[ Page 8865 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is the Hearn family: Grant, Karen and their ten-year-old daughter Katie. Katie -- and her whole family, in fact -- worked on my campaign in 1996. They have worked on municipal and federal campaigns since then, and I have to say that Katie was the hardest-working eight-year-old that I've ever seen on the campaign. I ask all members to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: 'Tis the season for visitors from the community, particularly students from our elementary schools. Touring the precincts today are 26 grade 7 students from Whonnock Elementary School in my constituency, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Tyler. Whonnock is just down the street from where I live. It's the school my children went to, and it's a very fine school. It is one of the schools that's going to be replaced this year with a brand-new building. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Visiting us today in the galleries are Mr. Tony Toth, the president of the B.C. Road Builders Association; Mr. Jim Poole, the chair of the maintenance sector of the Road Builders; and Mr. Joe Wrobel, the vice-chair of the maintenance sector. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: Today we have 20 students visiting us from Lakeview Elementary School in my riding of Cariboo North. They are accompanied by ten adults and their teacher, Mrs. Adams. I ask that the House make them welcome.

C. Hansen: In the gallery is Philip Hochstein, who is representing the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, and Mr. Peter Schultze, who is with the Victoria Home Builders Association. I ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Calendino: I have some guests who have just arrived and are sitting in the gallery. One of them is a person who really did a lot of work to help me get elected in '96, my brother-in-law Mario Pitacco. With him are his two sisters, Maria and Lidia Pitacco, who just arrived from Italy last week. They are visiting this beautiful province of ours for the third time. I have to say something in Italian, because the ladies do not speak English: Vorrei chiedere alla Camera di salutare e di dare il benvenuto a mio cognato Mario Pitacco e alle sue sorelle Maria e Lidia Pitacco, appena arrivate da Trieste -- e visto che l'Italia ha vinto 3 a 0. Viva l'Italia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

IRON WORKERS MEMORIAL BRIDGE ANNIVERSARY

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time now.

[2:15]

YEAS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Sihota	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen
	Weisgerber

NAYS -- 31
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Abbott	Reid
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Whittred	Jarvis	Anderson
Penner	J. Wilson	McKinnon
Krueger	Masi	Dalton
Barisoff	van Dongen	Symons
Thorpe	Hansen	Stephens
Coleman	Hawkins	Nebbeling
	Weisbeck

Hon. D. Lovick: This legislation recognizes the unique characteristics of construction industry labour relations. It addresses longstanding concerns respecting labour relations and collective bargaining structures within the construction industry and brings our legislative treatment of this industry in line with that existing in other Canadian jurisdictions. Since the release of the reports of the two review panels, there has indeed been a great deal of discussion about what Labour

[ Page 8866 ]

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. minister. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Your time will be added later. But I saw some props on the other side, which are not appropriate in this chamber.

Minister, you may proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: First, I want to advise the House that having listened to the concerns of the labour and business communities, we will not be proceeding with the changes to the code which were recommended by the section 3 panel. What we are doing today is introducing a new part 4.1 into the code -- "Construction Industry Labour Relations." These amendments reflect the unanimous recommendations of the construction industry review panel.

This bill recognizes, within labour relations law, the unique character and nature of the construction industry. Indeed, as the construction panel stated in its report, there has been a recognition for at least the past 12 years that some specialized legislative treatment for construction was both necessary and desirable. The panel's recommendations argue a more rational bargaining structure for this part of the unionized construction industry. I would note that the panel did not recommend sectoral bargaining for the construction industry and that we are not introducing it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Debate time. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. D. Lovick: The government believes that these proposals are good for both workers and employers in the unionized component of the industry and for the industry overall. They will encourage greater efficiency and stability within this part of the industry and, by so doing, will also encourage the industry to make investments in training and development of the skilled resources needed for the future.

I would move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Sihota	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen
	Weisgerber

NAYS -- 31
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Abbott	Reid
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Whittred	Jarvis	Anderson
Penner	J. Wilson	McKinnon
Krueger	Masi	Dalton
Barisoff	van Dongen	Symons
Thorpe	Hansen	Stephens
Coleman	Hawkins	Nebbeling
	Weisbeck

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF LABOUR BILL
ON B.C. ECONOMY

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, we stand in this House every day, and we hear the opposition trumpet Alberta day after day after day. Yet they stand up and vote against a bill that they haven't seen. When they have seen it and when they do read it, they will see that we are introducing changes that are already in place in Alberta. Did Alberta get it right? Every day they trumpet Alberta. Well, the changes that are being put in place are exactly those that are happening in Alberta.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: In Alberta they have workplace democracy. They have a secret ballot. They have double-breasting. We have seen this bill, and it strips away workers' rights in the province of British Columbia.

Let me try the Minister of Forests. This report points out that there are 14 separate major projects in the province of Alberta that are going ahead in the forest sector -- a $150 million strand board plant, a new fibreboard plant, two $900 million paper mills. Now, this minister has already cost forest workers over 12,000 jobs. Doesn't he understand that without investment, there are no jobs in British Columbia? How can he support the introduction of a bill that he knows will kill investment and kill jobs in the forest sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It seems to me that the same labour laws will affect construction in the forest industry here as they will in Alberta. Exactly the same conditions will prevail. We expect to see hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in

[ Page 8867 ]

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, let me try the Minister of Labour. In 1997, 107 companies fled the province of British Columbia and this government's policies -- 107 companies. Our economy is on life support, and you have just pulled the plug. How many more companies have to flee this province and how many more thousands of jobs in British Columbia do we have to see disappear before you figure out what the hell you've done to B.C.'s economy?

The Speaker: Hon. member, entirely unparliamentary language is being heard in the chamber today. I request that it be withdrawn.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sorry if this upsets you. I am extremely angry about the introduction of this bill.

The Speaker: I appreciate. . . . It's not upsetting; it's the rules of the House, hon. member.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: . . .if it upsets you.

The Speaker: The rules of the House are very clear about unparliamentary language, and I accept your withdrawal.

I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: I expect the reasoned tone and the careful analysis we've heard from the opposition this morning. . . . I'm sure we all appreciate that.

The basic contention. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The basic argument embedded in the member's question, of course, is that perceived changes in the Labour Code had something to do with companies leaving this province. I would suggest. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, proceed.

[2:30]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there will be plenty of time to debate this bill. We are in question period at this point.

Minister of Labour, proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am quite looking forward to the debate, so that we can actually put those arguments out on the table and demonstrate that there is indeed nothing in this bill which will have a negative impact on jobs and investment in this province.

C. Hansen: I was astounded by what the minister just said, because it demonstrates how totally out of touch he and his colleagues are with the B.C. economy today.

The Minister of Finance put out a press release on June 3 on the subject of foreign asset reporting. I will quote her words in that press release: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures that could damage the investment climate."

Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The advice that he got, if he reads his mail, from the business community in British Columbia is that the worst thing he could do to the economy today is bring in his changes to the Labour Code. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour why he delivered this slap in the face to British Columbia's job creators.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. The minister's been asked a question.

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems to me, hon. Speaker, that the worst thing anybody could do to jeopardize the economic health of his province would be to continually do what they do and to say that the sky is falling. That's what does more to harm investment and confidence in this economy than anything else.

I would also point out -- I am happy to point out -- that in my meetings with the Phil Hochsteins and the Jerry Lamperts and the Suromitra Sanatanis of the world, they have all at least been reasonable. They have not made silly overstatements such as the kind we're witnessing here today.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: What the business community has been doing is begging this government to do something to restore the health of this economy. I think that you're not going to find the same kind of civility when they realize that you weren't listening.

There was a Marktrend survey that came out last week and that shows that only 19 percent of British Columbians think the NDP should bring in these kinds of labour changes. Why is the Minister of Labour ignoring the wishes of 81 percent of British Columbians and going ahead with changes to the Labour Code that are going to destroy our economy even further?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I've never been a believer in psychic phenomena, but obviously the members opposite have. . . . They seem to know, and they seem to have known in advance, precisely what was going to happen. How did they know that? The bill was introduced today. It's amazing that a poll was conducted and that they knew of these awful, devastating impacts and what they were going to be when nobody had seen the legislation. Curious, isn't it?

I would also like to say, then, for the benefit of the members opposite, that this government has done a rather

[ Page 8868 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .because we did consult, we did listen, and we did change our ways in order to make the legislation more palatable and workable.

G. Farrell-Collins: We've heard what the Minister of Labour has to say; now let's hear what the investors have to say. The Wall Street Journal, the world's most influential investor newspaper, ran a scathing story about B.C.'s economy and how B.C.'s socialist government was driving our economy into the ground and driving jobs out of the province. It said: "Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws. . .its actions are [merely] window dressing." When will the Minister of Labour finally realize the long-term damage he and his government are doing to the province and to the people of British Columbia? They don't need NDP ideology; they need jobs.

Hon. D. Lovick: In all candour, I have to confess that I don't know what the member means by restrictive labour laws. Is he talking. . . ?

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Is he talking. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I really struggle. I thought that all of us in this chamber at least abided by the basic rules of this chamber. But alas, the true democrats over there, the believers in civil liberties, believe it's their right to shout somebody down. That's too bad. It's a sad commentary, but that's who they are.

I wonder if the laws they're talking about are perhaps the laws about minimum wage. Could that be one? I think they oppose minimum wage. I wonder if they are talking about basic employment standards. I wonder if they're talking about occupational health and safety. I wonder whether in fact they're talking about employment which says that workers have no rights -- because that's what I believe they stand for.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister doesn't get is that it's not what I mean by restrictive labour laws; it's what the thousands of investors who are leaving British Columbia or who are not coming here in the first place mean.

Let's look at one of those companies, one of those B.C.-based businesses that I know the Minister of Finance is familiar with. The Hongkong Bank of Canada recently issued its quarterly economic investment report. It says: "Government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high taxes and seemingly inept management of the province, have led to investors shutting off the flow of new funds." How does the Minister of Labour intend to stem the flood of jobs, businesses and investors leaving British Columbia, with more NDP ideology instead of a realistic plan to create jobs in this province?

Hon. D. Lovick: One has no wish to be confrontational, but what arrant, patent, blatant nonsense! What hypocrisy! These selfsame people stood in this House and attacked the Minister of Finance for negotiating a deal to keep the Hongkong Bank headquarters in this province. They have the gall, the temerity, to talk like that. As I listen to members opposite and watch the behaviour they carry out on first reading, I'm reminded of a great character in a movie. He said: "Well, you know, I don't know what it is there, but I'm agin' it." That's who they are.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, lest there be any doubt in the minister's mind, what we're against is a government that has driven small business across British Columbia to its knees. And those that have been able have tried to escape by crawling to the borders of Alberta and Washington State. Those that can't escape are waiting while this minister and this government try to suck the last breath of economic life out of them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Member, put your question, please.

M. de Jong: I'll tell you who doesn't think its funny, unlike those members on the government side: the businesses and the families who are going to lose their jobs because this government is interested in nothing more than pursuing a narrow, political, ideological, neo-socialist agenda.

My question to the minister is: how many more jobs have to be exported to Alberta? How much more damage does this government have to inflict on British Columbians before he hears their pleas? Enough is enough from this NDP.

Hon. D. Lovick: As I hear the rather quiet and reserved tone of the member opposite, I'm reminded of the old saying: "No shirt too young to stuff."

This is a government that has made every effort to reduce taxes, to. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Members, come to order while the minister finishes his answer.

Hon. D. Lovick: I see that time has elapsed, so I'll be very brief.

I just remind members that this is a government that has made a very sincere, honest and heartfelt effort to work with business. We have done something about red tape. We have changed the tax regime. We changed the corporate capital tax. We've relaxed employment standards without jeopardizing workers' safety, in order to help business be more competitive in this province. If there is an ideological war going on in this chamber, I suggest that the sheik over there is leading the jihad.

Orders of the Day

[ Page 8869 ]

[2:45]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

C. Clark: Today I want to start examining some of the issues in the foster care system of the ministry. In particular, I want to start with a case that the minister will be aware of. It was on the news last night. I know that the minister has been aware of it for a month or so, as have I. The woman's name is Delphine Charmley. The reason I raise this individual case is that I think it's one of hundreds of cases in which people are in similar situations around the province. I hope that by discussing this, if we can come to some understanding of how the ministry intends to resolve the problem, perhaps all of those other foster families out there who are really getting squeezed as a result of this government's policy on foster children and foster care will be able to find some relief.

I'll give you some detail about this woman's case. She's a level 2 foster parent. She's an adoptive parent of three special needs boys, who were originally foster children of hers. The reason she chose to adopt them is because as special needs children, there wasn't necessarily a big demand for adoptive parents for them, especially given the ages they were at. As foster parents, she and her husband grew to love these kids. They became a part of their family, and they decided that they wanted to give these children a long-term permanent home and a family that they would know for the rest of their lives.

When they adopted the children, the ministry told them that they would eligible for the special funding for adoptive parents of special needs children, to assist with the additional cost that parents have to incur for special needs children. That's one of the programs that the ministry has had in place for a long time to help adoptive parents. What happened in this case is that they chose to continue being foster parents. We need to remember that under the law, adoptive parents become parents of those children, but foster parents are caring for children that are still in the care of the government -- that are still technically parented by the government. Although they live in the foster parents' home, the government is still ultimately responsible for those children. The government, as the minister knows, pays those parents a fee for taking care of those foster children. That money is intended to pay for all the costs that those parents incur in caring for those foster children. It's not income for the parents, particularly; most of it is there so that they can care for those children.

What's happened in this case -- and this is just one of a whole raft of cases out there, according to foster parents' associations -- is that the ministry, when it means-tests for the money for the special needs children, is demanding that this woman include in her income the payments she's getting for her foster children -- money that isn't income, money that the federal Income Tax Act doesn't consider to be income and money that I understand the Ministry for Children and Families hasn't traditionally considered to be basic income. I understand that the conflict arises because the Ministry of Human Resources does consider it to be income.

In this case, this family is faced with a choice: foster these children and incur enormous expense that they can't afford, so all of their children -- their adoptive special needs children and the foster children -- suffer as a result of the financial constraints that are put on the family, or give up the foster children that they've come to love, that they care for and for whom they're the only family they've known. We're talking here about people who are doing a job that the government says it wants more people to do, people who are doing a job that there aren't enough people out there to do. Goodness knows, if you have people who are, first, prepared to do it and second, doing a really good job of it -- who are giving the children the love and support they need in their care -- those are the kinds of people we should be keeping in the system. We should be giving them some incentive to stay, and we should be giving them some incentive to care for children that are in the government's care.

The government makes a rotten parent. There is no question about that. If we as a community and as a society can find people who are prepared to act as parents on behalf of the government and who are willing to do a good job of it, then we shouldn't be driving them out of the system. We shouldn't be trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do their jobs, because they are already putting so much of themselves into those jobs and into making sure that those children are safe, cared for and loved in their homes. Goodness knows, they're doing a better job than the government could do any day.

I'll ask the minister what she's doing to address the Charmleys' case in particular. But I'd ask her, too, when she gives us that answer, to tell us how her ministry is resolving this conflict with the Ministry of Human Resources to ensure that foster parents don't have the income which is paid to them to care for those foster children included in their basic income when she's means-testing for the other supplementary support cheques that come from the government.

Hon. L. Boone: I won't be addressing that particular case, but the case you talk about is one that is similar to others out there. The issue is that this particular assistance that is given to parents when they adopt children is income base-tested. The information you have is almost correct. The issue is that the cost for the care of those children is actually deducted, so the only part that is actually deemed as income is the amount those people receive over and above the cost of caring for those children. That is deemed as income -- as it would be for anything else. If they were doing a job, and they clearly stated that this was a job, this is income they are receiving for doing this job over and above the amount it costs for the care of those children. So it's only that small portion that they receive that would actually be deemed as income and that would be put to that -- that would count as income for the income-testing. That allows us to spread those dollars so that they are getting out to cover more people and are available to those who need the dollars.

C. Clark: How much is included in the calculation as income for the purposes of the means tests, then?

K. Krueger: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: With us in the House today, we have nine members of the B.C. Young Liberals, including Aaron Gairdner, the president; Emily Hines; Duane Woytowich;

[ Page 8870 ]

Hon. L. Boone: If you can give me a little more information, because it varies with regard to the age of the child, the levels, and all of these sorts of things. . . . If you can get that information to me, then I can get more accurate information as to how much they would actually get, how much their care costs would be, what they would get over and above that, and how much would be deducted. So if you could get that information to me, then I'll get that information over to you.

C. Clark: I certainly will give it to the minister again. According to the Charmleys, the minister's office has had the information for some time -- since May -- but I could certainly forward it again if that would make it easier for her to reference it.

My question wasn't specifically just about the Charmleys' case. My question is about how much the exemption is that the ministry considers to be. . . . How much of the total portion of the dollars that the ministry provides for foster parents is considered exempt for taxation purposes? I understand that if. . . . I'm not talking about a specific means test or a specific case. When the minister talks about the basic income versus the supplementary income that is provided through a foster care contract, what portion of that is the basic income that would never, in any case, be taxable or be considered income for the family?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll just give you an example, because it varies according to the age of the child, for example. For basic family care costs, it is $379.75 per month. Additional family care costs would be $194.56. That's a total of $574.31. That's for a zero-to-11-year-old. Those rates vary accordingly, and they may vary according to age, etc. That's why I'm saying that if you're talking about a particular child's age, then I'd need more information about that.

C. Clark: Is the minister telling me, then, that it's the basic family care portion of the payment that is never considered to be taxable income, and that it's only the additional family care portion of the payment that a parent would be asked to include as earned income for the purposes of a means test?

[3:00]

C. Clark: The minister may not have to give me the list that she started to read out, because it may be that I have it here. I think it's the same list. The list that I have here is "Child Care Resources: Services to Family Care Parents," and it lists the family care rate breakdown and the per diems that foster parents get. This is as of 1994; I don't know if they have changed significantly since. Whether or not the numbers have changed a little bit probably isn't that relevant to a general debate.

What I'm interested in on this list is whether the basic family care costs include, as the minister said, food, housing, transportation, personal needs, recreation and clothing for children. For ages zero to 11 on this list it's $372.30, and the minister says that has gone up by about five bucks or seven bucks. The additional family care costs include transportation, equipment, babysitting, relief care, gifts and activities, education and equipment, including recreational. I guess that would be hockey equipment or equipment for whatever a kid wanted to do -- a soccer ball or something. If those are the additional family care costs the ministry is including for taxable purposes, that sounds to me like pretty basic needs for a child.

When the minister tells me that the basic family care costs are not included as taxable income, looking at this list of basic family care costs, that seems quite reasonable. But when the minister says to me that the additional family care costs, the portion of the payment that is included for taxable income. . . . Looking at the list of things included under there, it doesn't appear to me that those payments are for things that are going to benefit the parent particularly. I don't see on this list, under "Additional Family Care Costs," money for movie tickets, money for the ballet, money for a shopping spree, money for a night out at the club. I don't see anything on there for parents of foster children. I see on that list that what seems to be provided for are things that benefit the child. So when you take the basic family care costs -- $372 on my list; I mean, that's gone up by a few bucks -- and then the additional family care costs of $190 on this list, you end up with about $580-odd for a foster care payment. What I understand from what the minister has just said is that those additional family care costs, the ones I have just listed, are considered to be taxable income for the purposes of a means test. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not. I listed those for you as part of the costs that would be deducted as actual expenses that were incurred for that child. It has been indicated to me that those are the costs that would be incurred by that foster parent for that child, and therefore they would be deducted.

C. Clark: We're going at it from two entirely different sides of the coin, but it's the same coin we're talking about here. I understand what the minister is saying, but maybe she could translate that into payments that come from the ministry to the foster parent. From what I understand, she has talked about two different portions of the payment that goes to a foster parent: one is the basic family care costs, and one is the additional family care costs. According to the people in the ministry that Ms. Charmley is dealing with, the additional family care costs are what the ministry is asking her to include as taxable earned income for the purposes of the means test. I'm not aware -- maybe the minister can correct me on this -- if there is another envelope of money that goes to every foster parent over and above the basic family care costs and the additional family costs. Is there a third envelope that the ministry is including for the purposes of the means test?

Hon. L. Boone: This is not taxable. We're talking about a means test in order for them to get additional dollars. What we've asked foster parents to do is declare all of the moneys that come in, to report service payments as income, so that we can get a complete financial picture from each family. These payments are not meant to be taxable income, just as WCB payments aren't taxable. They are expenses that are deducted from that. If in fact that entire payment in that second half is used on expenses for that child, then no income is reported; there will not be any net income then. However, if that foster family does not expend all of those additional dollars on

[ Page 8871 ]

C. Clark: When the ministry enters into a contract with the foster parents, and it specifies in the contract the level of detail that it does. . . . I'm talking about the portion for the additional family care costs -- for transportation, equipment, the child's allowance and babysitting. The ministry is entering into an agreement with the family that this is what that money is for.

