To develop social policy in a specific way. . . . If you're unable to do that, I'd refer you to the Treasury Board document that tells you exactly how to break it down into specific pieces. If we are to develop consistent, positive social policy, we have to know the impact of each element of that social policy in order for us to put together the big package that you're referring to. If we're referring to a large package and how wonderfully that's providing us with services, we have to know why it's doing that, and we have to know what the elements of that are. I'm very frustrated that we don't have the elements contained within that to be able to say: "This is why the earnings exemption policy is working. This is why this element of it is working; and this is why this is not working." If we don't know that, we won't know what to take out, what to put in or how to change our social policy so that we can most effectively respond to the goals we have.

Again I refer to the status report on the earnings exemption policy and the very specific questions that are asked within that. It's not just me asking these questions; it's Treasury Board saying to the ministry: "What are the answers to these questions?" They say: "We will have those, that data available December '96." I had hoped that we would have those specific responses.

Again, I appreciate the general response and the impact that it's generally having, but we all know that for policy to be

[ Page 7133 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sitting to my right is one of the experts on this kind of social policy. Sharon has worked with our government. I was part of the committee that made the changes to the system that we are evolving and will continue to evolve and will always evolve. You can't just sort of say, "Aha, we've found the solution"; you have to continue to evolve the system. You have to continue to change the system in response to an ever-changing world and in response to an ever-changing caseload mix, because as people move off the system you have a different mix of people and issues to deal with.

Treasury Board has asked a bunch of specific questions. The answer to my hon. colleague across the way is that while those are great questions for Treasury Board to ask, Treasury Board are not experts on social policy. The experts on social policy. . . . As I say, one of the best is sitting right here beside me. The answer to the question that we're going back to Treasury Board to say is that you cannot isolate one little piece of social policy from another. It doesn't work that way.

What we can do is. . . . We have concrete evidence that 22 percent fewer kids are on welfare. That's pretty concrete. We've got lots of anecdotes from people who have used this new model to move off of welfare into training, into a job or into basic upgrading and then into advanced education to get a PhD or whatever, or into our You BET program to learn how to run their own business. I can provide the member with all sorts of anecdotal evidence of what it has done to people's lives, which is pretty concrete. I can also provide and have been providing very clear evidence -- documented, finite, hard, concrete -- that the caseload is dropping dramatically, especially where we've done things like change the earnings exemption into the B.C. family bonus, which has meant a 22 percent reduction in the caseload of kids -- that's remarkable -- a 25 percent reduction in poverty amongst single parents and their kids, and a 19 percent reduction in the gap for two-parent families and their kids, to the point where the rest of the country is saying: "Ah, B.C. is doing this."

Talk to your federal Liberal counterparts, and they will tell you that B.C. is leading the way in this country, and we're working with them to extend that benefit across the country. That's concrete evidence. We have really spectacular success in British Columbia, but you can't take social policy apart like Tinkertoys and say: "Well, this hotel that we purchased, or this little piece here, did this." It doesn't work that way. It's a composite whole that moves people from welfare to work in a way that we've never seen before in British Columbia.

G. Hogg: I continue to have my frustration with respect to this. We all know that to develop adequate and appropriate social policy, we have to know the impact that it has. You've highlighted some of the issues that I consider to be part of that. We don't know what changes are going to happen in style; we have to be able to prepare for those and deal with them. We have to be able to analyze circumstances and situations as they exist in our society, and we have to implement social policy to respond to those. Unless we're able to look at the impact of that social policy, we're not able to decide what we're implementing, why we're implementing or what impact it has.

Treasury Board has said that you can evaluate those; in fact, the Ministry of Human Resources has been quoted as saying they're doing studies in these areas. They very specifically respond to the studies that they are doing. So the minister before you must have, in fact, believed that these studies could be done, that we could develop social policy and that we could look at the impact it's having. I'm sure that if your deputy minister is an expert in social policy, she too will know that you can look at the elements of a social policy and know the impact that it's having -- or the desired impact -- and be able to evaluate that.