The ministry then goes after them and says: "Well, you know, we're going to nickel-and-dime you for every last penny we've given you for your foster children. We want you to go through a long paperwork process to prove to us -- not to just sign the contract and say that you're going to live up to your end of the bargain and that you're going to take the $583 we give you to care for the children that we're responsible for, thank you very much. . . . We're not just going to enter into a contract and an agreement and understanding with you; we're not just going to trust you to do that. What we want you to do after that, after we sign the contract with you, is that we want you to come back, do all the paperwork and prove that every single penny has been spent on those children that you claim you're helping out, that you love and that you're taking care of on our behalf. If you don't spend every single penny of it, we're going to nickel-and-dime you for it somewhere else in the system."

If you're unlucky enough to be a foster parent like Ms. Charmley, who's decided that she wants to adopt some special needs children that the ministry sometimes has difficulty finding appropriate homes for. . . . In addition, she wants to go out and do something terrible: be a foster parent and maybe help the rest of the community out a little bit by caring for children who don't have biological parents able to care for this at that time. If she commits that terrible mistake of wanting to do that, then the government is going to nickel-and-dime her for every penny and ask her to prove that every penny that they've already agreed is supposed to be spent on the children. . . . They've signed a contract with those parents; they've already entered into an agreement about that. Now they're going to ask her to come back and prove that every single penny was spent on those children.

Well, I think that is shameful. It is an insult to those parents who decide that they want to do the right thing. They decide they want to take on a job that not a lot of people want to take on and that not everybody is well equipped to take on, either, at a time when the government is saying it doesn't have enough foster parents in the system, enough foster parents who are adequately trained in the system.

I want to quote to you from Ms. Charmley's letter, because it's a touching letter. It goes into a fair amount of detail about the disabilities that affect her adopted sons and why she decided to take them into her home. She goes into how much she loves her foster children, too, and how much it means to her to be able to keep them in her home. But she points out in her letter: "There are many foster children who will have lost out, because my husband and I will have given up fostering before we would put our adoptive sons' funding in jeopardy." These parents are forced into a situation where they have to make a choice between keeping their foster children, who they love, and keeping their adoptive children, who they also love and to whom they've made a commitment to provide a stable home for the rest of their lives -- to decide which ones they're going to provide for.

She goes on in her letter to talk about how there are no other. . . . This is a quote: "No other adoptive parents or foster parents chose to fight this matter, because of the threat that their funding for their special needs children would also be cut." In the letter, she alludes to the pressure that she's felt from ministry officials, who have put an enormous amount of pressure on her to do what she's told -- to include this in her income, so that when she gets means-tested they can start thinking about cutting off her funding for special needs. In fact, the ministry refused for months to renew the contract that they had with her to provide money for those special needs adopted children, because she hadn't signed the contract or because she hadn't included that in her level of income. They refused to give her the money. They didn't cut her off; they cut her children off. They used that; they hung that over her head and said: "Listen, lady. If you don't sign, you're not going to get another penny for your adopted children."

Well, that's just not fair. It's not fair for Big Brother government to go to people who are doing something that, on the other hand, the government says it wants them to do -- it's good work for the community -- and say to them: "If you don't do what we want we you to do, if you don't let us nickel-and-dime you until we've got every penny out of you that we can, then we're not going to give any more money for your special needs adopted children." Where are the government's priorities here? They're driving foster parents out of the system on the one hand, but then on the other hand they say: "Come on in. We want more foster parents. We want more adoptive parents for special needs children." It's a disgrace. It's embarrassing. I'm sure this woman is embarrassed to be represented by a government that has policies like this and applies them so inequitably, a government that on the one hand says that they want more foster parents, but on the other hand, that they're not prepared to pay them to do the job.

Is the minister saying, then, that in this particular case -- and I know staff may have located the letter by now -- in order for Ms. Charmley to maintain her funding for her special needs children, what she should do -- and I can advise her about this, based on the minister's answer this afternoon -- is take the total money that she gets from the government for her foster children and subtract from that the basic family care costs, until she's left with the portion that's the additional family care costs?

Then what she needs to do is save every receipt for bus fare, for gas -- if she's driven those children to school -- for clothing and for babysitting. I guess she should start an accounting process with her babysitter, and get a receipt from her babysitter. I don't know if 12-year-old babysitters issue receipts, but I suppose they may have to, in Ms. Charmley's case. She should save every receipt for every gift and prove that it was given on or around the date of a significant anniversary in that child's life, so that we can be sure that it was a gift to that child. Maybe she could put a birth certificate along with it so that the government can be well assured that it was a birthday present for the child, and that it wasn't just something that the parents bought for themselves so they could indulge one day. They could go crazy and buy themselves a new clock.

She should save every single receipt, staple them together, cross her fingers and hope that all those receipts add up to the equivalent of the amount of money that she has received for her foster care payment. Then and only then will the government decide that her adopted children are worthy of getting the money the government agreed to give those parents to care for those children when she adopted them a couple of years ago.

[ Page 8872 ]

Anyway, as I stated, this particular person actually gets $637.77 for expenses. That is automatically deducted as expenses for the child. Over and above that, she gets another $1,000. She actually gets over $1,600 per month per child for a special needs child. What the ministry has said is that it will deduct the expenses. As I said, those expenses are automatically deducted. If she happens to incur other expenses in the space of that time that she can show us were incurred on the extra $1,000 a month, yes, that is deemed as income -- not as taxable income but just to determine whether she qualifies for assistance in the post-adoption assistance program.

[3:15]

C. Clark: Well, I'm happy to take a long time asking the question, because the minister seems to need so long to consult with officials to get the answers. So if the minister wants to thank me for doing her a favour, the answer is: you're welcome.

In the Charmley case, there appears to have been a significant change in policy -- perhaps that's not just in this case. This isn't something that the ministry has tried to nickel-and-dime her about before. According to her, the money she was receiving under the agreement she had with the ministry was never questioned in the past. She wasn't asked to include her foster parent income before, as part of the means test. She wasn't asked all the other questions that are being put to her today to qualify for the money that the ministry agreed she should get, so that her children could be provided for because they are special needs children that she'd agreed to adopt.

I'll ask the minister, then: if this represents a change in policy, when did the policy change, and why did the ministry see a need to change the policy?

Hon. L. Boone: The change in policy came about as a result of the Adoption Act, which came in in 1996. The change in policy resulted at that time.

C. Clark: So the policy that would make the special needs adoptive fee or payment that's provided by the government was, in that act, required to be means-tested for the first time, and the act was introduced in 1996. I'd ask the minister to just confirm that the act required that that money be means-tested for the first time. Secondly, if it happened two years ago, why are the Charmleys just starting to feel the effects of it now?

Hon. L. Boone: The Adoption Act actually dealt with the eligibility requirements. It has always been income-tested; it is my understanding that in the particular case you're talking about, she was not aware that this should have been declared. Now she's aware of it, but the policy of the ministry got in line with the eligibility that was established with the changes in the Adoption Act in 1996.

C. Clark: What the minister is telling me, then, is that when the act came into effect, it required income-testing, but it was a change in ministry policy that made part of the foster care payment eligible as part of the means test. I think that's what the minister is telling me. Can she confirm that? Second, could she tell me when that change in ministry policy came about?

Hon. L. Boone: The eligibility was the part that was changed with the Adoption Act. This program has always been income-tested, so the ministry changed its policy to bring it in line with the eligibility requirements in the act.

C. Clark: Is it the act that makes foster care payments part of the declared income for the purposes of the means test, or is it ministry policy that does that?

Hon. L. Boone: Ministry policy was changed to bring it in line with the act, which determined the eligibility.

C. Clark: When was the ministry policy changed to make foster care payments or at least part of the foster care payments part of the basic income for the purposes of the means test?

Hon. L. Boone: It's our understanding that this has always been done, but we're waiting for the adoption manager to come so that we can get that clarified for you -- she is not actually in the House -- and just get the historical perspective. We understand that it has always been done, but the individual in the case you're talking about was not aware that it should have been included. We can get further clarification on this as soon as the adoption manager gets here.

C. Clark: I appreciate that. I'll focus on the same case but with maybe a few more questions around foster care, which I know the minister's staff are prepared to answer. Now, this woman is a level 2 foster parent. Just for the minister's information, so that everybody's clear about how much Delphine Charmley and her husband have contributed to the system, they have had 50 children through their home in nine and a half years. They have taken in 50 foster children that the government is technically responsible for caring for. They have chosen to take those children on -- 50 of them over the last nine and a half years.

What they're saying is that ministry policy is going to make it impossible for them to do that anymore. That's 50 children, 50 spaces. I'll bet that any social worker in any office around the province, who spends a Friday afternoon desperately trying to find a level 2 care home for a child that's difficult to place, will tell you that 50 spots is a lot. Social workers are begging for those spots to be open. Foster parents are begging for those spots to be open, particularly when we get into levels 2 and 3, because those are the harder homes to find for children.

Increasingly, what social workers do on a Friday afternoon, when their day is over and they have a case that they've had difficulty placing, is take a child and say: "Well, this child

[ Page 8873 ]

So when we lose those level 2 spaces, children that require that level of care end up in level 1 homes. Or they end up out of the levelled system, and they end up in inappropriate care situations. These are the kinds of homes. . . . I just want to put this in context, because the work that the Charmleys are doing is really important work.

Rather than using or applying policies that are going to drive them out of the system, the government should be trying to find ways to make it possible for these people to stay in the system and do the work that all of us expect foster parents to do on behalf of us all.

The minister gave me some numbers for Ms. Charmley, which are that $637.77 is exempt and $1,000 is not exempt out of the payments that she gets. I'm assuming those are numbers for a level 2 care home. What are the numbers for a level 1 care home?

Hon. L. Boone: A level 1 would receive, depending on the age. . . . Age zero to 11 for a level 1 child is $988.77. Of that, $637 would be considered as expenses.

[3:30]

Hon. L. Boone: The basic family care costs and the additional family care costs, as we've said, remain the same through the restricted, the regular and the specialized -- levels 1, 2 and 3 -- costs, and there are some special payments that may go out to individuals in the specialized levels 1, 2 and 3. So the basic costs in those foster cares do remain the same.

C. Clark: I am not a foster parent, and I'm certainly not a foster parent of special needs children. But it seems to me that the basic costs that a family might incur for a special needs child would be greater than the basic costs that a family might incur for a typical child, who doesn't exhibit severe behaviour problems and doesn't have other disabilities that might be costly for a parent. Any parent of any special needs child will tell you -- of course, they love their children -- that there are expenses attached to raising a special needs child that aren't attached to raising a typical child. That's just a fact of life.

I wonder why the ministry doesn't recognize that there is a difference between the two.

Hon. L. Boone: We do, in fact, recognize that. These are the regular costs that everybody gets -- standard costs that would be incurred for a foster family -- but over and above that, on a child-by-child basis, the ministry does pay for services that are delivered to those children, such as respite and therapy. All of those different things are costs that are over and above, but are not included in this. They are determined on a child-by-child basis, as to their actual needs.

C. Clark: Are all those special payments exempt?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: I'd be interested in seeing a list to get a sense of the kinds of things that a foster parent of a special needs child might be able to request. There is a list here -- under the additional family care costs -- that includes, for example. . . . Equipment is an obvious one. The family might incur an additional cost for a special needs child for their hockey equipment -- or for transportation, which is in the basic family care costs list. Transportation might be more costly for a child who's disabled than for a typical child. It might be more costly in terms of the foster parent's time. It would certainly take more time, depending on the disability that the child is affected with. Obviously, vehicles would have to be specially fitted.

I suspect that the minister is going to come back and say that a parent can request a special chair to transport a child into a car or request special money to modify a vehicle, so they can help with getting a child around. But the fact is that a foster parent will spend a lot more time getting a disabled child around. And when it comes to things like housing and other basic costs that aren't necessarily things that can be accounted for, or that they can necessarily provide the ministry with a receipt for -- photocopied in triplicate and stapled together, so they can somehow account for it, like they do for Revenue Canada, when it comes time for the ministry to nickel-and-dime them. . . .

I still don't understand why the ministry would assume that the basic family care costs are the same for caring for a special needs child as for a typical child, because the rest of the system recognizes that the two are different. When the government creates level 1, 2 and 3 homes, they recognize that there is a difference in the kinds of children who need that level of care. So the rest of the system recognizes that, but this system doesn't seem to. Perhaps the minister can give us the rationale by which the ministry operates when they refuse to differentiate between the costliness of caring for typical and for special needs children.

Hon. L. Boone: I really fail to understand how you can say we don't differentiate. We do differentiate incredibly, but not in the basic costs that are given to them. It costs the same amount to feed a child, to clothe a child, to buy toothpaste, to get haircuts, to put a roof over their head. All of those various things are costs that are incurred by foster parents on behalf of their children. Those remain the same regardless of whether a child is a special needs child or not.

We do, on a case-by-case basis -- because every special needs child has different needs and different requirements -- pay for a variety of special things that go to these children. They may be services, or they may be people who are coming in to assist those foster parents. It may be through transportation; it may be through specialized equipment or through respite, as I said. It may be special clothing that they have, or tutoring. There are a number of different things that we as a ministry pay for on a case-by-case basis for those foster children. They are not losing out in any way, shape or form, and neither are the foster parents -- at all.

C. Clark: It is nice that the minister says that, but the reality out there for special needs parents -- this is true of all

[ Page 8874 ]

I heard stories from special needs parents that. . . . One of them had to raise it with the minister directly. The system isn't supposed to work that way. When the minister says, "We provide for it in other ways," the fact is that they don't. The fact is that most parents are left waiting, whether they're foster parents or biological or adoptive parents. There's still a long waiting list for that. If a foster parent has a three-year-old child who's growing very, very quickly, and they require a piece of equipment, are they going to wait six, eight or ten months until the ministry decides that they have enough money to make it available, until the budget comes due? Or are they going to go out and buy it out of the additional family care costs that the government gives them? Well, probably most parents are going to buy it out of the money the government gives them to foster those children.

I still cannot understand why the government makes a list of the additional family care costs -- which includes, by the way, the allowance for the child -- that it pays to foster parents on the one hand, and then on the other hand says: "We deem that as income for the purposes of our means-testing." Why have a list at all of the things that they're supposed to spend it on if the ministry is going to consider that as income that they're going to means-test on?

Hon. L. Boone: I suggest you listen a little closer, because I've told you three times now that that would not be listed as income. Those basic costs are not considered income. It is. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: I explained to you very clearly. Actually, the blue note here says $657, so I'm not sure if it's $657 or $637. Anyway, in that line of things, the $637 would be deducted as costs that were incurred by that family on behalf of their child. The only part that might be considered income would be the additional $1,000 that they were getting, which is not deemed as costs incurred for the child. I don't know why you keep saying that the allowances and all those sorts of things are considered as income. They are not considered as income. It's the moneys that are left over when you deduct those things; that is the amount that is considered as income for that foster parent.

You can criticize all you like in terms of saying that we should be having. . . . One could criticize and say that government should be doing much more. But I remember eight or nine years ago -- it wasn't very long ago -- when I met with special needs parents who were receiving nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of assistance. There was no assistance for wheelchairs, no assistance for anything.

In fact, I met with a family about a month ago here in the Legislature. I asked her what she got when her child was first born, how much assistance she got for this child. She said: "Nothing." I asked: "When did you start to receive payments to assist you in raising this child?" And she said: "Seven years ago." It was seven years ago when the support programs came. There is now $85,000 per year, which is given to a private society that is established to help that individual raise this extremely special needs person.

So could we spend more? Probably. We can always spend more. But as a government, I think we have to be extremely proud of the amount that we have put into this program, the amount of assistance that is given to parents. They have a tremendously difficult job to do, as parents and foster parents, in raising children with special needs. We appreciate the work they do. We do whatever we can to give them the necessary assistance, which they have.

You can criticize us and say that we don't get things fast enough, that we don't give any assistance. I say that's hogwash. We do give considerable assistance to individuals. We do give considerable assistance to foster parents who have had these individuals as well.

C. Clark: So I take it that the minister's message is: "Sorry we're nickel-and-diming you; sorry we're making your life difficult; sorry we're making you get a receipt from your kids for their allowance. But just think how much worse off you'd be without us." That's the minister's message -- right? It's like the Minister of Education saying: "Look, last year we were cutting education by $427 a student; now we're only cutting it by $300 a student. Aren't you lucky for all the things you don't get from us?"

I'm sorry, but that's not a way to run a government. That's not a very convincing way to tell the public that you're providing the services they need. We're talking about a foster parent who has been affected by a change in this government's policy. She doesn't think that she was a heck of a lot better off two years ago, before the government changed its policy. She doesn't think the foster children that she is going to be sending out of her home, because she can't afford to have them there anymore, are a lot better off because this government has changed its policy and made her life a lot more difficult. She doesn't think her life is easier today as a result of this policy.

So for the minister to stand up and say, "Well, gee, we've made everybody's life a lot better," rings pretty hollow for Delphine Charmley and the other foster parents who are struggling, now that the government has decided to nickel-and-dime them for every penny and to ask them to get receipts for everything.

I want to clarify, too, when I talk about the amount that she gets to have exempted from her cheque, from her basic means test, that those are the basic family care costs. The additional family care costs are not exempted; they are not exempted unless she provides a receipt for them.

[3:45]

If her foster child takes the bus or the SkyTrain, they'd better get a receipt. You'd better take that transfer and hand it

[ Page 8875 ]

For the child's allowance -- now, times have changed since I was a kid -- it's $21.42 a child a month that they're allowed to spend. So she should get a receipt from her child confirming that she got $21.42. I don't know if the child would have to prove whether they spent that on candy bars or soccer balls. But the next thing you know, the government is going to want a receipt from the child, too, to tell them where they spent their money -- making sure that they spent that appropriately, making sure that the child didn't go out and do something crazy with it, like spend it on a newspaper. Did they spend it on things that are appropriate for a child's allowance? The gifts and activities, the babysitting and relief. . . . You've got to get a receipt from your babysitter now so you can get it exempted. What happens if a foster parent spends the money on these things but doesn't get receipts? Does that mean, then, that the foster parent cannot deduct that from their income so that they can include that in the exempt portion so that they don't have to increase their income and so that they can still stay eligible for the other cheques that the government might want to give them -- but only after they've provided a means test?

Hon. L. Boone: You get so confused that you get me confused, and I take awhile trying to figure this out. I said earlier that the rate is not declared as income. The additional care costs are not declared as income. This is the fourth time I've said this to you. Those are not declared as income. Those are deducted as. . . . If the family incurs costs that are over and above those things, that intrude into the extra dollars that I talked about -- the $1,000 extra -- then they would have to submit some bills to show that they had costs that were incurred on that. But -- this will be the fifth time now -- the $574, which is the basic rate, and the $194.56 are not thought of as income. The only portion that would be thought of as income is what is deducted from that. Once that is deducted from that, if the family incurs some expenses over and above that, then they submit receipts, and that would be deducted from that. I hope I've got that clarified with you right now.

C. Clark: Can the minister advise what is considered to be. . . ? Out of the $1,000 that the Charmleys -- or $1,200 or $1,600; whatever it is. . . . I suspect there are differing amounts for the different children that they have. Can she tell us what might qualify? What do they have to provide receipts for to prove that it isn't income?

Hon. L. Boone: If there are unusual costs that the foster parent incurs that haven't been paid up front. . . . We often pay for a special diet, for example. But if there is a special diet that comes about where this special needs child needs something that is not paid for in another fashion, then those expenses could be deducted from it. If there was a special type of clothing that they were requiring that wasn't paid for in some other fashion, then the receipts could be kept, and those things could be deducted from those. Any sort of exceptional costs that the foster parent incurred over and above the things that are listed in the amounts that she's already paid for could be deducted.

C. Clark: I see the minister has the appropriate officials here now.

Can she tell us when the policy changed and why it changed?

Hon. L. Boone: It was changed in November of 1996, when the new act was introduced.

C. Clark: The minister indicated earlier that when the act was introduced. . . . It was subsequent to the act being introduced that the ministry changed its policy to comply with the act. If that's correct, I wonder if the minister could tell us when the ministry policy was changed.

Hon. L. Boone: I just told you. The policy was changed in November of 1996, with the act.

The Chair: Could members please address their remarks through the Chair.

C. Clark: The policy that the ministry changed then was. . . . The act, as I understand it, required that means-testing be implemented. The policy change that was required of the ministry was to make foster care payments eligible income for the purposes of means-testing. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: The new act that was introduced wanted to make the post-adoption assistance program payments for special needs children more available to more people. Therefore it was income base-tested. When it became income base-tested, all those families had to declare their income. The amount that is over and above the costs that a foster parent has for a foster child is income. That's what the change in policy is. That brought it in line with the regulations and with the act to make it so that payments received as payments -- that any individual receives for services -- are recognized in the income-based testing.

C. Clark: How long has this government considered foster care payments to be income?

Hon. L. Boone: Since B.C. Benefits was established, they've always considered this as income. We have considered it as income since 1996.