I'm aghast to believe that we introduce social policy and say: "I don't know what's happening. I don't know why it's working. Perhaps it's working because the moon is in a different cycle or we're in the age of Aquarius. I don't know." We must have some specific data to tell us why it's working. We're making decisions based on information and studies, and we have to know what the elements of that are. That's where I thought we were heading with Treasury Board; I'm sure that's what the Treasury Board thought. I'm sure that's why they asked the questions. I'm sure that's why the ministry before us said: "Yes, we can do those studies, and we can respond to those."

I need to be assured that when we're developing social policy, we're developing it with the elements and we're not just saying we're doing this because "Isn't it wonderful, and look how these great changes are occurring," but we know what the elements of that are. We know that we're making this minor change here and changing this piece of social policy because we expect this to happen. And then we're going to evaluate it, and we'll know whether or not it happened.

To say you can't take those pieces out and look at them. . . . I find it amazing or ludicrous that we can't look at the elements of social policy. Every other jurisdiction in the world is able to look at the elements of social policy and make judgments and evaluate it. Surely we must be able to do the same. If we can't, then we'd better bring in some people to help us in doing that, so we can make policy that is based on information, based on data and based on a rationale that we can put forward and explain to our public.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have to say I find it amazing that with the most spectacular success in this country, the members opposite are demanding that we do something different, when in fact, what we are doing is achieving the most spectacular success we've seen in this province or in this country.

[11:15]

We are on the leading edge, and the members opposite don't seem to have quite grasped that yet. We are on the leading edge here. That means we are creating new ways of doing things on the very best information. We use all the

[ Page 7134 ]

My deputy supervised the report author's dissertation. The report that the member was quoting as an expert report yesterday. . . . My deputy supervised that individual's work and examined it and in fact would be quite happy to give you a briefing on economic modelling.

A Voice: Econometric.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Econometric -- sorry. I obviously know nothing about it. I don't pretend to know anything about it; I just know that I have one of the best experts right here. She'd be happy to give you a briefing if you want to look at that. But I can assure you that you just can't take social policies apart into little bits like that and wave one chunk and say that this is what it does. People don't come apart like Tinkertoys, and neither do the policies that deal with this kind of issue in their lives.

Before I get cut off, I would just like to say that if the member wants these charts. . . . They're dramatic. It's concrete, hard evidence of the outcomes of what we're doing. We will continue to have this kind of data, and you're welcome to it.

G. Hogg: I don't think the members here are demanding something dramatically different, as you suggested. I would be delighted to see the charts.

What I am interested in is that we do develop social policy and the specific elements of social policy with regard to empirical data. You made reference to the study again. Within the study they make reference to the development of social policy. They talk about social policy and the elements of social policy being based on the directions that we're going and the things that we're doing. I'm simply saying that while you've outlined the broad social policy and the dramatic impact that it's having. . . . I appreciate what you're telling me there, and I appreciate the statistics and numbers. I simply need assurance. . . . I guess I don't need assurance; I'll survive somehow.

An Hon. Member: It'll be tough.

G. Hogg: It'll be real tough to get through this. I really believe that you do make decisions and small changes in terms of that social policy based on empirical data. You evaluate the impact that it has on this big picture that you've talked about. Your big picture is a number of small pieces of social policy that you put together to try and achieve that end. Treasury Board has asked you to look at some of those pieces within that framework and the impact they have. I'm aghast that you're telling me that we don't look at those elements; we don't know what the impact of those elements is. That would mean that if we introduce a piece of social policy or a change, we're just throwing it out to the wind and don't know what is happening; but if the big picture changes, somehow it must be wonderful. I know that can't be the case. Not at this time, in this age, in this world can we be making decisions like that. We must be making decisions based on some belief that it's going to have some positive impact. We must follow that up and be assured that it is having some impact. We can look at social policy and the pieces and the impact that has. I believe that the ministry must be doing that, and I'm surprised that the minister is saying that we can't look at policy in that context. When we debate and argue pieces of policy, we must know what we're saying and why we believe it's going to work. The ministry does that, so it has to be rolled in there, and we have to be able to see the impact it has upon that bigger picture.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've said very clearly that we look at all the data that's available to us. We look at the data that we generate in this ministry. We look at data that's generated by other ministries or other organizations. Whatever data that's useful to the process is looked at. We measure in benefit-months, and that information is public. That's the best way of measuring success.