C. Clark: So it was the BC Benefits Act, which the government likes to trumpet as a model piece of legislation helping working families, that made foster care payments fully earned income for the purposes of the payments that are made by the government. I take it that part of the legislation in the BC Benefits Act made that change in policy in 1996. Or was it a regulatory change or a policy change in the Ministry of Human Resources?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer for what took place in Human Resources; I can only tell you what took place in this. . . . You asked me when the government. . . . I'm telling you that B.C. Benefits does income-based testing; Human Resources has always done income-based testing. The $1,000 that is received is a service payment to foster parents for the work that they do. I think most people would recognize that that is a payment, that it's income. If you are being assessed for a program that bases your eligibility on income, then the payment to foster parents -- not for the care of the children, because that is over and above those things, but the payments received by those foster parents -- is legitimate income.

C. Clark: I'm also aware of another situation where two foster parents in Kelowna have a similar problem. It's a little bit different, in that the father in that family is disabled, and he receives GAIN payments from the provincial government.

[ Page 8876 ]

The ministry that gives him the lower exemption, of course, is the ministry that cuts the cheque at the end of the day. He says in his letter that he's been fighting this out with the government for months now and hasn't been able to get any resolution. I'll ask the minister for her view on why there is a discrepancy between the two ministries, why they can't seem to get it together about how much should be exempt in their basic payments and what she intends to do to try and fix the problem.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't do case-by-case work in the Legislature without ever seeing the information that you've got or the letters from the individuals. As I said to some of your colleagues, if you'd be happy to send that information over to me, we will look at it within the ministry and work with those people. But clearly you can't expect me to resolve discrepancies between what my ministry does and what the Ministry of Human Resources does here on the floor of this Legislature.

C. Clark: I think it's fair to ask the minister to resolve discrepancies that are happening between ministries in her own government. I don't think that's a ludicrous suggestion. That's what she's supposed to do. That's what she gets paid to do: to try and resolve discrepancies in her government.

I'd be happy to give her this individual case, but my suspicion is that this isn't an individual case -- that there are people out there who, when they get a cheque from the Ministry of Human Resources and a cheque from the Ministry for Children and Families, are facing two totally different policies within the ministries. I'll ask the minister a general question about this: is she aware that there is a discrepancy in her ministry's policy about the total amount that's considered to be. . . ? It's the basic family care rate that there is a discrepancy about, according to this individual. Is she aware that there is a discrepancy between the two ministries in her government? What does she intend to do to address it?

[4:00]

C. Clark: You know, I do consider the estimates process to be work. I do consider informing the public about where their money is being spent to be work. But that's my view of this job. When we get up and talk about where the money is being spent in this government, about why there may be discrepancies in the way it's being spent, about whether it's being spent efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the greatest number of people, and when we get to inform the public about that, I consider that to be work. I consider that to be one of the things that we get paid to do. When we do it in an open, public and televised debate in the chamber, where people have access to the discussions -- as opposed to it being in the back rooms and in our offices, where everything is done quietly and without public scrutiny. . . . I think this is the better place to do that work. If I have a choice about where that work is going to be done, I choose that it should be done here. This is where the debates should happen, where a discussion of policy should happen, where resolving problems should happen and where our discussions on behalf of the public should occur -- in the full light of public scrutiny. I consider that to be work. I consider that to be the work that I'm paid to do, the work I'm elected to do. I'm happy to do it.

This individual, when he mentions the discrepancy. . . . The minister has admitted that she's aware of the discrepancy between the two ministries. I'll ask her whether her ministry intends to provide some relief to these people in the meantime, until she gets this little bureaucratic snafu worked out. She has been very clear that her ministry has a basic family care rate that it recognizes and that it's sticking to, and that everything else is earned income and you've got to have a receipt for it. But the fact is that at least the basic family rate that she recognizes is higher than the basic family rate that other ministries of the government recognize.

Until they get this little snafu worked out, what is the minister going to do to provide relief to the people who are getting their cheques cut?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said before, I can't solve this here in this chamber. I have to have the Minister of Human Resources so that we can work this out. And we will work this out, but I can't do it here. The member may think that she gets things done here; she'll get a lot more done if she'd actually pass that information over to us so we can actually start to work on it. Yelling back and forth in this chamber does not achieve anything.

C. Clark: I just got a note from the Charmleys, who are watching. They want to know what the minister defines as a special payment. They say that the extra $1,000 they get is a special payment from the ministry. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether or not that is correct. If it is correct, if it is a special payment, I think the Charmleys could happily assume that their income is exempt for the purposes of the means test.

Hon. L. Boone: No, that's a service payment. It's not a special payment. The payments that I'm talking about are special payments that they would be receiving for specialized equipment, respite, special clothing, transportation, etc. However, if they are paying for any of these things out of that $1,000 they get, then by all means, that could be accumulated, the information could be submitted to us, and we would consider that as part of the special payments that they are paying over and above the costs of care for their child.

B. McKinnon: Last night when we finished off, I was talking about a particular case, which I will eventually bring to the ministry; but I want to go a step further on that and talk about teenage children in foster care. I have a very big concern about what's happening to our teen children that are put in foster care. A case in particular is the Reena Virk case, where teenage children murdered this young girl, and they were all in the care of the ministry. My question to the minister is: how can we protect our children in foster care when these types of things. . . ? There are no controls on these children. Foster care doesn't have. . . . You talked about it last night. We cannot tell a 14-year-old what she can't do or where she can't go, or

[ Page 8877 ]

My real concern is: how can we look after these teenage children so they actually have proper care, are nurtured and loved, and are not allowed to just run amok in the evenings and do whatever they like?

Hon. L. Boone: I imagine that just about every parent in the world would like to have that answer.

You talk about a child who is taken from an abusive home and placed in foster care. That is what we're doing: we're keeping that child safe from harm from within their home. When that child gets into foster care. . . . I know that in many cases -- and I would say in most cases -- foster parents do deliver a loving and caring environment. If that child, though, as I said, starts to act up as they get into the teenage years, as many do. . . . I'm sure there are many parents out there that have gone through these things. Whether they are loving parents or not, they still may find that their child is acting up. There's nothing that we as a society can do right now in terms of keeping those kids home, locking them in their rooms and putting bars on the doors -- although I'm sure there are many of us that would like to do those things.

I mentioned yesterday that we have a secure care task group, which consists of individuals from throughout the community: individuals from professional groups, a retired RCMP officer, somebody from Civil Liberties, parents, a young person who actually was on the street, social workers, people from the health area. All of these individuals are coming together to try and figure out how we deal with an issue that is being promoted by many, which is secure treatment. That is enabling people to actually physically take a child and restrict that child's movements and put that child into some kind of an environment where they could get treatment for alcohol or drugs or whatever it is. We will be getting the results of that task force in August sometime, and we'll know how we as a province want to move forth. But it is an extremely difficult situation. I don't believe there is any consensus right now as to what we should do or how we can approach this as a society.

B. McKinnon: I'm really pleased to hear that you have a task force on this particular subject. I think that too many of our children are getting into far too much trouble and are having their lives ruined and destroyed. Maybe they've come from an abusive home, and then they're put into a foster home, and the foster home cannot control these children. We need to do something about it.

I'd like to ask the minister if there is anything. . . . When these problem children go into foster care, do you have any programs which you put these children through to help them recover from whatever the abuses were? Do you do anything for these children to help them heal?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, of course. There are all kinds of counselling services that are available. We will assist individuals. I must admit that there are limited resources in the province with regards to alcohol and drug treatment for teenagers. But we do have some announcements coming up, and we will be increasing the resources in those areas. We do make counselling available to those children as much as we can.

B. McKinnon: When it comes to children who have been sexually abused, do you have to have the children's permission -- a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old -- for counselling, or do they just automatically have to go to counselling?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess we as the guardians. . . . And, of course, at this time, the province as the guardians have exactly the same problems as most people would have, and that is that if the child is willing to go into counselling, it's a lot easier to actually get results. We can make appointments; we can take the child to it; we can do all of those things. We can get them into counselling, but how successful that counselling will be, if those children do not want to be there, is very questionable. It's like everybody else: you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. That's the situation with whether or not you can force a child into counselling. We do everything we can to make sure they have those things available, but whether they will actually participate in that treatment is another question.

B. McKinnon: At what age does the child make that decision or the government will make the decision for the child? Do you allow a six-year-old to decide whether he's going to go to counselling or not, or to therapy of some sort? Or is at 13 years of age? I know that you have to draw a line somewhere. I'm just curious as to where the ministry draws a line as to where the child makes the decision whether to have therapy or counselling of any sort.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we can make the decision that the child has counselling, but how valuable that counselling will be is a big question if the child doesn't want to be there. We can make that decision at any particular time. And those are decisions that would have to be made by the ministry, by the social workers working with the family, working with the child to make sure that what is actually being suggested is in the best interest of that child.

B. McKinnon: When a social worker, say late on a Friday night, needs a child to go into foster care, and the child has a lot of problems and is very troubled, and they need, say, a level 3 foster home, for example. . . . I understand that social workers take the weekends off; we don't have a 24-hour workweek for social workers. How do they get the child into a proper foster home that has that level of care?

[4:15]

B. McKinnon: These emergency resources. . . . Are they foster homes, or are they institutions? What exactly are they?

Hon. L. Boone: They could be foster homes. They could be group homes. They could be institutions like Ledger House. That will be decided depending upon the area that they are in and the needs of that particular child.

B. McKinnon: What type of screening do you put foster parents through to become foster parents?

Hon. L. Boone: There's initial contact and discussions about fostering and the family's reasons for fostering. All applicants must attend 15 hours of pre-service foster parent

[ Page 8878 ]

B. McKinnon: Is a specialized foster care home. . . ? Does the ministry ever check these homes during the year to check on the foster parents to see -- especially when they're working with these very troubled children -- what their stress levels are, how they're doing and if they need a break? How does that work?

Hon. L. Boone: Currently there is an annual monitoring home visit and review of foster families, and a visit with the child by the child's social worker at least every three months. Currently we are increasing that, with the changes in standards that are taking place in August. They will then be visited at least monthly. The current process is that foster parent families are contacted at least every three months by resource workers, and there are regular contacts and home visits with children and foster families as required by each child's individual comprehensive plan of care. As I said, these are being revised. We are increasing the contact through the practice standards for guardianship.

B. McKinnon: If a social worker visits a child in a foster care home and is suspicious that, say, the child is being sexually abused but really doesn't have any proof, what action does the social worker take at that point?

Hon. L. Boone: They would implement an investigation similar to what they do for any other child that they suspect is being abused. First of all, they would talk to the child separately, independently. They may, in fact, take the child to a physician. They would go through the same process they would with any kind of an allegation or where they suspected some kind of abuse was taking place.

B. McKinnon: When does the ministry send children -- or, I guess, teenagers or young adults -- to institutional care? Do you have institutional care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not used that often, and only in situations that are very extreme or severe. For example, if a child was thought to be suicidal, then they may be taken to the Children's Hospital, to Maples, to Ledger House or to some other institution. But they're not utilized very often.

B. McKinnon: Just one more question. Are the only institutions that we have that we would send children to in British Columbia something like a hospital or such, or do we have actual institutions for children?

Hon. L. Boone: The institutions that we are talking about are actually treatment centres. There are only two: Maples and Ledger House. The other, as I mentioned, is. . . . I don't think you'd consider Children's Hospital to be an institution. Yes, those are the only two.

I. Chong: I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in the estimates debate in this ministry. I have only a very few questions, and perhaps the minister can provide me with very quick answers.

As I understand it, there are various levels of foster care provided. There is foster care by a relative, restricted foster care, general foster care and special needs foster care, all of which have attached to them a different entitlement to funds. The concern I have, which has been raised by a constituent of mine, is that in a situation where a relative assumes foster parent responsibility -- not legal custody, but the foster parent responsibility -- for a child, and when that in fact occurs, there appears to be a substantially reduced access entitlement to benefits compared to that child being placed in a foster care home which is more at arm's length. I was wondering if the minister can advise as to what the rationale for that would be in terms of providing benefits to a child.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I'm not sure whether you're differentiating between the moneys that a youth may get as a youth receiving Human Resources funding for living in the home of a relative, as compared to a foster parent. . . . There is a differentiation there.

I. Chong: The situation that I was made aware of involves a constituent who became, I suppose, a foster parent to a child who happens to be a relative. I would have to presume that it was through the Ministry of Children and Families versus through Human Resources. Perhaps the child was known to the ministry and had to be removed and placed in foster care. This particular relative took responsibility for that child. Because this person was a relative, she was granted a foster care entitlement amount of around $400. I'm hoping these numbers make some sense to the minister. If not, then maybe it is Human Resources. This is what the constituent advised me of.

When she looked into it further -- because the $400 was not sufficient to deal with this particular child, who also had some special needs concerns -- she found that those in special needs foster care receive substantially more. Even those in general foster care receive substantially more. Her concern was that she couldn't comprehend the rationale for this. Why would a child who needs care receive less just because they were in the home of a relative? You would like to presume that that relative has some sort of connection with the child, but that's not always the case. Sometimes a relative comes into play afterwards, and that relative is as much a stranger to the child as their next-door neighbour.

[4:30]

[ Page 8879 ]

I thought it opportune to raise this at this point to find out if the minister has more to add on this situation or to pass some of this information on to the minister so that she could take a look into it. But there is general, larger question as to why we would reduce the funding for a person who is a relative and who becomes a foster care home versus someone who decides to undertake that on a more frequent basis. We are looking at the child care aspect, and I know that the minister would want to see that equity there for the child.

Hon. L. Boone: I thank the member. If you would pass that on, yes, we would be more than happy to look at that. As I said earlier, they should be getting the same foster care payment. They might be getting a slightly smaller amount if they know the child, if there is somebody that is well aware of that child. If they don't, then they should be eligible for the same $63.46.

I tend to think that this person may in fact be getting funding through Human Resources, which is the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Sometimes people differentiate. . . . I mean, government is confusing to people; sometimes they figure that because somebody is living with them, they are in a foster home. That may or not be true. I'm not saying that this person is wrong, but if you give that information to us, we'd be more than happy to look into it, and we'll try and straighten this out so that this person gets whatever is fair and equitable for that child -- okay?

The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. Sorry, the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I know the boundaries are about to change, but I didn't know my riding was going to be quite that large. But perhaps the Chair knows something we're not privy to on this side.

My question to the minister is in the same area of questioning. I'm puzzled, and I'd like the minister to answer this. I understand that the ministry is to look after children, to provide for children. What does it matter whether they know the child or they don't?

Hon. L. Boone: This is based on costs or unexpected needs that the child may have. They might bring with them -- if they were going from one family member to another that was close to that family, and they knew that family member -- toothpaste, toothbrush, very basic things that they may require. That would go to somebody to help pay for those things if they didn't have them. I guess the expectation is that if you are going to a grandparent or an aunt that lives close to you, you could probably bring those things with you, or that family member may have access to that other home. But as we said, if that access isn't there, then we'd be happy to consider giving those dollars -- it's $63.46 -- to the individual so that they can meet those costs as well.

R. Thorpe: I think that's a rather puzzling answer that the minister has given here in this House. The issue should not be, in my opinion, whether they know someone or they do not know someone, whether they live close or they don't live close. The issue here is the needs of the child. This particular case I have is a grandparent, but we have no idea what the financial resources are of those grandparents. I think we should be focusing in on the needs of the children.

I'm going to assume that the offer that the minister has made to my colleague from Oak Bay -- that if we provide some details with respect to a particular case, the minister would follow up on those. . . . Let me give you an example here of a young child, eight years old, who was in the care of a foster home. It was costing the ministry $2,320.77 per month in a level 3 home, versus $266.26 in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Now, I don't want to get into the details of this case. I would ask, though, if the minister. . . . We have had some difficulties in having this dealt with at the local level. If we provide the details, will the minister ensure that this is acted upon in a quick manner and that this child and the needs of this child are addressed in a very equitable manner?

Hon. L. Boone: You're talking about payments that have been received for this child that are not being received through this ministry. It's through Human Resources, for a child in the home of a relative. With a child in the home of a relative, the ministry does not do any investigation. It does not do any sort of screening of that family. That family are not actually foster parents. But if the family is interested in becoming a restricted foster care home and in having the ministry assume responsibility for that child. . . . A child in the home of a relative is not in the care of the ministry. If they are interested in doing that, then by all means, get that information to us, and we'll look into it and see how we can do it.

There are two separate programs. We have the foster parent program, which is foster parents and children who have come under the care of the ministry. Then we have the program that is administered by the Ministry of Human Resources, which is just giving financial assistance to children to live. That is where the difference is.

I think it's fair to say that there's a section of the act that has not been proclaimed yet but which the ombudsman has talked to us about, trying to get us to deal with that whole issue and having us be responsible for these children and taking them in. It's section 8, my deputy just said. We are currently in discussion with the Ministry of Human Resources to see how we can proclaim this section of the act and how we can work to move that over into this ministry from her ministry. Right now it's fairly complicated and fairly costly as well. We are in discussions with them right now. They're two separate things, but if you would get that information to us, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's commitment to look into this issue. As you know, I get very, very concerned when I hear big government talk about two separate programs. There's one child. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps if the member for Yale-Lillooet could take this issue seriously and stop the heckling over there, the House and the children of British Columbia would be in a better position.

I'm disturbed that the minister is concerned about the two programs and that we're not focusing in on the one child, and I would like some comment on that. My understanding is that that was one of the things the Gove report recommended that we had to do: we had to focus our resources on the

[ Page 8880 ]

I would like some comments from the minister on how we're going to make that happen, how we're going to make sure that those two agencies are aggressively working together to solve the problem, so that we can look after the children -- all children, but in this particular case, a child with severe ADD. I'd appreciate some comments on that.

Hon. L. Boone: They are two totally. . . . You can call them programs; you can call them whatever you want. But they are two totally different entities. On the one hand, we are dealing with children who are coming into care who are our responsibility. We are providing resources to them, and we are providing foster parents or living spaces -- whatever it is that is required for that child. On the other hand, you have children who may have left their homes of their own volition. They may be out on the street. They may in fact say: "I want to go live with my sister." They do not come to the ministry; they are not children in care. They are in fact getting assistance for living, the same as you would get a welfare payment.

We are uncomfortable with what is going on right now. As I said, we are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to see how we can address the concerns that we have about the resources that are available to these children and about the fact that we don't know where they are living. They could be in a good home or they may not be in a decent home, because they're not screened by us. They are living in the home of a relative, and that is a choice that they made. We must decide how we are going to do this. We are working with the Ministry of Human Resources, and it's not a matter of these being children in care who are out there. These are children who are not in the care of the ministry.

R. Thorpe: I am going to get the information on this for the minister and her staff. Let me just share with the minister that this is an eight-year-old child with severe problems. So this child hasn't decided that they're going to go live somewhere. This child was under the care of your ministry, and you were paying $2,320.77 per month for the care of this child. I'm led to believe that the guardianship is via your ministry and this program. I think you do have some responsibility. Of course, if we listen to the Gove report and we believe in that. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: . . .then we should be acting on it.

I'm particularly concerned with the minister's comment that they are uncomfortable about this situation. If you are uncomfortable, do you have an action plan to close the gap on the issues that you are uncomfortable with? When will you start to be comfortable with issues like this with respect to caring for the children of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, we are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to develop a plan as to when we can deal with section 8, the portion of the legislation that is on the books. As I said, it will take some dollars and some work for us to work around these things and to discover how we are going to be doing these things, because it takes resources to do all of this stuff. It's difficult for us to deal on a case-by-case basis here, without us having actually seen the information. That's why I said: get the information to us, and then we'll be happy to deal with it. We do not have a foster parent payment of any sort that is $200. If it was a restricted foster care payment, the very basic one would be $574.31.

[4:45]

R. Thorpe: Of course, we're not using the names of this family or this child, because that would be most inappropriate. I was using that just as an example. I believe that the minister did not use the word "uncomfortable" with respect to this particular case, because obviously the minister isn't aware of the details of this case. I interpreted the minister's comments to mean that she was uncomfortable with respect to the situation in the province and the fact that her ministry and Human Resources have identified a significant problem here and they have to work with that. I would like to know when that significant problem that the minister has identified here today, which she's uncomfortable with, is going to be resolved. What plan, with what time lines, have this ministry and this minister committed to, to resolve this issue?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't give you the time lines; I can't give you the times. I can tell you that we are working with the Minister of Human Resources and will get it done just as fast as we can. We're looking at other jurisdictions, other provinces, to see how they are managing this and how they are developing their policies. Hopefully, we'll learn from them, and we'll know how to proceed.

R. Thorpe: Is it because the minister does not have the appropriate staff here that she doesn't know the dates or the time lines? Or is it because they don't have a plan? If in fact they do have a plan, I would accept a commitment that the minister would send us that plan with those time lines. So if the minister can advise that they do have a plan, they do have time lines and they will forward copies of that to us as quickly as possible, I would accept that and we will move on. However, if they don't have a plan, I think the appropriate thing now would be for the minister to tell us that they don't have a plan right now, that they know they have a problem and that they're going to work on developing a plan. I'd like the minister to comment on those two points.

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I had been quite clear. We are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to develop a plan so that we can work this out. This is not an easy issue. This takes dollars; it takes staff; it takes a considerable amount of money to do this. We are looking at other jurisdictions to find out how they are implementing such a program. Hopefully, we will be able to learn from them, and we'll be able to put things in place. But at this particular time, I cannot give you the time as to when we will be moving on this.

R. Thorpe: The minister has now finally told us that a plan does not exist to deal with the children of British Colum-

[ Page 8881 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We're not talking about children who are in foster care. But if a relative wants to enter into a voluntary agreement to become a restricted foster care home, and if they go through the. . . . We do have to assess the home to make sure that it is a safe environment for people. Then we will provide them with foster care status, and they would become a restricted foster care home. We are talking about the children out there who, as I said, are receiving welfare payments through Human Resources. Some of them may in fact be deemed children in the home of a relative, and they are receiving payments to live in homes of relatives. That is what the Ministry of Human Resources is currently giving them subsidies for: to live there. We are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to deal with this situation, and we will continue to deal with this situation.

Unlike the members opposite, I know that right now the taxpayers do not have a bottomless pit. We have had substantial increases to this budget, to education and health care, and it's just not possible for us to open up the purse strings every time somebody over there says they want more money for everything. That's something that I think the taxpayers recognize -- that we can't do those things.

R. Thorpe: You know, hon. Chair, it's unfortunate that this minister has to go down to that low level of saying that she understands the pressures of the taxpayer. Give me a break. This is the government that has put in place the highest tax rates in North America and now, all of a sudden, they're the defenders of taxpayers. That is an irresponsible statement, hon. Chair.

This government does have enough money to spend $3 million a month on advertising that there's a job behind every tree in British Columbia, but we don't have enough money to look after the children. This is also the government that spends $325 million on the Skeena bailout but doesn't have enough money to look after the children of British Columbia. Let us in this chamber deal with the real issues. If the government does not know the answers, then just stand up and say so. But don't get in here and be hypocritical and say that you are the defenders of taxpayers' rights, when in fact you're the people who have penalized every taxpayer in the province and are neglecting the children of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: I think that the member has got a little bit of mental disability. You're not thinking too well, because you have forgotten that it is this government that has frozen tuition fees for the children of this province. It is this government that has increased the amount of money that is going into the budget. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on a point of order.

C. Clark: I would ask the minister to withdraw that comment. Not only is it an insult to the member but it's an insult. . . . I mean, that kind of language isn't language we normally throw around. In particular, it's not appropriate for the Minister for Children and Families, who administers the mental health budget and deals with children with disabilities, to use that kind of language in a pejorative way in this chamber.

Hon. L. Boone: By all means, I withdraw. I certainly didn't mean to. . . . I would never compare the member to any of the people that we deal with. That's certainly unfair to them.

I would like to remind the member that this government has increased this budget considerably. A lot of money has gone into this. This money is going into care for children on a regular basis. It is this government that has given tax breaks this year to small business. It is this government that has given. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: You don't think there have been tax breaks? It is this government that has given tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. It is this government that has done a number of different things.

For you to stand there and say that we haven't made children a priority and that we're starving children. . . . I think it's absolutely offensive. If you look at the reports that have come out just recently from Dr. Millar, he'll tell you that the children in British Columbia are the healthiest children in Canada, that we have the best children around. He points to programs that this government has implemented that have added considerably to the health of children. The school lunch program is something I'm immensely proud of. When I go around this province, people tell me over and over again that this has meant a tremendous amount to young people in their classrooms. It has meant that these kids have the ability to thrive and that they're alert and attentive. It has made a tremendous difference to their lives. In fact, it's made such a difference that some schools are now carrying on throughout the summer with their school lunch programs, because that may be the only decent meal that those children have. That is something that this government did, hon. member.

We have increased the amount of money that's going into building blocks, into programs, into health care, into education -- into all of these areas. For you to say that this government. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. minister, please.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, for the member to say that we have not made children a priority and that we're starving children and that our focus is not on children. . . . I just can't accept that, especially when this ministry has had a massive increase in its budget this year. You know, you have to recognize that there are limits to the taxpayers' ability to pay for everything and that we can't just say we are going to pay for everything.

We are working very hard with the Ministry of Human Resources to figure out how we are going to deal with the section 8. We are working very hard on that. But I can tell you

[ Page 8882 ]

R. Thorpe: I'm sure, hon. Chair, that the minister will have the opportunity to reflect and review Hansard and to realize that this member never used the word "starving." But obviously when someone's cornered, they have to come out and throw out untruths. Now, I was just picking up on what the minister said, because it was the minister who said she didn't have enough resources. I didn't say that; it was the minister. So perhaps the minister should take time. . . . You know, once again here's an example of not knowing the answers to the questions. Instead of saying, "We don't know the answers to the question," you start throwing out rhetoric and insults. The issue here. . . . No one ever suggested you aren't working hard. But what you have told us is that you do not have a plan. I don't know how this minister or ministry can say it's going to be costly when they haven't done the work. Maybe they're just hiding behind that.

If they truly care about the children of British Columbia, this opposition has offered, under the leadership of our leader, to work with the government. But has this government called the children's committee in this session? No, they have not. So if the problem is too much work for the minister and ministry, then convene the committee. Get more resources working on it -- human resources. To throw insults, to throw out information based on a lack of facts and then -- the largest hypocrisy of all -- to say they now are the defenders of the taxpayers of British Columbia is simply a joke.

[5:00]

It's my understanding that when the government brought in the service payments, when they created this new category of payment. . . . It was when the government moved to levelled care in 1993 or thereabouts. When the government did that. . . . I mean, before 1993 what happened was that parents got the basic payment, and then there were additional payments that were given as special payments. What the government decided to do when it moved to levelled care was to put what used to be special payments into block funding, give them to parents and call them service payments. But the reality was, and is today, that this money is intended to supplement the basic payment that foster parents get, because it's more costly to care for the children they are being asked to care for. What the government did was move from special payments to service payments and then sneak that in through the back door by changing the Adoption Act.

When they moved to service payments, they told those foster parents that these were not going to be considered income -- that when they moved to the block funding, they would still continue to be exempt for the purposes of determining income when we're looking at other government payments. That was a promise the government made to foster parents. The foster parents are telling me that they can clearly remember the government making that commitment when they made that switchover.

It was for administrative ease, I suppose, because I suspect that the special payments process is probably one that takes some time. Parents have to fill out forms. The forms have to go to the social worker. Then the ministry has to process them, determine whether the request is legitimate and forward the funds that go along with it -- or not. That was the process before. I suspect that when the ministry moved to levelled care, they wanted to get rid of some of that administrative burden, move those special payments and rename them service payments. From 1993 to 1996, the government kept its commitment, its promise to those parents, to keep those payments exempt for the purposes of means-testing.

Then in 1996 the Adoption Act came in and changed the landscape. Suddenly, what the government couldn't do by the front door, the government did by the back door. So it took the special payments, converted them into service payments, promised them that they wouldn't be included for taxation purposes, then changed the act and broke its promise.

I know that sometimes legislation comes in that has unintended consequences; I know that happens sometimes. So I'll ask the minister if she agrees, first of all, that it represents a real broken promise, a break of a real commitment that her ministry or the predecessor to this ministry made to foster parents. Now that the consequence of that has been pointed out to her, does she intend to fix the problem -- whether that's by legislation, by policy or by regulation -- so that her government can keep the promise they made to foster parents when they made the switch to levelled care in 1993?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware of any promise that was made to any foster parent indicating that this money was never to be declared or considered as income. I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm saying that I'm not aware of it, hon. member. If there is something in writing, I would ask for that to be given to me so that I can see what happened.

As I have stated quite clearly to you, foster parents currently receive basic payments to cover the costs of raising that child, having that child in their home. They receive about $1,000, which is over and above that. In addition to that $1,000, they receive payments for special circumstances -- transportation and needs they may have, such as special clothing, special diets and all of these things. If parents are utilizing that $1,000 for something over and above those costs that they have, then they have the right and should be making sure that the ministry recognizes those as costs that they are incurring. But right now, as I understand it, those payments are over and above the costs that they have to care for that special needs child.

C. Clark: Is the minister saying, then, that if I can demonstrate or if foster parents can demonstrate to her that a commitment was made in 1993 -- when the changeover to levelled care happened -- that the money would not be included as income for the purposes of means-testing, she will make the change so that the government can go back and keep its promise? Is that what's required -- maybe some documentation, a press release, some testimonials from foster parents? I

[ Page 8883 ]

Hon. L. Boone: If the member has something in writing that states that there was a commitment, then I'll look at it, and I'll review it and take all of those things into consideration. But just having somebody say it's so is not adequate. We must, in fact, look at if there's a written commitment, if there's some signed contract, some signed document; then certainly I'll look at those things.

But as I stated, I think it's a fair way to treat these dollars. These are dollars that are over and above the costs of caring for a foster child. They receive payments for services over and above the $1,000, if that $1,000 is in fact not income for them. If they have costs that are incurred that they take out of that $1,000, they can declare that, and that is deducted from it. I think it's a fair way of our assessing the income for individuals to see whether they are eligible for the post-adoption assistance grant, and that grant is based on income-testing.

C. Clark: I should think that if I can provide evidence of a promise to the minister, the answer to my question should have been: "Well, yes. If we made a promise and you can prove that we made a promise and it's in writing, then I'll keep the promise." It shouldn't be an answer of: "Well, I'll look at it." What the minister essentially told me is that if I can demonstrate to her that this government made a promise to foster parents and can provide her with something in writing, then she'll spend some time thinking about whether she wants to keep that promise. I'll tell you that's really not very good; it's really not good enough for foster parents. If you make a promise to them, then you should keep it. Let's leave aside the fact that the government made a promise, then doesn't seem to remember that it made a promise and then requires proof that it made a promise. It should be the government's job to remember the promises that it makes. Then it should be the government's job to keep the promises that it makes.

But if the minister wants to fob off onto me, foster parents, the public, or whoever out there, the job of reminding her of the promises that the government made, keeping track of the promises and making sure that she's up to date on those promises, then we can do that. We can take on the responsibility of reminding the minister of the promises the government has made. But I cannot make the minister keep her promises; only she can do that. Only the government is in a position to keep the promises that it makes.

I have to tell you, hon. Chair, I was really hoping that when I asked the question and said if I provided proof that a promise was made, the unequivocal answer would be: "Well, of course, if we made a promise, we'll keep it. That's the kind of government we are." But this isn't the kind of government they are. It's not the kind of government that keeps promises. It's not even the kind of government that wants to remember the promises that it makes. And when it's that kind of government, it's not in a position to be able to say: "Sure, I'll keep my commitment."

I suppose I wasn't particularly surprised that the minister got up and said: "Well, no, just because I made a promise, that doesn't mean I'm going to keep it. Just because you can prove I made a promise, it doesn't mean I'm going to keep it." I don't suppose I'm particularly surprised about that. I don't know why she'd want to differentiate herself from her caucus colleagues. I suppose the question was worth asking.

I want to ask, too. . . . This arises out of the minister's comments. She did say that foster parents with the additional payment, the basic payment, are all exempt. Then, in the Charmley case, there's the $1,000 special payment. I just want to be clear, for my own purposes: do foster parents have to prove that they've exhausted the $1,000 of the non-exempt portion of the special payment, with receipts and all that? Do they have to prove that they've exhausted that and spent it on the child's needs before they can apply for any of the special payments for equipment and other things?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I've never said that. I said that that's over and above those costs.

I just want to make it clear. I said: "Give me whatever information you've got." I highly doubt that there's been a promise. I can't see government saying: "I promise you that this will never happen." It's just not there. If you look at it, I will review it and consider what other changes have taken place to see. . . . There may have been other additional services that have been delivered, additional costs that have been taken over by the ministry. I don't know. If you've got information there, I will review that. I'll ask the deputy to look at whatever information you have and take into consideration whatever changes have taken place and make sure that people are being treated fairly.

V. Anderson: Following up on the same discussion, as I understand the Adoption Act that the minister has been referring to, all it does is give the power, subject to regulations. The superintendent may "provide financial assistance or other assistance to a person who proposes to adopt or who adopts a child placed for adoption" by the superintendent.

Then it has the opportunity to review and deal with that. I'm wondering if the minister would provide for us -- also as a review for herself -- the regulations which existed prior to this new Adoption Act being passed and the regulations that existed after the Adoption Act was passed, so that we could compare those -- that is, regulations that have to do with the adopting parents being provided with financial assistance under those regulations.

[5:15]

Hon. L. Boone: I'll get those regulations to you.

C. Clark: I want to canvass one last issue with respect to the payments to foster parents, and that's the issue of the basic

[ Page 8884 ]

I want to take issue with the fact that ministry policy for the basic coverage -- the basic family care payments that government makes -- doesn't differentiate between level 2 and typical children in foster care. Any level 2 or level 3 foster parent will tell you that it is indeed a great deal more expensive to meet those special needs. The clothing can be more expensive. Wheelchairs are more expensive. Things that are provided for in here -- like education, equipment and babysitting. . . . If it's a specialized babysitter that you require, that can be more expensive.

I want to just point out the fact that I disagree with that and ask the minister if her ministry is looking into addressing that basic inequity that's built into the system for family care payments.

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I'd already addressed that. Foster parents who have special needs children and have additional costs can and do receive payments for those children on a case-by-case basis. Whether your child needs tutoring or a special wheelchair or you need more assistance in your home, those are paid over and above the payments that you already get.

The level system was developed to recognize the differences in the payments and the abilities of the foster parents. For example, those foster parents who are in level 1 receive less money over and above the care dollars than those in level 2, because it recognizes that those foster parents should have a higher skill ability to deal with the children they have.

C. Clark: I was referring specifically, though, not to the additional money that recognizes the skills the parents have and the time that is required on their part to devote to those children, but to the basic family care costs. If it is much, much more expensive for a foster parent to provide basic family care for a child who has specialized needs than for a typical child, then it seems to me that that should be recognized as a basic family care cost. I understand that there are other moneys available -- if the parent goes begging, cap in hand, to the ministry and asks specifically and fills out all the paperwork and forms.

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that there should be a recognition in the policy that the basic family care costs for special needs children are higher. The way to do that is to put it into the basic family care costs, rather than to require a whole raft of paperwork and a whole raft of forms to be filled out and special requests to be put in -- as though that is something special and unexpected in the system. The way the systems works is that it does treat those extra costs as though they are unexpected, when they're not. Instead, the system should recognize that those are basic costs. They are expected, and they are higher for special needs kids. The way to do that is to include it in the basic family care costs and to recognize in that system that there should be different levels of payment in the basic portion of the funding for specialized care and typical care.

Hon. L. Boone: I understand the arguments the member is making, but I want to pose the other side of it. I think we can provide better services for individuals by recognizing the specific needs of the child. The needs of a special needs child vary so much from one to another. If we were just to say that we were going to increase and a special needs child in level 1 would, instead of the $637, be getting $1,000 a month to recognize those things, then you might suddenly find that a whole pile of them would be saying: "Well, that's not enough. I actually need $1,200 because I've got X number of dollars that I have to go here."

I think it's far better for the children to actually recognize the needs that they have and for us to pay for those costs on a one-off basis, so that each and every child gets what they need, rather than having us say, "Here is a bulk sum of money, and we hope this covers the needs of this child," and let it go at that. I think that we do recognize the costs. We do recognize the needs of those children, and we do pay for those.

C. Clark: I'll leave my comments at that. It doesn't sound like I'm going to get anywhere with the minister, but nonetheless, I think I've made my point about it. There seems to me to be a real inequity in the way the system operates. I suppose that at this stage, the best I can hope for is that the minister will take some time to think about it, talk to foster parents, find out what's really going on with them, find out what their real costs are and then address some of the inequities that are in the system, that they experience every day, that they have to face every day to try and do their very difficult jobs. That's not just a process of consulting. I should remind the minister of this. It's a process of consulting and then listening and then making sure that what you heard is reflected in the policies that come out at the end of the day from the government.

The policies of foster care from this government would certainly benefit from a little bit more of those three things. That's what I hear from foster parents on a regular basis. They don't feel valued. They don't feel like they're listened to. They don't feel like the ministry treats them even like a partner in this process. Surely to goodness, those are some of the most important people to the ministry, because they're prepared to do the job that the government can't do and that the rest of society, the rest of our community isn't willing to do -- that their own parents, in some cases, aren't willing or aren't able to do.

I think the approach to foster parents. . . . Instead of being arbitrary, reflecting some of the worst aspects of Big Brother, where you treat foster parents like they're not valuable in the system, government policy should be a regular process of saying: "Thank you. We appreciate what you're doing. How can we help you do the job better?"

One of the things I hear from foster parents on a regular basis is that they're thinking of leaving the system, due to some new government policy or other. There are a whole lot of reasons I've heard from foster parents about why they might consider leaving the system. And I hear from foster parents. . . . I heard recently at the foster parents convention at Sun Peaks that there were foster parents every day that each of them knew of who were not fostering anymore. They had chosen to get out of the system. Can the minister tell me what the turnover rate for foster parents is in British Columbia and whether that turnover rate is expected to be greater this year or to diminish this year?

Hon. L. Boone: The rate was 5.8 percent last year. We're hoping that it will go down, because we are implementing Foster Care 2000, which has a lot of recommendations that the foster parents were looking for and are very supportive of. I think it will make a great deal of difference to their lives -- the after-hours phone line, etc.

[ Page 8885 ]

In addition to that, the region has identified a need for comprehensive plans of care for children and youth. The following agencies received additional funding to cover these costs: PACT, which is Parents and Teens Communicating Together, received additional funding of $45,672, and there is currently a wait-list of one individual for this program; and Quesnel Tillicum Society had a total additional funding of $45,672. That's for your information.

C. Clark: Perhaps the place to start with the numbers on foster parents is to ask first: how many foster parents are there in total? But more specifically, how many foster parents are providing each different category of care? I'm thinking specifically of level 3, level 2, level 1 and the different categories of care.

[5:30]

The number of contracts for level 1 family care is 783; level 1, other and one time only, 140; level 2 family care, 1,213; level 2, other and one time only, 92; level 3 family care, 346; level 3 and one time only, 18. Those would be the regular. . . . Did you want the regular foster parents as well?

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: The restricted family care payments are 812; restricted other and one time only, 34; regular family care payments, 1,281; regular other and one time only, 253. That is as of March 31, 1998.

C. Clark: The reason I wanted to go back to the number of foster homes that are out there and the different types of foster homes is because it's useful to be able to determine not just whether there's a shortage overall. . . . We know that there is a shortage overall. But more importantly, is there a shortage in each of those different areas? I suspect that some areas are experiencing a more acute shortage than other areas. Perhaps the minister could tell us how much her ministry estimates the shortage of foster homes overall is and, more importantly, how much short they are in each of the different levels for the foster care that's anticipated to be required.

Hon. L. Boone: We estimate that we are short about 250 foster parents in the total system. It varies from region to region. We have shortages in aboriginal and in multicultural. In our foster care recruitment program in the fall, we will be focusing on those two particular groups.

As to how many we are short in each of those areas, it depends on how many children they take. You know, you may find a foster home that may take two, three or four children -- maybe only one. So it's hard to actually quantify how many foster parents we are short in any particular group, whether it be aboriginal, multicultural or whatever.

C. Clark: I appreciate that it might be difficult. Maybe the minister could tell us, then, how many spaces they're short. Maybe that's the way to get to an answer. I understand that a foster home might take one or four children. But I suspect that the ministry must track that information in terms of just the spaces that are available for the children.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: This is a difficult thing, and I hope you understand how difficult it is to sort of put your finger right on the pulse of this issue. The number of children in care and the types of children in care vary from month to month. They come in; they go out, etc. Right now we have no spaces. . . . We don't have any child that is not in a space. The question is whether they are in the right space. We do have aboriginal children, for example, that are in non-aboriginal homes that we would very much like to see placed in an aboriginal home. We would say that there are approximately 100 of those. Children come in and leave the system; they go out of the system. It's a very moving system, so it's hard to say how many particular children at this particular time are aboriginal or multicultural or are actually waiting to get into a different type of home.

C. Clark: How does the ministry predict, then, what kinds of and how many foster parents they're going to need in the system? The minister has predicted that approximately 250 new homes will be required in the system as of today. I'd be curious to know how she came to that conclusion, how she was able to predict that. What was the process that she used?

Hon. L. Boone: That's dealing with the attrition we have with foster parents who are leaving the system, and also looking at the number of children we have who we would like to place in another setting. It's maybe not the best situation. I mentioned the aboriginal situation because that's the one I'm well aware of, and certainly it's one I'm extremely concerned about. As I said earlier, we do have aboriginal children, for example, who are in situations where we would like to move them into an aboriginal home.

C. Clark: How does the ministry track the number of children that are in what the ministry would deem to be inappropriate care situations for the type of care they require? The minister's examples are an aboriginal child in a non-aboriginal home, a child with specific cultural needs in a home that doesn't provide for that, and a child in a regular family care home who should be in the levelled system. How does the ministry track that?