But you know, we're dealing with human beings here, and we can't say that because in community X we put a little bit of money in, part of the $4 million program that helps fill the gaps in communities. . . . We can't say that because we funded this organization, this happened. We can't say that X more money for child care made these people do this, this and this. We can say, because we've shifted from the old system, which was not based on good data or good measuring, to this new system, which clearly is based on good policies, good data and good measuring, that we continue to move forward in our progress to help people move off assistance. There are dramatic effects.

The way we're measuring is working, because we have the most stunning success in the country. You can't sit there and look at the most stunning outcome in the country and say: "You guys are screwing up the way you measure." Obviously, we're doing something right. We monitor in a whole bunch of ways, but you can't take one part out and say that because we put in a $4 million program around the province to provide communities with a means to address issues where people are falling through the cracks, where people have multiple barriers to deal with before getting on with their lives. . . . We can't say that because we put X amount of money into Ladysmith, magic has happened over there. You can't do that.

But we can say, because we changed from the old system -- where we simply handed people a cheque and then drew a circle around them, allowing the rest of the people to point at them and blame them for the situation they found themselves in -- to one which is supportive in a variety of ways, where people can reach out and find different tools, whether its drug and alcohol counselling, child care, social housing, training at a community college, training through something like the community-based trainers, the Destinations program. . . . There's a whole range of supports out there that people can access according to their individual needs. Probably every person accesses, in some variance, different resources and has different reasons for doing so.

You can't take it apart in Tinkertoys. All you can do is measure, in the best way that the social policy experts and economists know how, and that's precisely what we're doing. We are doing monitoring. I have hard numbers that I have been giving the member. I have graphs that show some stunning success. We have third parties, like the Caledon Institute, that are also looking at what's happening and providing analysis of that success. If the members opposite want to provide advice to my deputy and her staff about how she

[ Page 7135 ]

I do have these caseload declines here. It's dramatic. We are successful by every measure. We'll continue to monitor, and we'll continue to change. I welcome any input that the members opposite want to provide to us.

G. Hogg: Maybe I'm not asking my question in the right fashion, because we don't seem to have been able to connect on what this issue is. For instance, if today you did not have a Healthy Kids program and you were going to introduce a Healthy Kids program, surely you would say: "We think that the introduction of this Healthy Kids program is going to have this impact on our overall social policy." Surely you would have to provide some rationale to your staff, to the people of this province, for saying: "We want to introduce a Healthy Kids program, and this is what we think will happen if we do that. We think this is the impact." Surely you don't say: "Well, we're going to sit back and see, and show these figures of how numbers have dropped across the province."

My issue is not what you're doing or where you have it; it's how you develop social policy. There clearly is, in this day and age, an ability to look at social policy, an ability to look at the impact it's going to have -- to evaluate that and say: "Yes, it's working; no, it's not working." You develop a Healthy Kids program, and you say: "This is the impact we think it's going to have. We think that families with dependent children will leave welfare more quickly than they did before we introduced the Healthy Kids program. We think that low-income working families will utilitize those services and will take advantage of them. We think that there will be an impact on vision and dental care indicators of children in low-income families." Those are the things you say. So you say: "That's why we're introducing the Healthy Kids program, and now we're going to follow up on those three indicators. We're going to look at them and see whether or not they worked."

That's all I'm talking about when you put together social policy. I don't want to hear her say: "Wow, look at all the wonderful things that are happening." I just want to be assured that when we do develop social policy, we have some sense of why we're doing it and where we're going with it. That's what Treasury Board wants as well.

That's why I was frustrated when I asked those specific questions and kept getting those broad responses, saying: "Well, how can you question anything we're doing? Look how wonderful these numbers are." If those numbers are so wonderful, we darn well better know why they're wonderful, what's happening with them and why we're reducing. If we don't, we don't know what we're doing, and we don't know why it's working. In this day and age, we have to know what we're doing, know why it's working and be able to evaluate it. If we're going to develop policy, we have to have that framework in place. I've been frustrated each time I've tried to ask that specific question at being told: "How can you be asking any questions? Look, the numbers. . . . People are dropping off, the rates. . . ." That's not what I'm asking.

There has to be a rationale; there has to be a practice, a policy. When you put that in place, you do it for reasons, and we evaluate it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have introduced the Healthy Kids program. You would not have introduced that unless you had some outcomes you thought were going to come from that. You can evaluate that; you can look at it and say that this is what's happening. You can put all those pieces together and then start talking about this big picture you talk about. That's all I need. I want to be assured that that is happening.

Treasury Board wants to know that that is happening. They don't want to be told: "Well, why would you ask that question about social policy? How can you do that? Look at these numbers." I appreciate that the numbers are there, but I also want to appreciate that the process by which we develop the policy to get to those numbers is a statistically validated, empirically looked at and reviewed practice and policy. I'm sure that if your deputy has had that type of experience, she will assure you that we can do those types of things. We can look at the elements; we can anticipate what they're going to be. That's how we argue the presentation of social policy. We say that we believe this is going to have this impact. Then after, you say that we believe it is having that impact, and these are the reasons why. It's that simple element that I was trying to get at -- which I believe Treasury Board is trying to get at on a number of these things. They're not looking at the big, giant picture and saying: "How are these pieces working?" They're just saying: "You introduced this. . . ."

Interjections.

G. Hogg: Ultimately they do, when you roll it all together. They start to ask that. But if we take the Healthy Kids program. . . . Am I making any more sense to you? Am I getting any closer to the issue?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is asking me the questions that Treasury Board asked in the document he has before him. My explanation back to the member was that my deputy in the ministry has gone back to Treasury Board and said that of course we can measure our success, but we can't measure it in the way you're asking. That's not the way you measure outcomes in social policy; it doesn't work that way. We've agreed upon a different measurement. Yes, it is measured differently from that. We measure it in benefit months; we measure it in trends; we measure it in all sorts of ways. We have hard data to do that, and we'll certainly provide you with whatever you want there.

The fundamental assumption the member is making -- that is, that the questions asked by Treasury Board are the right questions -- is incorrect. We've worked with Treasury Board to change the questions to fit the reality of social policy. We are measuring it, but we're measuring it in benefit months, and we're measuring it in all the appropriate ways for social policy. We'd be happy to provide both more of an in-depth briefing on exactly how that's done plus any data that we have available to you. We'd be happy to do that.

[11:30]

Starting with the analysis and the commonly accepted truths, if you want to call them that, and those who have done the detailed work on these issues, we move from there into barriers and solutions that have been identified and that have been demonstrated to be effective. We use those barriers that have been identified and the solutions, programs or whatever

[ Page 7136 ]

On the one hand, we have come up with a measurement which we've agreed with Treasury Board is the right one. It's not the one the member is putting forward. We'd be happy to brief him on how that's done, because the assumptions he's got are incorrect. On the other hand, the question is: how do we move forward? We use the best information available to us on both what causes poverty and what works to get people out of poverty. We've used a number of pilots, and we'll continue to test them to see how they work. We use best practices from around the world, and we use the best understanding of poverty, its causes and its effective solutions, which are available to us from the experts around the world. That approach is working in British Columbia, and we have an effective agreed-upon means with Treasury Board on measuring that success, which we'll be happy to share.