Hon. L. Boone: It's done through the regions by the regional resource teams who review the permanency planning that is done for those children. But as has been pointed out to me, some of those children may in fact be in a situation for a long time. So although it may look like they are in an inappropriate setting, we wouldn't want to go and disrupt that setting, because they may be attached to the foster parents and the foster parents attached to them. So even though it may be an aboriginal in a non-aboriginal home, at this particular time we may not want to say: "Well, now we're going to suddenly disrupt him." But had we been able to find a more

[ Page 8886 ]

C. Clark: I'm not suggesting that the ministry go in and disrupt the life of a child they feel is in an inappropriate situation. I recognize the fact that they may not even have anywhere to put them if there's a shortage of homes in that area. From what I can discern here, the ministry knows at any given time -- has some idea of -- the numbers of children that are in what the ministry would call an inappropriate care situation. So the regional resource teams in each region will know and be able to track the children that they might want to consider putting into a different care situation. My next obvious question is: can we have those numbers?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get those numbers to you. What I would like you to do, though, is actually sit down with a staff member to go through those things so they can sort through some of the issues with you to explain things. Sometimes if you just get numbers, it's hard to look at them and say: "This person has been there for a long time, and it's not appropriate to move this person now." So we could get those number from the regions to you, but as I said, I'd really like for a staff person to sit down and go through some of that information with you just so you'll understand exactly what it means. We'd be more than happy to do that.

C. Clark: Yeah, I'd be happy to see those numbers. The issue is not just children whose cultural needs are not being met. The issue is also children who have behaviour problems or special needs who aren't in the right level of care. One of the issues that has arisen a number of times with this ministry is the fact that children are being put into care situations that aren't appropriate. The Baby M situation was an example of that, where a child was put in a home where the caregiver was unable to care for that child. There are other situations we're aware of where the parent will say: "I wasn't told that this child had a special need that needed to be looked after. If I had been told that," the parent will say, "I would have told the social worker or the ministry that I'm not competent to care for that child. I'm just not able to do it. I don't have the skills, the training, the time -- whatever -- to be able to deal with that child."

[5:45]

The minister knows that the task force on foster care recommended that there be an overabundance of foster parents available at any given time, so that we'll always have choices about where we should put those children. But what seems to happen -- this is anecdotal evidence according to social workers -- is that they get a child on a Friday afternoon, and they say: "What am I going to do with this child? They require level 3 care, and there's no level 3 home." The child gets put into an inappropriate level of care. That can really be a life-or-death situation for a child, particularly for an infant. We've seen some cases where foster parents alleged that the social worker was so desperate to find a place that they didn't inform the foster parents that the child had special needs. The social worker clearly had an incentive to try to find some space for that child, and they knew that the foster parents would not take on the child if they knew that the child had special needs.

That's the kind of situation that appears to be arising fairly frequently in this ministry, which needs to be addressed. It would certainly give me some comfort if the minister could give me the numbers on where the shortages are in terms of the different levels of foster care in the province.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we'll have to get those numbers to you, because they're done on a region-by-region basis. We do have a shortage in the level 3 area. The concerns that you are raising are very serious ones, and they are being addressed through the foster care task force review and Foster Care 2000. That addresses the guardianship standard; the pre-training for foster parents and ongoing training as well. It addresses the concern you have about making sure, in the guardianship standards, that they are aware of the needs of the children as they come into care. So these things are on the mend.

They are very serious concerns, and they've been raised by the foster parents society. The Federation of Foster Parent Associations, when I met with them and when they looked over the plans we have to implement all the recommendations of the foster parent report, were extremely happy about the training that's going to be taking place and about the access to information that they have and the ability of the ministry to move on those things. We are moving on them, and we will have all of them in place by the end of this fiscal year.

C. Clark: How does the ministry determine the needs of a child before it puts the child into care?

Hon. L. Boone: If we are taking a child into care on an emergency basis, it's very difficult to get information. As you can imagine, it's hard at 3 o'clock in the morning, or whatever, if the parents aren't around or you're not able to talk to the parents to get that information. So we have very limited information. If the child is known to the ministry, then we have some information that we can gather to try to deal with the appropriate placement. Within 30 days, we actually develop a plan of care and work at pulling together all the information that we have.

Hon. Chair, noting the clock, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

[ Page 8887 ]

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:54 p.m. to 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: I call Committee of Supply. For the interest of the members, in Committee A we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In Committee B, it's the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

C. Clark: I want to get back to the question of turnover of foster parents. The minister indicated that there was about a 5 percent turnover of foster parents last year, and she's anticipating that the numbers will be the same this year. I note, though, that in last year's estimates the minister indicated that the statistics showed that between March '92 and March '94, there was an average annual turnover of approximately 20 percent. I wonder if the minister could tell us how she accounts for the much smaller turnover rate these days, than just two years ago.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't really say why fewer foster parents are leaving and why there's a smaller turnover, other than to assume that perhaps they like Foster Care 2000 and they were anticipating the changes that would come in with Foster Care 2000. Maybe they thought that things were going to be getting better for them; I'm not really sure. This is all guessing on my part. I'm just glad that they're staying.

Contrary to what you said, I didn't say that we're estimating the same amount. We're very hopeful that we'll have an even lower turnover this year, because we will be implementing some very positive changes as a result of the foster care task force -- changes that foster parents have been asking for, for quite a while, and that I think will make a great deal of difference to their lives.

C. Clark: There are two possibilities here. Either the number has decreased dramatically. . . . I suppose there are three answers: the number has decreased dramatically, one of the two numbers is wrong, or the method for collecting and tracking that information has changed. Could the minister tell us whether the ministry's method of collecting that information has indeed changed and outline how she currently collects the information about turnover of foster parents?

Hon. L. Boone: You're correct in saying that the way we collect data has changed. We now require more rigorous information-gathering by the regions. They pass it on to us quarterly, so that we now have a much more accurate way of showing how many foster parents are leaving the system.

C. Clark: How did the ministry used to collect its information? I have to assume that if the numbers are this much different -- it's a pretty substantial difference -- the data collection. . . . The 20 percent turnover is a number that we should be suspicious of. I wonder if the minister could just tell us how they collected that data to come to the conclusion that there was a 20 percent turnover just a couple of years ago.

Hon. L. Boone: We don't really know exactly how the ministry did it in the years past. We know that it wasn't as rigorous as it is now. But we're here to discuss this year's budget and how we're proceeding. We're very pleased that we now have in place a better system of tracking. Since the ministry has come into being, we've invested in computers. The computer systems in the past were really poor. We've invested a tremendous amount of money in computer systems, so we think our tracking systems are a lot better. We are working very hard to make sure that we put in place the necessary resources, the necessary assistance to foster parents, so that we can attract more foster parents to the system and keep those that are already there. They're an extremely valuable resource, as you've mentioned, and we really appreciate the work they do. So anything that we can do to keep them is something that we will do.

C. Clark: I just want to raise with the minister one issue about a woman who I've spent some time with and whose situation has been reported in the newspapers. I know that the minister's office is also aware of her situation. Her name is Jo-Anne Reed, and her house was burned down by a foster child that she had in her care. She was not covered by insurance, and she's been left to bear those costs all on her own. Her contention is that she wasn't informed that this child was a high-risk child. When she took the child into her care, she was informed that the child was a difficult child but not that he was a fire-starter. Ms. Reed contends that she wouldn't have taken that child into her care, or that she would have at least provided differently for that child, had she known that the boy was a fire-starter.

She says that as a result of not being given that information by the social workers when she took the child in, her house is burned down, her belongings are all gone, and she's not covered by insurance. She says that she certainly, at the very least, would have made sure that her insurance was up to date if she'd had that information about the child.

I think that hers is one of these cases where it appears that a social worker was so desperate to get a child into care that they didn't give the foster parent all the information that she required in order to make a decision about whether she was prepared to take that child into care. Ms. Reed says that the reason she ended up taking the boy was because she was concerned that if she didn't, she'd never get another child to take into care for the ministry -- that she'd be, essentially, blacklisted, labelled uncooperative, and never be offered this kind of work again.

I'll ask the minister if she could comment on this specific case, because I know it's been something that's been fairly widely reported. I think that the way the ministry deals with a case like this will have implications for hundreds and hundreds of other foster parents out there.

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, I'm very reluctant to get into individual cases in this House. There's always information that we're aware of that the member may not be. Therefore, if you would get that information to us -- whatever information you have -- or if you would like for us to meet with you to discuss this particular case, we'd be happy to do so. But I really don't think it's appropriate in this setting that we start to exchange information that we have.

[ Page 8888 ]

[6:45]

What I would ask her to tell us, though, is: broadly, what is the ministry policy? How much responsibility is the ministry prepared to take in cases where a foster parent takes on a child and isn't adequately informed of the needs of that child -- doesn't have all the background they need -- and something happens, something disastrous like a fire, as a result of the child being in the home, when the foster parent wasn't informed and certainly should have been? Of course, a foster parent can't make a decision about whether they are prepared to take a child into their care without all the information about that child.

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, there is a responsibility in the new guardianship guidelines, the foster parent standards, etc., that those guardians or foster parents be informed of all the information about that child. Those were covered in the task force.

For your information, I just want to read into the record the information with regard to insurance:

"The Ministry for Children and Families provides funding to the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations to purchase and administer group insurance for all approved foster families in British Columbia. There are two types of coverage: comprehensive general liability insurance and extended property damage coverage.

"Comprehensive general liability insurance automatically provides all foster families with third-party liability insurance related to carrying out their foster care responsibilities. This insurance provides coverage regardless of what a foster family's own policy provides.

"All foster families with signed ministry agreements are eligible for extended property damage insurance, provided they have an existing household or tenant insurance policy. The extended property damage coverage is a rider to a foster family's existing insurance coverage and provides compensation to a foster family for the willful acts of damage that a child in care may commit.

"All foster families must have household insurance; it is a requirement of their agreement with the ministry. If insurance is not purchased or has expired, the extended property damage rider does not provide coverage.

"Additional payments to foster families are available to cover the cost of the insurance deductible if a child in care causes damage covered by the extended property damage policy."

C. Clark: My question really, though, is: how much responsibility does the ministry take for not properly informing a foster parent about the needs of a child who's in their care? Does the ministry have any liability in a case like that? I mean, it's not just a question of insurance and whether the foster parent is covered. Presumably, most foster parents do have insurance. This is one case where the parent didn't.

Even more broadly, there are parents out there who take children into care and who say they don't know what those children's needs are or what the special demands are that might be placed on their home. What would happen, for example, if -- heaven forbid -- a foster parent took in a child who was, say, sexually intrusive or violent, if they had other children in the home who could potentially be affected by that and they weren't informed about the potential for that new foster child to exhibit those kinds of behaviours? I'm curious about how much responsibility the ministry takes in cases like that. Clearly, if there is not a legal responsibility, there is certainly a moral responsibility on the part of the ministry to ensure that families are fully informed about the needs of a child. That's the only way they can make a decision about taking a child into care before they say yes or no to the ministry. . . . They're clearly not able to make an informed decision if they don't have all the information.

I recognize that the minister says that the new guardianship guidelines require that that happens. First, that's no guarantee that it always will happen, and second, we know that in the past it hasn't always happened. So I'll ask the question again: what responsibility does the ministry take in cases where damage occurs as a result of a foster child being in the home when the foster parent was not adequately informed about the special needs of that foster child that they took in?

Hon. L. Boone: It is the responsibility of all social workers right now to inform foster parents of what a child is like. Unfortunately, there may be times when we don't always know all the details. There may be situations where a child is coming into care and we don't have all the information on that child. It is their responsibility, and all social workers are to make sure that they inform the foster parents of all the information they have with regards to it. It is actually in practice standard 15; "Providing Information to the Caregiver." So it is certainly a responsibility to do so.

If there is an allegation that this was not done, then we would take it up with the Ministry of Attorney General if there is a liability. But as I said, we understand that all of our social workers do inform caregivers of what these children are like -- with the knowledge that they have. Sometimes there is information that they do not have.

C. Clark: I am inferring from the minister's comments that the only avenue a foster parent would have if they took a child into their care and weren't fully informed about the needs of that child -- and could demonstrate that the ministry was aware of the needs of that child but didn't inform them -- is to go to court, incur the costs of a lawyer and hope that they could convince the court that the ministry had wronged them and that the social workers weren't meeting their responsibility. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: We would review it with the Attorney General ministry to find out if there was a liability for the ministry. Obviously, all allegations are not necessarily true. All of our social workers are instructed as to the information that they should be providing caregivers, and we expect that they will live up to that expectation. As I said, it clearly states: "The amount of information you are able to provide a caregiver at the time of admission will vary, depending on how well you know the child and the circumstances which have brought the child into care." I think you can recognize that those things would vary from time to time.

C. Clark: I do understand that. I'm not talking about the times when the ministry legitimately doesn't know the needs

[ Page 8889 ]

Clearly there is an incentive built into the system when a social worker is under real stress and there's a real shortage of homes out there to meet the need. In those cases, clearly social workers may sometimes not fully inform the foster parent. I'm not suggesting that every allegation that a foster parent makes is true, but certainly there are enough foster parents out there that make those kinds of allegations. There have been enough cases of people like Joanne Reed, so that I think we can say with some certainty that it does happen sometimes.

What the minister is telling me is that her ministry will review whether there is any liability with the Attorney General's office. I understand that. But what she hasn't told me is what will happen when the ministry determines that there is some liability that they'll have to bear. If they do determine that there's liability, does that mean that the ministry will hire a few lawyers and then wait for the foster parent to sue them? Or are there other avenues that foster parents can go down to try to resolve these kinds of complaints without incurring the really enormous and onerous legal costs that they would have to take on, but which they're not prepared or able to take on in many cases?

Hon. L. Boone: We would try to assess the situation, with the help of the Attorney General, to decide if there is liability; then, if possible, we would sit down and work out a settlement if in fact the Attorney General ministry determined that there is liability. It's not in anybody's best interests to drag things through the court if in fact we've done something wrong.

C. Clark: Is this a case where the ministry and the Attorney General's office have determined whether there would be liability?

Hon. L. Boone: I think you already know the answer to that. I can't speak about a specific case here.

C. Clark: I can't make the minister talk about it; that's true. I'm sure that Ms. Reed will be in touch again with the minister's office. Hopefully, this time she will get someone to respond to her calls and letters, which she says hasn't happened in the past. So I will put out the early warning for the minister that she's expecting that her calls and letters will be answered this time. I suppose we'll have to leave it at that, because I don't expect that the minister is going to answer any more questions about Ms. Reed's specific case.

I want to talk, though, about the budget numbers for this ministry: how much the ministry is budgeting for foster care this year and the percentage change in this year's budget as opposed to last year's.

Hon. L. Boone: Last year it was $161,707,000, and this year it's $198,705,000.

C. Clark: Does the $161,707,000 include the special warrant?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

C. Clark: How much did the ministry spend on foster care last year when you include the special warrant?

[7:00]

C. Clark: The numbers for foster parents -- the actual funding for foster parents -- have actually decreased this year, based on the numbers the minister has given me. We've gone down from $199 million to $198 million. By any standard, even if you don't factor in the cost of living and all that, that's a decrease in funding. I'm surprised to hear that. The decrease in funding. . . . I have a whole host of questions that have arisen as a result of this discovery.

The $4 million that's coming in from the federal government -- did that come in last year, and what's it for?

Hon. L. Boone: This is a children's special allowance that we get from the federal government, and it is being increased this year from $85 to $135. It is funding that we get back, so in fact this is an additional $4 million that we will have. Instead of $198 million, it will be $202 million.

C. Clark: Did the province get this money last year as well? What was the amount they got last year?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year it was $7 million. This year, as I said, it's going up to about $11 million. There's an increase of $4 million that we will be getting from the federal government.

C. Clark: But the bottom line here is that provincial funding for foster parents is decreasing this year over last; that's the bottom line. The provincial government is committing fewer resources to foster care this year than it did last year. That is an astonishing admission from the government -- the same government that says that it wants to increase resources for foster parents. I remember two big flashy announcements that this minister has made about how she is putting more support into foster care, and how she wants to meet the commitments and recommendations of the task force on foster care.

When she made that announcement, she said that there were going to be more resources provided for foster parents; there were going to be more foster parent homes; there was going to be a hotline for foster parents; there were going to be videos and pamphlets; there was going to be more support. Well, there's not more money, that's for sure. If you're not putting your money in the budget where you say you want to

[ Page 8890 ]

Everybody was suspicious about the timing of that announcement. Boy, the minister managed to cook up a quick announcement in advance of these damning reports on the foster care system. Now we know why she cooked it up, and now we know that it was entirely cooked up: there isn't any new money from this government for foster care. Every new dollar that they put in last year went just to meet, or even to try to meet, the growth that they didn't anticipate in the system. They couldn't get away with it. They couldn't get around the fact that there were no places to put those foster children, and they couldn't just leave them on the street, so they were forced to put that money in there.

But this year the money is actually going down despite the government's commitments that they're going to improve the foster care system, that they're going to provide more resources to foster parents. It's disgraceful that on the one hand, the minister will make two announcements -- not one, but two -- talking about how she's going to improve the system for foster parents. She'll go out and tell foster parents that she's going to improve the system for them, while at the same time, on the other hand, she's actually cutting the provincial commitment to funding foster care in British Columbia.

It's ridiculous, particularly in light of the fact that there have been two damning reports on the foster care system in British Columbia. We've seen in Quesnel that there were not enough foster homes to take care of the children there that needed to be taken care of. There weren't enough places to put those people. Now the minister has just admitted that there are a lot of children in inappropriate care situations, that they're sending children to homes that the ministry doesn't think they should be in. We know that. We know that that was true of Baby Molly. We assume that that might have been true of Baby J. We know that that's been true of a whole number of children. We've seen reports from the children's commissioner and from the child, youth and family advocate about it.

We know that there are gaping holes in the foster care system and that children are not having their needs met. That's because of a shortage of foster care. On the other hand, the minister says that she's going to recruit more resources, find more money for foster parents and make sure the system is well taken care of. In fact, she says she is going to recruit 250 new homes to the system. She says she knows that as of today they are short 250 homes in the system.

Well, can the minister tell me how it is that she is going to add new homes to the system, pay more foster care parents, pay for more spaces in the foster care system and how she is going to close those gaps that she admitted exist, when she's actually cutting the provincial commitment to foster parents in her budget? You know, the two just don't jibe. When the minister makes a promise on the one hand and then breaks it a couple of weeks later in her budgeting process, sometimes she's going to get caught. This is one of those times, because you can't stand up and say that you're going to recruit more foster parents to the system, pay for more foster homes and make sure that there are more resources in the system, and then on the other hand, two to four weeks later, break your promise by cutting the provincial commitment to foster care in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Calm down. Calm down, hon. members.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Calm down!

The Chair: The minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, calm down.

M. de Jong: On a point of order.

The Chair: The member for Matsqui on a point of order.

M. de Jong: First of all, if the minister wants to make a comment, maybe she can move to the appropriate place to make a comment. And if I heard the minister. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. You are making reference to other members in the House.

M. de Jong: If the minister. . . . I believe the rules call for ministers to speak from their. . . .

The Chair: Are you asking the Chair to make a ruling, or are you asking the member?

M. de Jong: I believe the rules call for all members to make comments from their seats.

The Chair: Yes. If you could point that out to the Chair, I would be happy to follow up on that.

M. de Jong: And I have.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

M. de Jong: The second part of my point of order, hon. Chair, is that I think I heard the member make an unparliamentary remark. I think she knows what that remark is, and I would ask her -- through you, of course -- to withdraw it.

The Chair: Member, your first point of order is well taken. Members should know that they should speak from their proper seats.

As to the second part, I'm afraid the minister did not have the floor, and I did not hear any remarks. So I would like to carry on with the debate.

Hon. L. Boone: If the member had just taken a little breath there, I would have been able to explain something to her. I apologize for giving you the wrong information last time. I was giving you the numbers for children in care. I do apologize for giving you the wrong information.

[ Page 8891 ]

C. Clark: You know, the minister can stand there and very patronizingly and condescendingly suggest that members on this side of the House calm down. But I'll tell you that after months and months -- years -- of listening to this government make promises on the one hand and then so cavalierly break them on the other hand, I don't feel like being calm about that. I don't think taxpayers expect me to be calm about that, and they don't expect this minister to be cavalier about that either. They expect her and the rest of the members of her government to make promises and then keep them. That's what they expect; that's what I expect. So I hope the Chair will indulge me if I do get a little upset when the minister admits to this House that she's breaking her promises just weeks after making them -- and in an important sector: foster parents in British Columbia.

For the minister to stand up and patronizingly and condescendingly suggest that everyone in this House should just sit back quietly when she stands up and gives information to us, which tells us that she's breaking her promise to foster parents. . . . I will not sit back and be calm. I will not sit back quietly and let this minister get away with it. That's not what people in British Columbia expect from the opposition. And you know what? They don't expect it from the government either. They expect the members on the government side to live up to their commitments as well. I will tell you, hon. Chair, that I am not going to be calm when I listen to this minister talk about how she is breaking her promises in British Columbia.

But I want to get back to the numbers, because the first number she gave me was for children in care. I assume that number was correct -- that the first set of numbers she gave me, which was $199 million last year and $198.705 million this year for children in care, were correct. Would she confirm that?

[7:15]

I certainly intend to keep my promise to foster parents. We will be implementing all of the recommendations except for one, which is not within our mandate. In the foster parents task force we have made a commitment to the foster parents that we will be doing those things, and they are not all involving payments. They come in the form of training, of policy changes and of recognizing that foster parents are a valuable resource. We intend to keep that, and I certainly will make sure that those recommendations are followed through. As I said earlier, all of those will be in place by the end of December.

You do the public a great disservice, hon. member, when you sit there and raise fears about individuals and all of those things. You are raising incredible fears among the foster parent community out there by informing them that we are breaking our promise to them. We are not breaking our promise to the foster parents association. I really hope that you just sit there and recognize the importance of a $20 million increase in the foster parent budget.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, before I recognize another member, I have to point out that abusive and insulting language creates disorder in the House, and it will not be allowed. Parliamentary language is desirable when we're in debate. I hope all members will keep that in mind.

C. Clark: The bottom line here is that the ministry is cutting its funding for children in care. No matter how you want to cut that, children in care will not have the same resources available to them this year as they had last year. When this government gets out and touts all of its promises and how well it's doing in supporting children in British Columbia, the money isn't there to back it up. They are actually cutting the amount of money that they provide to children in care. The minister has admitted that. Now that she has finally got the numbers straight, she has admitted that. With the dollars they are providing, the bottom line for children in care is being cut in British Columbia. So children in care are not doing better this year than they did last. In fact, they're doing worse this year than they did last year as a result of government's cuts to children in care.

The population of children in British Columbia will be growing next year, according to Stats Canada. That number is set to increase. The minister should know that. When she says that she's providing enough money, that she's keeping her commitments and that she's living up to her commitment to keep pace with things, the truth is in the budget. She clearly is not doing that. The number of young people in British Columbia is growing. So we can only assume that the number of children in care might also grow. Now, even if you take out this minister's explanation that somehow new ministry policies are going to mean a dramatic reduction in the number of children in care -- even if you subtract that -- you're still going to be left with a growth in the number of children in care, because the population in British Columbia is still growing.

Maybe the minister and I can get into a long argument about the factors they use to predict the number of children in care. But I'll bet you that when we. . . . Let's look at last year instead, where the ministry was out by 1,200, which is a substantial number to be out. The minister had to get a special warrant behind closed doors and ask for permission after the fact, because the predictions were so far out. What makes her think that this year her predictions are going to be so dead-on, that there will be no growth of children in care in British Columbia, so that she can feel comfortable about the fact that she's actually cutting the budget, cutting the number of resources that are available to those children in care for this next fiscal year?

Hon. L. Boone: Before I get into everything, there are some figures here that I just want to show you. We seriously believe that we can reduce and that we will see a reduction in the number of children coming into care. The changes that took place in the legislation mean that we don't have to take a

[ Page 8892 ]

I think it's showing that it's true. This time last year, we had 120 children come into care in one month; this month we had 15. So there is a reduction in the number of children. There's a reduction, as I said earlier, in the number of children that are coming into the province. The province's population is not increasing the way it was many months ago -- or many years ago, for that matter. So we believe the trend is there. We believe that we'll see a reduction in the number of children coming into care.

I hope that you don't just rant on and on and say that this budget has been cut. I've shown you quite clearly that with the additional $4 million coming from the feds, this budget will in fact have an increase of $4 million -- $198 million goes up to $202 million. Now, a $4 million increase may not be huge, but it is an increase. It's not a decrease any more than a $20 million increase for foster parents is a decrease. Yes, we have a challenge ahead of us. But I would say that right now all of government has a challenge ahead to make sure that the dollars are spent as wisely as they can be, and we'll do the best we can to do those things.

C. Clark: Is the federal contribution, by the way, a transfer to individuals, or is it a transfer directly to the ministry? Does that transfer have any strings attached to it when it comes into the government?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it comes to the ministry. There are no strings attached to it other than it has to be linked to individual children -- meaning that we only get it out of there for individual children.

C. Clark: So the bottom line is that the ministry can't necessarily predict how much money it's going to be getting from the federal government at any one time. It sounds to me like the federal government has criteria and uses them to determine which children will be getting money and which will be eligible for money and funding under the program. I wonder if the minister could just get into a little detail about that, because I'm very curious about how this transfer works.

Hon. L. Boone: If we anticipate that a child is going to be in care for more than one month, we then claim that from the federal government, and we submit that information to them on a monthly basis.

C. Clark: The minister said that 120 children came into care last month and that 15 children came into care this month. She indicated that that would be a measure of how well. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: This time last year.

C. Clark: This time last year, sorry -- this month as opposed to this month last year. She indicated that that was a measure of how well the ministry's new policies are working. That's what -- a 90 percent decrease in the number of children coming into care? Does she anticipate that there will continue to be a 90 percent decrease in the number of children coming into ministry care over the next few months?

Hon. L. Boone: I think the trend is there. One of the things we've said right along is that we are not seeing the population increases. We have attributed -- as have most people -- the massive increases of children coming into care in the past year to the increased population of children. We are not seeing those huge increases in the population of children, as we had in past years. We are hopeful that we will see the trend go down, with fewer children coming into care and with us being able to do such things as supervisory orders and other means and doing better planning with more social workers in the stream, so that we can in fact reduce the number of children in care.

C. Clark: The reason I'm kind of puzzled by this line of argument about the population increases is that we're almost in a recession this year, and we were almost in a recession last year. The population was flooding across the borders to Alberta and Washington last year, and they're doing the same this year. Last year was not substantially different from this year. The population growth is not that substantially different either; there has not been a huge percentage change. This year, according to Statistics Canada, there are going to be 1,500 more children between the ages of zero and 14, and 7,900 more youth, which I think is 15 to 24. For the ministry's purposes, I suppose that up to 19 would be the relevant number there. But there's still going to be growth in the absolute numbers of young people in British Columbia next year.

The minister has indicated that one of the reasons for their prediction that there won't be more children in care this year than there were last year is because population growth is slowing so dramatically. Frankly, I don't understand that line of argument, because the population growth this year is not substantially different from last year. There has been a slowing over a period of years, but it hasn't occurred over the last two years. The circumstances that existed last year more or less exist this year.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand the minister's argument that the ministry does have some new and different policies that it's going to put in place. My question is: why was the ministry so off last year about the number of children that were going to come into its care? Because 1,200 is a huge number. What mistake did the ministry make that led to that calculation error of the number of children that will be in care? How is the ministry making sure that they don't make that mistake again, when they're predicting the numbers for this year?

Hon. L. Boone: I have not said that there will be a decrease. I have said that we're not seeing the massive increases in population that we've had in the past. If you look at the trends here. . . . In 1993 the increase was 2.3 percent; then in 1994, 2.2 percent; in 1995, 2 percent; 1.9 percent; 1.4 percent; 1.4 percent. We're seeing a levelling off. We're not seeing the massive increases in population that we have in past years.

[7:30]

[ Page 8893 ]

C. Clark: Can the minister shed any light at all on why the estimates were so out last year? There must be some reason, some fault in the ministry's methods of predicting these things, that led to such a very substantial error being made. It's certainly relevant to this year's estimates. Last year the ministry was forced to go for special warrants, which is something that governments are not supposed to want to do, although this government doesn't seem to be shy about doing it. But special warrants are outside the normal budgeting process, and ministers should not want to go and ask for special warrants. It should be accounted for in the estimates -- a year in advance -- when we pass them. That's how the public accounting system is supposed to work.

It's relevant not only for that reason. I want to be sure that this ministry isn't going to have to go ask -- for exactly the same reason -- for special warrants again next year because they're making the same mistake, using the same faulty reasoning that they did last year. I don't know what the problem is, but clearly there was a problem that happened last year, and we should, I think reasonably, expect to be assured that that's not going to happen next year.

If it is going to happen next year, that means that for the next 12 months the ministry is going to be juggling, trying to figure out how to make ends meet all year, because there are more children coming into care than they expected. Can the minister tell us if any effort has been made on the part of her ministry to try and find out where the error is in the reasoning, where the logic doesn't work in the way they predict the number of children that will be coming into the care of the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: I think that if you look at last year and the last couple of years, you can recognize some of the reasons why there could be more children being reported. And every time you have a death or injury or something that becomes very high profile, you suddenly find -- and we in the ministry find -- that a lot more people are coming forward and reporting incidents. I think it's fair to say that the highly visible incidents in the past couple of years have made people very aware of situations and that they are reporting them more often. I think it's fair to say that those that are working in the field are also more sensitive to criticism coming from sectors -- whether it be the media or the opposition or whomever -- as to how they practise.

I'm hopeful that this year. . . . I think we're seeing that changing, with more resources being there in the field, and people are starting to recognize some of the areas where they can reduce the number of children that actually come into care.

Those are the only reasons that I can see as to why there would be an increase in numbers. We believe that our numbers are on track. However, if something happens in the province, if there is a sudden disaster in a particular area, if a community suddenly has high growth in unemployment and something happens -- there are a number of things. . . . All of those factors could contribute to stress on families and to children coming into care.

Although I am extremely hopeful, I'm not going to say that our numbers are going to be exactly on track and that at this time next year we're going to be able to estimate exactly the number of children and that if we're over, then we've made a gross error and we've been negligent. We are taking into consideration the changes that we're making as a ministry. We're taking into consideration the additional staff that we've put out there, and we believe that our estimates are realistic.

C. Clark: Well, if one of the factors the minister is using in determining how many children are going to come into care is the level of unemployment, then she had better raise the numbers, because from every indication in this province, unemployment is going to continue to rise.

We saw the labour bill introduced today. That's going to do nothing but drive unemployment through the roof in British Columbia. It's going to do nothing but cause an economic slowdown in British Columbia. The impact of it that might do some good for this minister is that more people might leave British Columbia; more families might go to Alberta, so there will be fewer children in British Columbia. I suppose that could happen, but if we want to factor in unemployment and economic slowdowns as factors in the numbers of children coming into care, you bet the minister had better expect it. That's the only thing that's going to happen as a result of the labour bill. That's the only thing that has happened as a result of this government's forest policies. That's the only thing that's happened as the result of this government's mining policy. That is the only thing that's happened as a result of the Minister of Finance's high, relentless taxation and regulatory policies.

If she wants to factor that in, I'll give her a caution today. She better make sure that she factors in higher unemployment numbers, because that's where they're going in British Columbia. I don't see this government relenting so that our economy picks up again, so that people can get back to work. If that's a major factor and one of the measures she's going to be using for the number of children that will be coming into care, she had better increase her numbers, because she is going to be way off again.

It's disturbing to know that the minister can't point to the problem that occurred last year. She can't tell us why they were so off last year. Can she tell us if last year was an anomaly? I suppose that officials might be able to look back and tell us if there was an anomaly last year that had never happened in the past. Is the ministry normally as far off in its predictions as it was in the last year?

Hon. L. Boone: I think that we've gone over this. We seem to be a little repetitive in this area. I'll just repeat it, because the member doesn't seem to listen too well.

I think you'll find that in any situation. . . . After Gove, we suddenly saw huge increases in the number of children that came into care. I think people started to report incidents, and our workers, who had been burned badly and were feeling extremely burned, acted in perhaps an overcautious way. We've seen that taper off. I believe we will still see that taper off more with the changes that we're making with regards to some of the supervision orders, the additional workers that we're having in the field to give some better case management and some of the adoption plans that we have in place.

We'll do our best to keep within those numbers, but if the situation changes and we suddenly find that we are faced with more children in care, then we will deal with it at that time. Right now we believe that our numbers are realistic. The information that we've had and the stats that we've had this month clearly point to the fact that we are on the right track and that our numbers are being reduced.

[ Page 8894 ]

When we get into the budgeting process, there is always a temptation on the part of the government to just say: "Well, we think we can get away with this number. It's a ballpark figure." That's why we in the opposition ask for some assurance as to why those numbers might be correct. The minister can't give us any assurance about why these numbers are correct. She can't point us to any method of predicting that the government has that could make this year different from last year, even though population and unemployment are going up, we're in a terrible economic slowdown, and we're on the edge of a recession in British Columbia that's going to cause untold dysfunction in families around the province. Even though all those factors are out there, plain for anybody to see, the minister can't show us what mistake they've made and why it might be different this year from last.

Can she at least tell us how much impact her ministry predicts her changes in policy will have? Is that going to mean a 90 percent decrease, like it appears to for this month as opposed to this same month last year? Or does the ministry predict that might lead to a 5 percent decrease? Does the ministry have any data, any background information, about the total impact that those policy changes she has mentioned will have on the number of children taken into care?

Hon. L. Boone: We're expecting this year's increase to be 10 percent, as compared to a 14 percent increase in the previous year, which is about 300 fewer than what has been going on. We are very hopeful. As I said, we have different ways of planning, with the new social workers coming in. We believe that the number of days in care will be reduced and that the length of time that a child is actually in care will be reduced. Therefore our costs are reduced as a result. So it's not just looking at the number of children that come into care. It's how long those children are in care, what we do to move them back into their families, how we can work with those families to make sure that they are reunited, and the work that we are doing with our social workers on doing better care plans for those children. I think we will see the results in a reduction of cost to the ministry.

C. Clark: If we use the minister's numbers of $202 million for children in care this year, as opposed to $199 million last year, that's not a 10 percent increase in the budget for children in care -- even though the ministry is expecting a 10 percent increase in the number of children who will be coming into care. So I can only assume, based on those numbers, that the ministry anticipates that it will be spending less on each child in care. Maybe the way to go about this, then, is to find out. . . . If the minister isn't comfortable putting those numbers in terms of children -- faces and individuals -- maybe she might want to talk about child-days or child-months or total child-years in care, and make a comparison between this year and last year.

[7:45]

C. Clark: How much quicker does the ministry anticipate getting children out of care, then? If there's much less than a 10 percent increase in the amount of money that's going to be devoted to children in care -- but there's certainly going to be a 10 percent increase in the number of children in care -- the minister has indicated that the way to make up the difference is to have children in care for shorter periods of time. I suspect that unless the ministry is just coming up with these numbers on the back of a napkin, they must have some estimate about how much shorter they expect the average stay in care to be for a child next year.

Hon. L. Boone: We expect that we will see approximately 240 children move out of the system through adoptions. It's really hard to give you an exact figure as to how much we anticipate reducing the time in care in terms of days or months or whatever it is; but we are hoping for a 10 percent reduction in the number of days or months or whatever for the children who are in temporary care. Obviously I can't give you a number, because that depends on the availability of other resources -- and on the child. I mean, not every child will see their number of days reduced, because of their circumstances. As I've said before, it would be nice if this was a science and you could just say that X plus Y equals Z, but it isn't. These are children, and they're all different. They all have different needs, and we'll be working with them. We are expecting that we can reduce their length of stay by 10 percent.

C. Clark: How will the ministry be monitoring whether it is meeting those targets?

Hon. L. Boone: That will be done by monthly reports that come in with regard to the number of children, and also on the expenditures of the ministry. Those, of course, are done in the regions, and they'll be coming to the directors at the ministry.

C. Clark: Before I forget to mention it, the minister gave me the numbers for foster care: $94.4 million for '98-99 and $74.5 million for last year. I just wanted to double-check that last year's number of $74.5 million included the special warrant.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it did.

C. Clark: The minister also mentioned the new workers that have been hired by the ministry. How many of those new workers being hired are going to be guardianship or resource workers?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 103 child protection workers; 62 are guardianship. Some of the child protection workers may also be guardianship workers. Then there's after-hours -- the rapid response team -- which is 10; prostitution task force, one; non-protection intake, 49; probation, 25.

[ Page 8895 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Right now the increases we have focused on are in these areas, where we think the need is the greatest.

C. Clark: The obvious question is: why doesn't the ministry think there's a great need for support for foster parents? The ministry has repeatedly said in its announcements, and the minister has said tonight, that there's a real need out there for more support for foster parents. She has repeatedly said that she thinks they should have more support, but when I look at the announcement the ministry made about providing more support and look under the surface a little, we find that the numbers, the resources that are really being devoted to supporting foster parents, aren't there: child protection workers, 103; you've got 62 guardianship workers; you've got the rapid response team. But the workers that are dedicated to supporting foster parents are the resource workers. Can the minister tell me why, when they were deciding how they were going to do the breakdown of which kinds of workers were needed, they decided that foster parents didn't need any more workers?

Hon. L. Boone: The guardianship workers will be working with the foster parents to an extent -- not as much as resource workers do. But the pressures we saw -- and the ones that you've been talking about so much -- are where social workers are doing intakes and making sure that children are safe. Those were our priorities, and that's where we decided to base the new staff.

Looking at the hour, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. C. McGregor moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: Before we go on, I appreciate that staff have come from Vancouver to assist us in going through the estimates for the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the B.C. Gaming Commission. To simplify things, I would like to focus on the B.C. Lottery Corporation right now. Maybe the minister could give me a summary or an overview of the elements that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is responsible for, the sectors of the gaming that we have in this province, and a little bit about the staffing elements that are incorporated in the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make my remarks dealing with the last question first. For the last number of years there has been a steady number of FTEs, around 365. There will be some adjustment, given some of the recent changes around 207.(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and the fact that the casinos are moving under that, but that's still to be determined.

In terms of what the Lottery Corporation is responsible for, it's basically all gaming activities now under section 207.(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That excludes bingo. So, for example, the casinos are now under that, and 6/49 and BC/49. All your lottery ticket sales -- those you buy at the corner store or the gas station -- are under the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Scratch and Win tickets are all done by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Slot machines are now under the B.C. Lottery Corporation, as are electronic bingo and Club Keno. Basically all the games, with the exception of bingo, are conducted under the Lottery Corporation.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to focus for a little while -- and it's going to be quick, and I'm not going to have long questions because of the time that we have -- on 6/49. Quickly give me the background. Do other provinces participate in 6/49?

Hon. M. Farnworth: All the provinces participate in 6/49.

T. Nebbeling: What is the revenue from 6/49 for this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: For 1997, the actual was $291 million in sales.

T. Nebbeling: What would be the net after. . . ? No, I'm not going to go there yet. How does the $291 million in sales compare to other provinces, percentagewise, of the total take that 6/49 brings in?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can get you the exact figure on how that breaks down, but just as a rough guide, we're slightly higher than our share of population. Roughly, we have about 12 percent of the population, and we have a slightly higher percentage in terms of overall sales out of British Columbia.

T. Nebbeling: But the revenue is based on actual sales in British Columbia today. Yeah.

[ Page 8896 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The advertising budget for everything altogether is $10 million, and it's not broken down by product -- you know, 6/49 or Scratch and Win. The total advertising budget for all the games in the province is $10 million. That works out to about 1.17 percent of gross sales.

T. Nebbeling: Do you not have any numbers of what 6/49 specifically is spending on advertising? That surprises me. The 6/49 is really a different type of animal than the rest of the lottery that is sold -- be it pull tickets in bars or scratch tickets in stores -- because it is an exclusive B.C. product, I believe. What I'm trying to find out is: how much are we spending per capita on 6/49 versus the other provinces?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We'll have to get that information for you, but the overall advertising budget is 1.17 percent of gross sales; it's $10 million. It's amongst the lowest of all the provinces, in terms of the amount of money spent on advertising.

T. Nebbeling: It may be the lowest, but I think it's $10 million spent on selling a product that you have an exclusive right to sell. The first question could be: why would you spend so much money on advertising something that nobody can compete with anyhow? I have often questioned that wisdom.

Having said that, what I would like to know is: in the $10 million, is this placement of ads, or does this include the production cost of the sales?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's the total budget: production, placement, everything all in.

T. Nebbeling: What is in actual media placement, be it in print or on television, and how much is in production?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We'll get you the exact breakdown, hon. member.

T. Nebbeling: Who is the agent that does the placement of your media advertising?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There seems to be a problem around the pronunciation of the names in the firm. Someone will go right now and find out exactly what the name is for them.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I can help with the pronunciation, if I have the right information.

The production component. . . . Again, you can't give the number. What facilities and what agencies do you use to do the production of the various commercials?

[3:00]

T. Nebbeling: I think it is important to know if it is indeed done, or if there are co-op programs with other provinces and what these portions reflect.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We do have the full name of the company that the member was asking for. It's Bryant Fulton and Shee.

T. Nebbeling: What percentage of the promotion material that is placed on an annual basis goes through the agent? Furthermore, what percentage of the productions are also actually booked through the agent and placed through the agent? I'm trying to identify the real role of this agency and its authority over your $11 million dollar budget.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They have approximately $8.1 million worth of contracts. So about 80 percent of that $10 million goes through that agency.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister explain what happens with the balance and how that money is used? In what areas is it used, and how does that fit in with the whole strategy? Actually, for the record, what is the reason to not have the exclusive use of the agent, which traditionally is the case?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If it's special needs or special promotions that are outside of this company, then that's where the rest of the business goes. I can get the details for the hon. member on the exact breakdown of who got what.