G. Hogg: It was not my assumption that the questions Treasury Board were asking were the right questions. It was my belief, based on what you told me earlier, that you couldn't look at the impact that social policy was having. What I'm hearing you say now is that you are looking at that in terms of doing. . . . Well, one of you is nodding yes and one is nodding no, so I don't know.

Hon. J. Pullinger: She's more agreeable than I am.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Hogg: She's more agreeable? Well, a moment ago she was the expert. I'm going with the expert this time. So I'll agree with the expert rather than the minister on this matter. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

G. Hogg: Sorry, Madam Chair.

I'm feeling more comforted by the nodding that there is the development of social policy through a process which does analyze what takes place and does try to look at the impact that each change in policy is going to have on the big picture, which the minister made reference to. So I think we perhaps connected on that and have a better understanding of where we are with that.

Certainly if there has been a change with respect to the evaluative framework which is being put in place, and if it is different than that Treasury Board originally sent to the minister, I would very much like to see the new evaluative framework which has been put into place and the reports which are coming from that. Are those currently available for us to review and to look at?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sure. We'll be happy to brief the member, as I said earlier. I think. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to brief the member on those issues, as I said earlier.

I think the misunderstanding here is that the member was asking if we could determine the effect of one piece of social policy, when in fact there are several changes that take place at the same time. They're part of a package of changes that need to take place at the same time. So we can't break out one little piece out of that package and say that this is what happened. But when we introduce this package, which is a set of changes and shifts that have been determined to work in the best research we have, we can't say that this part of it did this and this part of it did that. It's a package, and we made a shift from a flat-rate earnings exemption to a percentage earnings exemption for a limited time, and out the other end we did some other things. We did them all together, as we can't break out the effect of one. That's the point. But we do measure social policy. We do have ways of monitoring what we're doing and describing that in concrete terms, and we'll certainly brief you on that.

V. Anderson: It's almost a year ago that I raised the question with the then minister about convention refugees and their ability to receive Human Resources support the same as other people -- apart from hardship benefits. I was pleased that the minister did take it under advisement, and I know he met with the groups a number of times. But as far as I know, there's been no resolution to that question.

Convention refugees are persons who come here without the necessary documentation that other people are required to have: birth certificates or whatever it may be. So these people are still languishing out there with unfortunate need. There are families and children and mothers involved. I'm wondering if the minister could report to us where that study is at and if a resolution has been made or is in the process of being made.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have met with the individuals who serve as advocates for that constituency, and I am grateful to them for serving as advocates in that community. I recognize the problem. I've had discussions with the advocacy groups, and the resolution is in process. I hope it will pop out the end very quickly.

V. Anderson: We'll look forward to that. Thank you.

Another problem that has been there since '95, if not before -- and is still unresolved, because we get it regularly in our constituency office -- is the confusion that comes up between what used to be unemployment insurance payments and what is now employment insurance payments as against Human Resources. People get caught in the gap in between. One is paid behind, and one is paid before. All the explanations have never helped people to be able to realize that when they receive Human Resources payments, which are an advance until they receive the other payments, they are still going to be in difficulty. The amount of repayment is going to deprive them of the ability to survive for a number of months. Is there any improvement on that arrangement in process?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member has quite correctly identified another problem that I've actually been aware of for some time. The federal government is slow in its payments, and we wish they'd hurry up with their payments. That would resolve the problem. But we have assignment agreements with clients for two reasons. One is, as I've mentioned a couple of times, part of our move to try to prevent problems up front with individuals, so that they don't get into trouble, so that we don't have a problem and so it isn't more difficult to pay it back.

We have assignment agreements up front so that when the back payment comes, then they pay back the money owing to the province. That also ensures the integrity of the program and that taxpayers are not paying somebody twice. We have a way of resolving the issue that's happening, but it would be nice if we could get the federal government to stop. . . . To stop off-loading would be nice too.