T. Nebbeling: We're talking about the communication budget. I would think that when we, for example, take the 1997 budget, the minister should be able to identify where every dollar spent within that $10 million dollars has gone. I mean, there should not be any question about that. Now, if $2 million has not been placed through the agent on record, Bryant Fulton and Shee, then who did place the other $2 million? That must be on a record that's available right here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I repeated, we don't have that information here, but we will get that information for the member, and it will be forthcoming very quickly.

T. Nebbeling: Does the B.C. Lottery Corporation do any development of promotion in-house?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we do.

T. Nebbeling: What is the cost of production that is done in-house?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will get that information for the member in the next few minutes.

T. Nebbeling: Well, maybe we can find some simpler questions that should be able to be answered. Can the minister give me an idea of what the facility is? What kind of productions are done within in-house facilities? How many people are working in those facilities? That's the first one.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are approximately six FTEs in the department the member is looking at. One of the keys to why I'm getting information on the breakdown is because their entire time and the entire budget there is not spent on outside promotion. I'd like to make that point right off the top.

[ Page 8897 ]

T. Nebbeling: I was not talking about the type of creative agency or the creative component within the corporation. I was actually talking about a facility to do production. That was my question, and that's a totally different thing, of course, in the advertisement business. The creativity is somebody sitting behind a desk deciding what colour the ticket is going to be, what name the ticket will have and then what commercials will be created. I thought those were exclusively done by B.C. corporations, but I can't get that answer yet. What exactly does the audio and visual production group create, over and above what's already happening in the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, that production group, if you want to call it that, is within those six FTEs within the creative department I just talked about. From time to time they do produce things, primarily in-house, for presentations. On occasion they have even produced a commercial. But they don't do that on a standard or regular basis.

T. Nebbeling: Well, not being able to get the cost of the facility and how much is actually spent as a budget, I will stop with this component for the time being. I would like to get some answers, and obviously I can't get them right now. I should say that I'm quite surprised of the minister that this simple information is not available. I'm not talking about the future; I'm talking about what has happened in the past, and I would have expected that when staff come from the city that they could provide us with that information.

A little bit of a direction change, then. The Crown corporation does a lot of purchasing of high-tech equipment, computer stuff -- software, hardware. Which are the traditional suppliers for the equipment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A company called Gtech has been the traditional supplier.

T. Nebbeling: Is that company from British Columbia, Canada, the States, Europe?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an international company that supplies all over the world.

T. Nebbeling: When the B.C. Lottery Corporation has need for equipment, do they. . . ? Maybe the minister can explain how the tendering process works to give British Columbia or Canadian companies opportunities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a standard RFP process that conforms to the purchasing practice and guidelines of the province of B.C.

T. Nebbeling: What is the route for industries that could provide this type of equipment that the B.C. Lottery Corporation needs in the high-tech area? What is the standard practice to allow companies to be aware of the needs of British Columbia, and how are these tenders being solicited from companies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of ways. One of the key ones is that we advertise for RFPs, requests for proposals. Another is the fact that the Lottery Corporation is contacted on a fairly regular basis by people in the industry and suppliers. That's another way that they come to the attention of the corporation.

T. Nebbeling: Could the minister provide me now with the dollar value of the software and hardware that has been purchased from this international high-tech company in 1996 and 1997?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have '96-97, but I do have '97-98. For '97-98, it was approximately $5.3 million.

[3:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. member, there was another software supplier contract for $88,000 to a company called Cognos Inc.

T. Nebbeling: And that's also an international company?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a Canadian company.

T. Nebbeling: I just got some info here: $5 million, international -- I think that is American -- and $85,000, Canadian. Would it surprise the minister to hear that Gtech in 1995-96 and 1996-97 supplied British Columbia with software and hardware in the order of $8 million-plus?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's a little on the high side; I can get the exact figure. We bought about 500 new terminals that year.

T. Nebbeling: I'm pretty sure that's the number, and I've actually got it coming as well.

What I'm trying to establish is that we are buying from one company in very high-valued packages of software and hardware. Is the government aware that Gtech company was banned from doing business in Britain because of attempts to bribe the British lottery corporation -- bribes attempted by the chairman of the company, Guy Snowden?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is not true.

T. Nebbeling: I didn't ask the minister whether it was true or not. I was asking the minister if Mr. Guy Snowden, who is the CEO and president, had to remove himself from the board of the subsidiary in Great Britain because of accusations of bribery perpetrated by the company trying to influence the British Lottery Corporation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When I said what I said, it was because I'm aware of the allegation. The fact of the matter is that Gtech is not banned. The individual in question resigned, and Gtech remains a supplier.

T. Nebbeling: That's exactly what I said: the chairman resigned from the British subsidiary because of the U.K. national lottery contract that was considered to be under suspicion of having a bribery element. That case was the reason that the chairman resigned. I'm not saying that he was guilty but that there was suspicion that the chairman was

[ Page 8898 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am aware. As I said, the way the initial question came across was that Gtech was banned. The fact of the matter is that the individual in question summarily resigned. Gtech, the company, still remains a supplier.

T. Nebbeling: I am aware of that. It was more the character of Guy Snowden.

The head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation -- the CEO, chairman, president or whatever his title is. . . . Is there any connection between Mr. Guy Simonis and Gtech beyond just a regular business relationship?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

T. Nebbeling: Is the minister aware that a son of Guy Simonis has been working for Gtech for a number of years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, hon. member, that's not true.

T. Nebbeling: If the minister wouldn't mind checking if, in the past, a relative, the son of Mr. Guy Simonis, was indeed working for Gtech in the States.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Mr. Simonis's son has a separate company, which contracts with state governments to audit the Gtech system.

T. Nebbeling: So there is a working relationship between the son of Mr. Guy Simonis and the company called Gtech?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no. The individual we're discussing works for a state government. He does not work for Gtech.

T. Nebbeling: I will provide the minister with some information that I have about the working relationship that is there.

Going on with that same kind of questioning, is the minister aware that the secretary of Mr. Guy Simonis recently took a position with Gtech in the States?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The secretary did not. The vice-president did.

T. Nebbeling: The minister should note that the vice-president acted as the secretary for Guy Simonis for many, many years and was actually hired, as a secretary, by Mr. Simonis in the early stages of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Is the minister aware that his ex-secretary and past vice-president is now employed by Gtech?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am.

T. Nebbeling: How do we guarantee that there is going to be no conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest with these individuals? I believe they have to work together in these programs, which will often lead to the purchase of software and hardware.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The individual in question is not involved with the purchase of anything related to British Columbia.

T. Nebbeling: The minister understands where I'm going. I'm trying to find out how the president of the B.C. Lottery Corporation is actually ensuring that there is a distance between individuals who used to work for the B.C. Lottery Corporation and individuals now employed by the major supplier of software and hardware of this corporation. I would like some assurance that there is something in place to ensure that there cannot be a conflict.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. One, you can't specify that an individual, once they leave a company, can't go work for somebody else -- particularly in the private sector. However, the B.C. Lottery Corporation does make it clear that an individual who leaves their employ to go work for a competitor cannot be in a position whereby they're involved -- for example, in the case of purchasing -- in direct activity with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. This individual is involved with Gtech in the marketing side. In fact, Gtech does run lotteries in a number of areas not in British Columbia, and that is where the individual is currently employed.

T. Nebbeling: I was almost going to ask if the minister could check the facts on the relationship of Mr. Guy Simonis with his ex-secretary ex-vice-president, as far as the corporate relationship is concerned. Can he put it in writing, so that in the future we have no miscomprehension, that indeed that potential conflict of interest has been covered and that the B.C. Lottery Corporation cannot, at one time or another, be compromised because of his past employee and the role of the son of Mr. Guy Simonis in whatever capacity his relationship has been with Gtech?

One more question, and then I'd like to hand it over to my colleagues. Does Mr. Guy Simonis employ his daughter in the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to the first question, yes, I will get it in writing for the hon. member. That's not a problem. In answer to the second question, yes, she does work for the B.C. Lottery Corporation and has done so for a number of years.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister tell me what she does, exactly?

Hon. M. Farnworth: She is an administrative librarian.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister tell me out of which office the daughter of Guy Simonis, president of B.C. Lottery Corporation, operates?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Richmond office.

T. Nebbeling: So Ms. Simonis comes to the office every day, for a 9-to-5 job?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it's a flex job because she has a disability.

T. Nebbeling: Is it a part-time job, or is it a full-time job? How many hours a week does the daughter of Mr. Guy Simonis work in the office in Richmond?

Hon. M. Farnworth: She works approximately 37.5 hours per week.

T. Nebbeling: That is at your Richmond office?

[ Page 8899 ]

T. Nebbeling: Is that why it is considered to be a flexible job situation? How many more employees have the same privilege of working partly at home and partly at the office?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have three or four other employees who have the same opportunity.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to give my colleagues an opportunity to ask some questions, and then I would like to come back to Gtech and Mr. Guy Simonis.

[3:30]

The minister, unfortunately, didn't recognize the fact that we did not have those 6,500 pages. From his response it was evident that perhaps he was not aware that there were 6,500 pages. If he has been made aware of that now, I would appreciate if he could provide us with a little bit more insight as to these 6,500 pages of documents and, in particular, what marketing strategies have been prepared and are contained in these pages.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I guess the best answer that I can give, because the hon. member has made the request for the documents and it's such a broad-based request that covers. . . . Let's put it this way: it would cover everything from advertising that's done in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or what have you, to studies on views of gaming by people of Asian descent to any document, for example, that might mention the word Asian in it. It's a really broad spectrum of reports, documents and paper. So that's what I can tell the hon. member.

Have I read the 6,500 pages? No. Will I read the 6,500 pages? No. What I would suggest is that I'm more than willing to answer questions when the hon. member gets the information and wants to go through it. If she has specific concerns about particular issues or documents, I am more than willing to address that. But can I say that this is what it covers? I can't because I don't know what's in it. That's in part what the freedom-of-information commissioner's job is. It's your job to go through that and find out what information is of interest to you, because it is such wide-ranging material. That's the best answer I can give you right now.

I. Chong: I'm actually appalled and astounded that the minister would make those kinds of comments. We did request information. It may have been broad-based, but imagine our surprise when we were informed that there were 6,500 pages of documents. Who knows how much that cost? I know the previous contract that was let out to Elizabeth Cull cost over several thousand dollars per page. If that were the case, this would amount to over $6 million, if these are the kind of reports that were done.

Certainly there might have been information advertising, but there are other things, as the minister mentioned -- marketing strategies, analyses, reports, studies on views. Now that would be very interesting. If there were a thousand pages or 5,000 pages would the minister not feel that someone in the ministry who has commissioned these kinds of studies felt that there was relevance or importance or significance to these studies, which taxpayers have paid for? Perhaps the minister would be using them to look at the area of gambling and the Asian community.

I'd like the minister to provide a little bit more information in regards to what kinds of studies were done on views on gambling and the Asian community -- studies that ministry staff are aware of and that have made him aware of these things. That is very important. We have 6,500 pages of documentation on the Asian community and gambling. That is a lot of information. If some of it is irrelevant, then so be it. If some of it is just statistical information in terms of costing, that's fine as well. But if there are more critical issues that deal with a target area, then I think the minister should be willing to discuss those with us and to share that information at this time.

I would like to ask the minister if he's able to provide some of this documentation. We shouldn't have to go through a freedom-of-information request for the kind of information that taxpayers have already paid for once. It should be made available.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member needs to realize. . . . She's using words like "documents" very loosely. I described to the hon. member that there are 6,500 pages of some reference in the very broad-based FOI request that she and her party made. I don't know what's in those 6,500 pages, nor should I know.

The fact of the matter is that they made the FOI request, which will come to them, and they can sort through it and look at all the information. It's all there for them to see. If they've got specific reports that they want to have a look at, I'm more than willing to release them. If they've got specific issues to discuss, I'm more than willing to discuss those with them. If they have specific requests, we're more than willing to try and deal with them. But to say that there are 6,500 pages of documents is just not on. I tried to tell the member that the range of information can cover everything from a page where one word is present. . . . That's how wide-ranging the request is. It can cover issues around advertising.

I can tell the member that I'm informed that it apparently amounts to a few hundred pages in terms of studies. If the member is interested. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .in terms of that, then maybe we need to focus there. The fact is that the member has made a wide-ranging request, and to say that it's all a whole range of studies and reports is simply not the case. I can tell the member that a lot of work has been done in the area around opinions on what types of games people are interested in, what their attitudes to particular games are -- communicating in the language that is spoken at home. One of the complaints that we've heard is that information from the corporation has not been accessible in Asian languages. So that's been addressed.

All I can say to the hon. members is that they've got their FOI request. If there's anything they want clarification on, if

[ Page 8900 ]

I. Chong: For clarification -- we don't have those 6,500 pages. We asked to know what information was available, and we were told there were 6,500 pages. As I mentioned earlier, imagine our surprise when we found out there were 6,500 pages.

More specifically, the minister was able just now to provide somewhat of an answer, that there are only 200 or 300 pages of studies. Fine. Why was he not able to provide that information to us at the beginning of this conversation? If those are specific studies. . . . I would appreciate it if the minister would look into that area. If he has commissioned these kinds of studies, they must be used for something. If they're just sitting in a pile or being put on someone's desk and no one's looking at them, why are we spending that kind of money?

I would like to ask the minister a final question in this area -- or perhaps not quite, depending on his answer. We understand that there were studies done on the Asian community and gambling. Were there any other ethnic groups on which studies were commissioned to the same extent that was done in the Asian community?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Certainly not to the same extent as information has been looked at in regard to the Asian community, in part because they have been the largest immigrant group to British Columbia in the last number of years. Issues around language have been a major issue -- trying to get information out in the language that is used in day-to-day conversation.

Again, I come back to if there are particular studies. . . . That's what FOI is there for and why it's made available. The member talks about cost. Well, the member's the one who made the request so all-encompassing that every conceivable phrase could be included. That's how you generate 6,500 pages. Let's say they had made a request saying: "Look, have you got any studies?" That narrows it down for everybody. It saves time in the Lottery Corporation. It saves taxpayers money, and it also enables the. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If you're able to process specific requests, you can do it a lot quicker if you have a very specific question that you want answered.

I. Chong: I appreciate what the minister is saying. In fairness, then, I would like to ask the minister: what particular studies were in fact done, and will he provide those to us? I don't believe we should have gone through an FOI request to get this information. Perhaps we should have been able to get this through estimates, and that's what I am attempting to do now. If there are five or six reports or a few hundred pages of reports that are available on studies that have been done, could the minister provide us with the names of those reports and how many there are? I would be very appreciative of that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will endeavour to get those reports and any information I can to you.

I. Chong: Also, is the minister able to provide the costs in relation to studies that were done, particularly for those reports that he is able to provide to us? Is he able to give us the dollar value that was expended on those?

Just one more question. The minister stated earlier that other groups have been researched but perhaps not to the same extent as the Asian community. Can the minister give us an idea of how many other groups, and which other groups, have also been researched in this kind of fashion?

[3:45]

M. de Jong: I want to relate to the minister a circumstance that he may be familiar with in general terms right across the province. In my case, I'm most concerned with its application to a couple of charitable organizations that exist in my riding. One is the Royal Westminster Regiment army cadets, which operates out of Aldergrove. Their sponsoring committee, by the way, includes branch 15 of the Royal Canadian Legion and branch 265, which is the Aldergrove branch. The second organization is the Air Force Association of Canada, which sponsors an air cadet wing out of Abbotsford. Very quickly, both of these organizations recently received letters from the Gaming Commission indicating that there may well be some difficulty in terms of renewing their access to the proceeds of a charitable bingo hall. I think the minister is familiar with it. I'm not going to get into the changes that have come about. My colleagues will discuss and debate that with the minister.

Suffice it to say that both received letters indicating that their licences have been renewed, or their access to those revenues, which they. . . . I guess I should say that they are veterans' organizations which devote most, if not all, of their efforts to raising moneys to support cadet organizations. The link is a logical one: past members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have an obvious interest in the cadet movement in Canada. When they receive documentation from the Gaming Commission that says, "We are only prepared to renew your access to the dollars you require to fund your activities," they get worried. These kids -- probably 200 or 300 of them are affected -- rely upon their sponsoring organizations -- the legion and the Air Force Association -- for the funds necessary to carry out their activities. They have been put on notice that it may end.

I should say, in fairness to the minister, that my understanding of the present status is that a three-month temporary permit has been issued, with a request for further information. The difficulty is that this information has been sent -- and here's the systemic problem, which I think exists elsewhere -- and they're anxious. When they called the commission to ask what the status was of their application for renewal, the response they got was: "We can't talk to you. We're backlogged with other things, and we don't know when we're going to get to your application." Now, the clock is ticking. Their temporary permit is about to expire, and they're literally looking into the eyes of these kids. And the parents want to know if they are going to be there for them later this year and in coming years. It's a big problem, and it's very worrisome to the folks that make up these sponsoring organizations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. One, I am aware of the general overall concern the member talks

[ Page 8901 ]

Having said that, I have also said that the Gaming Commission is at arm's length. I don't want to be interfering on a basis of individual applications. There is a small backlog in some areas, but that's being dealt with. I give as an example the one that was raised in question period the other day. In fact, it's unfortunate that the individual who raised the question didn't bother to say that the application had only been made on May 12. It was processed in about 30 days, which is the standard time. But I am aware of the problem regarding the legion and the relationship with cadet groups, and I am looking into it.

M. de Jong: There are probably two issues. Not to be sidetracked into the issue that was raised in question period, but I rather suspect that the applicant in that case was concerned upon receiving notice and the application back in the mail with a note that said: "Don't even bother resubmitting." I know that the minister will happily tell me there was some confusion about the applications, but I say in defense of the applicant organization that when you are told, correctly or incorrectly, that it'll be several months before you can resubmit the application. . . . That probably gives rise to another issue entirely, which I'm not going to get into, and that is: why is there the delay in respect of those applications? But that is not the issue I want to deal with today.

The systemic question here, though, is. . . . These cadet organizations' sponsoring committees are having difficulty with their applications. While I recognize what the minister is saying about the impropriety of intervening with respect to individual applications, the message seems to be coming out of the Gaming Commission that they are ill-equipped or unable for any number of reasons to deal with the applications, which I presume are regular annual or biannual applications. I am not aware of any radical increase in the number of applications being received, along the lines of what we are dealing with here -- applications from these sponsoring organizations for access to bingo revenues.

So something else is happening. I suspect it has something to do with the letter that was sent out and the fact that the casino applications are placing a further burden on staff at the Gaming Commission. But I think it is legitimate for us to direct to the minister our concerns that local organizations in our community are to some extent having their lives put on hold and are being caused anxiety because the Gaming Commission -- for which the minister has ministerial responsibility -- is telling them that they can't deal with the volume of material in front of them. So I make that point and emphasize to the minister that it is causing a great deal of stress for organizations who want nothing more than to provide for the children in their community.

The other thing I want to raise with the minister along the same lines is that the Gaming Commission does correspond with these organizations and sometimes. . . . I mean, as with any bureaucracy, I understand the need to try and expedite by form letters, but sometimes when you read these letters, perhaps the impression the bureaucrat or the agency involved is trying to convey is not the same message that people on the receiving end hear. For example, the letter that was sent to all of the Abbotsford organizations from the commission talked about the Abbotsford bingo hall and said: "Groups which have absent or late volunteers will be either penalized by forfeiting the revenue from that session or their licence may be suspended."

I think it's worth pointing out that in the case of the Abbotsford air force association, which works tirelessly to devote thousands of dollars to the air cadet wing, that was read as a threat. To be brutally frank about it, they get a letter like that -- and they've got volunteers, many of them elderly, who are doing their best and who are very diligent about being there -- and what it seems to be saying is: "We're going to look for any excuse we can to limit your access to these revenues." They've already had their access limited: they've had their days cut in half. So that's one example. It seems rather punitive. Maybe I'll just let the minister respond to that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I do share the member's concern. I mean, I've seen the letter and thought, Jesus, this looks a little bureaucratic. If I was reading this for the first time, I'd ask: what does this mean? I think it can be worded an awful lot better than it currently is. In fact, that's going to happen.

But I will also make the comment that in terms. . . . One, it's not a threat. The fact is we're dealing with issues that occur under the Criminal Code of Canada, and so quite often there is, you know, specific wording that does apply, that has to somehow be communicated. I've seen the letter; it was brought to my attention. I said: "Look, there's got to be a better or easier way to get the point across without making it sound" -- no offence intended -- "like some letter coming out of a lawyer's office." There has to be a more user-friendly way to communicate with volunteer groups.

M. de Jong: I think the point's been made. The minister sees the letter. The only other passage out of that letter that I'd like to throw out for the minister's attention occurs on the last page: "For years, many groups in the Abbotsford bingo have been very fortunate with the amount of funds that have been raised from bingo events." Again, the message that seems to be conveyed to groups that rely on these funds and other fundraising activities to do good works in their communities is: "Well, you should be very grateful that we have bestowed upon you the honour and ability. Lest you make one error; we are looking for a way to withdraw your access to those funds."