[ Page 7137 ]

V. Anderson: We'll follow that up as cases arise where people are still having problems.

The other one that many in the community have asked about is the payment of the cheques, which are paid the fourth Wednesday of each month, and whether they might be paid two days before the end of each month instead, so they don't have this long waiting period. With computerization nowadays, most companies are able to pay at that point, so they've raised the question of whether that system. . . . You would get away from welfare Wednesday. There's a consistent request that this change be made. Is it possible that that could be coming in the near future? Is the minister studying that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Once again -- actually, for the third time in a row -- I absolutely agree with the member. This is getting frightening. I should say that we have technology that I think was delivered on the ark. We can't do anything like format a form or change a date. Truly, it's terrible. The resolution to that system is in progress. We're working with IBM, as I'm sure the member is aware, and we're looking at how to build the system better. Absolutely, getting away from welfare Wednesday is one of my high goals.

I also want to move to electronic funds transfer and some pretty advanced ways of using that in order to get away from a lot of problems. I think that the cheque-cashing agencies are a problem, for instance. I'd like to see a better system that is more responsive and sensitive to people, and we're moving in that direction. We do have to have a new system. The member's absolutely right that most places have computer technology that can do that. We don't, but hopefully we will soon.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment. I'm sure others will like to follow up on that and give you input into that as well.

The other question, talking about input into these issues: is the advisory council still functioning? If so, who are the members of it? Does it meet regularly, as it used to meet monthly? Are minutes available? I was getting minutes of those at one time. Could the minister advise what the situation is at the moment?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The advisory council is not functioning.

V. Anderson: Could the minister say why it's not functioning and whether it will be functioning in the future?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I haven't made any decision to put the advisory council back in place. At this time I'm consulting with a variety of groups around the province. If there's a need, I'll change it, but right now I don't see a need.

G. Hogg: I have a number of questions that arise out of the Treasury Board document. If I were to put those in writing and specify them as best I can, could she commit to have a response to those in a fairly timely manner -- 30 days or something to that effect -- rather than pursue a number of specifics within this at this point?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sure, I appreciate that approach. Clearly we just had a wrangle over some esoteric stuff that probably neither one of us understands, so that's a better approach. We'll get back to you as soon as we can -- I'm sure within the 30 days.

G. Hogg: Thank you for that, Madam Minister.

I want to make reference to a couple of the comments you made yesterday. Hopefully, we can wrap this up soon. You made reference to finding 9,000 jobs in this coming year, in an attempt to move people off of B.C. Benefits. Two years ago, this province did create somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000, and they said that they were going to do that. Last year they also said they were going to create something in the neighbourhood of 40,000, and in fact, there was a reduction in jobs that were found in this province. You made reference to the 59 percent employment rate, which is in fact a ten-year low for this province.

You made reference to looking at a more active model for moving people to work. Certainly if we look at the Wisconsin model, where they've had an over 50 percent reduction in rates. . . . In B.C. we're talking of a 10 percent to 15 percent reduction in caseload, a caseload which has in fact doubled since 1991. Our numbers kind of pale to the extreme when compared to some other more aggressive programs we've looked at.

So as we move to a more active model of putting people to work, perhaps it's the economy which presents some issues and concerns to us. I'm sure that the ministry, in order to hit the targets that you have within the context of this economy, will be challenged by the economy. I think that some of the targets may in fact be optimistic given the economy, given this time and given the changes that we've seen in the movement and our inability to meet the targets last year. That aside, I do wish the ministry all the best in its attempt to meet those targets. I thank you and your staff for giving us the opportunity to review a number of those issues at this time.

[11:45]

I welcome feedback anytime from the member opposite, as the critic. Certainly, if there are issues that arise with the member and his colleagues, we'd be happy to help them sort them out. If throughout the year there is a need for information briefings, we'd be more than happy to provide that as well. I thank all the members opposite for their questions.

Vote 50 approved.

On vote 51: ministry operations, $1,562,853,000 -- approved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

[ Page 7138 ]

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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