That's how it's read and, quite frankly, when that is followed up with a letter that limits the ability of the organization even to contribute to a cadet organization. . . . The other letter they got on April 15 asks questions like: "What does the air cadet training consist of, and who provides the training? Explain what the contribution to the air cadets is for."

Quite frankly, hon. Chair, the appearance of an inquisition on these sorts of things. . . . It is the Air Force Association of Canada and the Canadian Legion that are supporting a cadet organization. I am compelled to say that whilst I recognize the need to ensure that the guidelines and the Criminal Code and all of those things are being followed -- forgive me, but -- there is a certain irony for these organizations in what they perceive as these edicts coming from an NDP government, in light of what they have read in the past about bingo activities elsewhere.

I don't say that with a view to taking us off on a whole other direction in this discussion. But I think the minister has my point about an agency like the Gaming Commission being

[ Page 8902 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't think we have a disagreement there. As I said, I became aware of the letter, and I agree with the member's comments. It does seem self-evident to me that when you have a request like the Royal Canadian Legion branch -- in my case branch 133 with the Seaforth cadet corps, of which I used to be a member. . . . It's a legitimate organization. "What do you mean what are you using it for? We're using it for the cadet corps -- right?" Quite often, because they're dealing with a large number of different groups and you're looking at something that may be completely unfamiliar, the question is a valid one: what is the money going for? But I have seen the letter; I think that it's way too bureaucratic and not user-friendly and certainly doesn't give the impression that it should. I've said that it will be changed, and it will be changed, because lottery moneys are there for all groups in the province to access. And they should be able to access them. The staff and the commission are there to help. When I met with the new head of the Gaming Commission, I said: "Look, I want this to be as seamless as possible. We don't change things. We don't make life difficult for people. We're in the business of making things happen." I want to tell the member that I appreciate his questions and his concerns, and they will be receiving our attention.

[4:00]

There are many organizations -- one of them happens to be the Penticton pipe band -- which have a longstanding tradition in our community. They have been told by the Gaming Commission that they have too much money, and they are fit into a compartment. Perhaps one of the things that has to happen is that for each individual organization, one-size-fits-all should not be applied. When you're dealing with a band and you're moving through, equipment costs a lot of money. To have a certain amount of money at a certain time. . . . Perhaps we need to have a broader picture when we look at some of these things. I'm wondering if we are not going to try to make sure that one size fits all and whether we're going to look at some of these special and unique community organizations, which provide a great service in our communities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member's concern. We want to ensure that as many groups as possible -- charity groups and community groups right across the province -- have access to charity funds. We should, where possible, recognize what the circumstances are. I always think that no matter what you're doing, there should be an element of flexibility.

I will make this comment. One of the complaints in the system -- and one thing that we always have to be cognizant of -- is that money that is approved for use for charity purposes is spent on the purpose that it was requested for. If an application comes in saying, "We're applying for $50,000, and we're spending it on this particular activity," that's where it goes. You're not banking it or reserving it for a rainy day. That's one concern.

If you have a group coming forward with a legitimate request and they're saying that that's where the money goes, that's fine. That's what we need to do. That's what I would say.

T. Nebbeling: I asked earlier how much Gtech had been receiving in contracts, and the minister indicated $5 million-plus in 1996-97 -- to March 31, 1997. I've got the number here; it was actually $8.763 million.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The $5.3 million was for '97-98.

T. Nebbeling: The point I was really trying to make was that there is an enormous business relationship with the Gtech company. At the same time, Canadian companies and B.C. companies seem to get the crumbs, as far as the purchase of high-tech hardware and software is concerned. At the same time, there is another company that has a large financial relationship with the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and that is Pollard Banknote Ltd. In the book-year ending March 31, '97, Pollard Banknote had billed B.C. Lottery for $12,089,682. The year prior to that it was $13 million-plus -- again, a major supplier of product to the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Was the minister or his staff aware that there is a situation, again, where nothing has been proven, but suspicion is there? This is Michelle McBride, who we have spoken about before. She worked with the corporation for 20 years, I think, before she joined Gtech. Is the minister aware that while Mrs. McBride was working for the B.C. Lottery Corporation -- and, I believe, had a lot to do with pull tickets and scratch tickets -- her brother actually worked in a manager's position with Pollard?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am. It was in Winnipeg, in information technology with that particular company. It had no relationship in terms of activity with the Kamloops plant.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go into much detail. It's just that, again, it is one of those situations that makes people question.

Another individual who has been supplying B.C. Lottery with promotional items was the husband of Mrs. McBride. Was the minister aware of that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There have not been any contracts with that individual for over three years, and at the time, there were a number of small contracts that we are aware of. The reason we are aware of them is because they were declared as a conflict, and the woman in question had no dealings on any of them.

T. Nebbeling: I hope she went home at night to meet her husband, because it was her husband who supplied these promotional items. I'm concerned that there are things going on in the B.C. Lottery Corporation that in any other Crown corporation would be immediately eradicated. I am asking the minister, first of all, what are the conflict-of-interest guidelines for staff and management of B.C. Lottery Corporation? Secondly, has there been an external audit done on the way management and certain contracts have relationships that could be, under certain circumstances, considered to be suspicious?

[ Page 8903 ]

T. Nebbeling: The second part of the question was: has there been an external audit of B.C. Lottery Corporation's management and some of these issues done in the last couple of years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has been a report done by the comptroller general on the major purchases of the Lottery Corporation.

T. Nebbeling: Was that recently -- in the last three years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In 1995.

T. Nebbeling: Then to conclude this little session, can the minister provide me, in writing, with the total dollar value that Mr. McBride supplied to the B.C. Lottery Corporation during the period that he was a supplier?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can get that information for the hon. member.

T. Nebbeling: Has the minister now got the information on the audiovisual facility at the B.C. Lottery Corporation's headquarters?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the member could just repeat the questions.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I should have a copy of Hansard. The $2 million -- that is, the discrepancy between what the B.C. Lottery Corporation pays annually in promotion, advertising, media and TV productions. . . . Only $8 million has been made accountable during this little estimates session. There's $2 million missing. At the same time, B.C. Lottery Corporation is running its own audiovisual studio facility. My question was: how much of that $2 million has been used in-house and for what type of promotions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the overall advertising budget of $8 million that we talked about, the in-house stuff is not included in that particular budget. In fact, the overall in-house budget within the creative department is around $900,000, of which $300,000 would have gone to production.

T. Nebbeling: That, I take it, is in-house production. So we still have to find an explanation for the $2 million, which I hope will be forthcoming.

Does the in-house facility -- let's say the studio; that's the easiest -- do any work outside the realm of the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they don't do any outside work. I also think we need to be clear that there is no studio within the B.C. Lottery Corporation. There's equipment with which you can do presentations and other things. But there's no studio in the sense that I think most of us accept when we talk about a studio.

T. Nebbeling: It's a cutting room. Maybe that's the proper. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

T. Nebbeling: Through the Chair, of course. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a cutting room, and it does have a camera. It does from time to time take a couple of shots, and it does do some audiotaping. Then the cutting room puts it all together into a saleable product. Right? Great. So we have a studio. It may not have the sets that the Bridge Studios have, but it is a studio.

My question was: are there any other uses or contracts that have been using this studio facility as a. . .studio?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're not going to split hairs about what is or isn't a studio. He says it's a studio; I say it's not a studio. Maybe we'll study the issue and see if it is a studio.

The fact of the matter is that there is no contracted work with any outside agencies -- none whatsoever. They do their little in-house presentations and things like that, and that's all they do. They don't make anything for anybody else.

T. Nebbeling: Has the Premier ever done any taping in these facilities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let's put it this way: the answer is no. The point I was going to make was that I don't think the Premier has even been to where they make their little presentations and things like that. The answer is no. The Premier has never made any videos, commercials or anything of that nature at the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

T. Nebbeling: Has there been any cutting and putting together of presentations done for the Premier?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that I'm aware of.

T. Nebbeling: That's what another individual said at one point. Warren Betanko said: "I'm not aware of writing more than one letter." Then we found out he wrote ten letters.

Did the previous Premier ever have presentations put together using B.C. Lottery's equipment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, the previous Premier has never, as far as we're aware, used the Lottery Corporation for anything like that. I think we should be careful about making aspersions, because we can go down that road as well. We can talk about the use of lottery-fund vans to transport delegates to conventions, but we're not going to do that. I think we should stick to what's here. As to the questions, I have said that the answer is no.

[4:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am aware of what the member is talking about, and the fact is that it is part of a community relations program with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. It does promote the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

[ Page 8904 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member's question, but I can tell him that we have not had any complaints at the Lottery Corporation about this. The fact is that in making different services available to community organizations throughout the province, we're doing something that many companies do in terms of community promotions.

T. Nebbeling: There is a company in Vernon that has written to me, and I will provide the minister with a copy of the letter. It employs seven people and has for years, as one of their main reasons for being in business, provided services to a festival that is held in the Vernon area. That has been going on for years and is the reason, to a certain extent, that this company is in business and is employing seven people. This company has now been informed that their services will no longer be needed. It's pretty well going to be put out to pasture. If that is the price that the B.C. Lottery Corporation feels is justified when we talk about promoting the sale of lottery tickets to the populace of British Columbia, and if the minister agrees with that type of activity, then I'd like to hear that from the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, we haven't had any complaints at the B.C. Lottery Corporation. If the member has any correspondence, I'm more than willing to take a look at it.

T. Nebbeling: Let's go on to the works of the B.C. Lottery Corporation and its role in the past and its role in the future with all the major changes that we see happening in the whole gaming industry in British Columbia. What will the B.C. Lottery Corporation's role be in the so-called for-profit destination casinos?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation is that it will be the Crown agent that will conduct and manage the activities within the casino.

T. Nebbeling: Will any of the money that comes from these so-called for-profit casinos -- when it comes to the government -- be channelled towards the charity organizations that have traditionally been the beneficiaries of any casino operation in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no on the destination casinos. It has been clear from the beginning that they are different from charity casinos, and the money from them does not go to charities.

T. Nebbeling: At the time the government looked into establishing these so-called for-profit casino organizations, it was established through a study that five for-profit casinos could be introduced into British Columbia without having a dramatic negative impact on other gaming industry components that are there to provide the charities in British Columbia with the needed funds to keep very important community services going. Can the minister advise me if he was aware of this study? Was it indeed five for-profit casinos that could be absorbed into the system without the damage that more could do?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am aware of the study the member talks about. This study was prepared before government made any decisions about the direction it would want to go. The fact of the matter, in regards to the five, is that they were based on casinos of a considerably larger size than what the government settled on.

T. Nebbeling: The number of slot machines and the number of tables were already established at the time these studies were done. The concept of larger casinos was categorically rejected by the government because they would give the feeling of Las Vegas-style gaming. It was the government that categorically stated that that would never be part of the British Columbia gaming industry. So I do not accept that answer from the minister.

As I said, there will be slot machines in these facilities. Can the minister tell me: will the destination casinos be required to have systems that are used within the B.C. Lottery Corporation's systems today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fact of the matter is that the member is wrong around the five casinos, and we can debate that. But that's the way it is. He's wrong on that issue.

The point around the issue of slot machines and the B.C. Lottery Corporation and whether they use its systems. . . . Yes, they do. That applies not only to slot machines in destination casinos but also to charity casinos. The Lottery Corporation has the ability to turn them on and off.

T. Nebbeling: Just to inform the minister, under the new guidelines there are no longer charity casinos in British Columbia, I believe.

However, the point I want to make is that the five were identified by the Premier as being the maximum number that could be absorbed. It was also the Premier who definitely made it clear that Las Vegas-style casinos would never come into British Columbia. So the source that has always denied that that style of casino would operate in British Columbia is also the source for the five, as far as making public announcements is concerned. So the minister is wrong when he says that I'm wrong.

This is going to be an interesting situation, because so far the software and hardware and systems that the B.C. Lottery Corporation has been using for all its needs have been coming from Gtech. We do know that there are other companies -- B.C. companies and Canadian companies -- which could provide this equipment. Will the destination casinos be free to do a public tendering system when they purchase equipment? Or will that free enterprise component be removed from the for-profit casinos?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once more for the member's edification on the number of five, he's wrong when he says that I'm wrong.

Anyway, on the two questions around the ability to own the equipment and the free enterprise system, unfortunately, the Criminal Code of Canada does not allow the free enterprise ownership of the equipment. So that's the answer to the first question. On the second question, the systems -- for example, slot machine systems -- were in fact tendered.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go into one of these situations where I said that you said that he said that we said. The number that is being played around with today is up to

[ Page 8905 ]

Through the Chair, it's okay that the minister learns something as well. I mean, you know, he's not that old that he can't absorb any new information -- or correct information.

Having said that, does the minister mean that through B.C. Lottery Corporation's control of the equipment, they can actually charge anything they want for these slot machines? Can they inflate the prices? Do they have the right to do that or the ability to do that? If they as a Crown corporation are going to be the supplier of this equipment within their system, then they control the price as well. Is that a fear that the operators of for-profit casinos should have or could have? I'm not talking about what the minister would do today but what B.C. Lottery Corporation could do tomorrow.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, one of the key elements that we've always. . . . I won't get into he said, I said, you said, we said. The fact of the matter is that I think there's been a good process in place, and the RFP process is working fine. We'll see how many there are at the end of the day, and the province will be able to support it. The fact of the matter is that the equipment is purchased by the B.C. Lottery Corporation, but they own it. So they're not going to turn around and sell it. They don't sell it to whoever is operating the casino. They're not going to be, for example, selling something at an inflated price.

T. Nebbeling: Obviously there is concern that this kind of thing could happen. The B.C. Lottery Corporation, with the assistance of the minister and cabinet, has the uncanny ability of changing the rules when it fits their idea of how things should materialize. That is the past experience, and I have no doubt that in the future, when government sees an opportunity to make things tough for others but a benefit to them, they will do that again. So I will not fall off my chair when one day I see something happening that the minister today says will never happen because the system will not allow it.

I would like to ask the minister as well: when these so-called for-profit -- what used to be charity -- casino organizations begin to operate under the guidance of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, are there going to be any non-casino games -- like keno, for example -- introduced into these facilities?

[4:30]

T. Nebbeling: One of the reasons I'm asking this question is that the charity organizations, after some fairly optimistic announcements in the last couple of months, are beginning to realize that the world is not materializing as was indicated originally. Some of the questions asked today. . . . I know the minister is going to say: "Well, the Gaming Commission is a different thing altogether, and it stands on its own." But today the charity organizations are beginning to see hindrances that are undermining their ability to continue on the same footing as they have been working before.

Although it is covered with the $125 million guarantee that is there today for this year. . . . Part of the fear of organizations is that that $125 million is only guaranteed for this year, and the sunset clause eliminates it. The minister is already becoming alert; he knows the answer. He is pushing everybody away; he wants to answer this one. I'm very pleased about it, but I'm not focusing on that.

What I'm focusing on is: if the minister has the ability to introduce into these casinos, where the profits -- but not necessarily -- will be channelled towards the charity organizations, and if the minister has an open mind, then I could see the potential of incorporating new elements into the casinos that may not be there today but may turn out to be popular with the users. Then I could see that suddenly, in the near future, linked bingo would be introduced into casinos, because they are places where people are gaming. It could be an add-on. At the same time it would then be taken away from the package that makes up the gaming opportunities that people have today, where the funds are channelled towards charities. How does the minister ensure that opportunistic opportunities will not be pursued at the cost of what the charity organizations have as a benefit today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I must admit that I do find the hon. member's questions interesting. I know where he got his information, and unfortunately, it's incorrect.

T. Nebbeling: From where?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That guy you introduced in the House the other day. That's where the questions are coming from. They came right out of a press release. I mean, specifically, the question around the guarantee and the fact that it's only there for a year. Well, unfortunately, what the individual who released that press release, the individual from whom you got your information, forgot to mention or didn't know is that the reason the year-long guarantee has a sunset clause is because it's an interim model to the point where we get to legislation. The fact of the matter is that the B.C. Association of Charitable Gaming asked for the sunset clause. They asked for it to be a year. That's why it's in place.

I will give the same message here that I have given in the House and that I have given outside the House: the fact of the matter is that the guarantee is there; it is going to grow over time as the industry grows; it is not going to disappear; it is not going to, within the year, be taken over by the province. The guarantee is there. It's going to stay, and it's going to grow. You can speculate. You can say what you like, but that's the bottom line. The guarantee is there. It's going to stay, and it's going to grow over time.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, the questions that I'm asking the minister were prepared a couple of weeks ago. It was a couple of weeks ago that the Ministry of Employment and Investment announced that we were going to go into esti-

[ Page 8906 ]

I was on the radio debating this move by the ministry to change the face of gaming in this province, and I made it very clear that this was a one-year guarantee. There is no indication whatsoever besides the word of the minister. But the minister represents a government that has made so many promises to people in this province, and 75 or 80 percent of these promises have been broken. That's what we know. What we don't know is where the other 20 percent is going.

People have very little faith in the word of the minister about what the future will hold and what the future has as a commitment. It's not on paper, so people are not buying it. That's why charity organizations today are hanging around Victoria -- to find a way of securing the future for organizations that provide services to communities, organizations that are badly needed and that are not funded in any other way. That's where the questions are coming from. It is their own analysis, and the minister's assurance that things will work out well for these organizations is something that I would certainly question at this time. Time will tell, and we will be here long enough to talk about it again.

One of the things that the B.C. Lottery Corporation got involved with recently is the transfer to take the charitable casinos out of the pocket, or off the back, of gaming elements that were supposed to be contributors to the charity organizations and were supposed to be venues where the charity organizations could work to get a portion of the profits that were made that particular evening. With the change of the rules and regulations when it comes to the gaming industry, that opportunity was removed. The minister said: "Isn't it great that Granny doesn't have to come and work until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning for a couple of pennies that will come to her organization?"

I've talked to a lot of charity organizations over the last couple of months. First of all, I've not heard one organization making the particular point that they hated having to do that in order to get the money. As a matter of fact, if there's any understanding and acceptance of charity gaming in this province, it is because people have been able to work in these organizations and have seen some direct benefit for their community organizations or the charities that are represented. That's the reason that charity gaming is acceptable. That element has now been disallowed, and we are now looking again into short-term commitments for funding to go into that fund, which will then be disbursed among the charity organizations. That's the promise. For how long? One year. After that, we have to wonder.

Can the minister tell me: with this elimination of the charity groups at the same time as the ministry, through the Crown corporation, is having to acquire the charitable casino assets, what is the total investment that B.C. Lottery Corporation has made in acquiring the charitable casino assets?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of issues. The member talks about the moving of the charity casinos from section 1(b) of the Criminal Code over to section 207(1)(a) and the fact that this somehow caused great hardship to volunteers. I can tell the member, from having spoken to hundreds of volunteers and having met with volunteers, that I haven't had any complaints whatsoever; in fact, they're very happy. I have not had complaints; in fact, I've had people come up to me and say that we've done the right thing.

The changes were made, as the member is aware -- and I think it's worth putting on the record -- to bring stability to the industry, to put gaming in this province on a sound legal footing. I can understand the member's comments. There are a few, very few, vested interests who opposed the move for their own particular reasons. Quite often, in a number of cases that I'm aware of, it's because they had a financial gain to be made. It wasn't what was in the best interests of charity gaming; it wasn't what was in the best interests of volunteers. It was what was in their own best personal interest. There's nothing wrong with that, and that's fine.

But by and large, the response from most of the volunteers has been very positive. Their concern has been about the money being there. As I said earlier on, there is the guarantee around the $125 million. That guarantee is there, and it will continue. I know the member makes comments that you can't trust the government. The only response I have is that the public is looking at the opposition and trying to figure out if it's a Liberal Party that's asking for their trust or if it's a Reform Party. They're not sure, sometimes, which one the opposition is. You know, the fact of the matter is that $125 million is a lot of money. It's more money than last year, and the amount of money is going to grow over the next number of years as gaming revenues grow.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me put it this way. I expect, as each year things grow, that it will continue to grow. We've given that commitment; that's in place. I've said it here, I've said it in the House and I'll say it outside. It's just a fact. I can't put it any plainer than that.

In terms of the amount of money or what the cost of doing the transfer was, the transfer was done for the symbolic dollar. Everything was transferred over to the B.C. Lottery Corporation for $1.

T. Nebbeling: Does that include the land and the buildings, or the assets, that the operations that ran the charity casinos previously owned?

[4:45]

T. Nebbeling: There are, I believe, 17 previous charity casinos that are now casinos owned and operated by BCLC. Why is the Surrey casino having the lease transferred as a component of the deal? What has happened with the other 16 locations where casinos have been operated?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is because there is a dispute in court involving the Surrey casino. In part, we're getting the declaratory opinion on the new changes that we made and. . . . I mean, we can get into the ongoing debates of the court case, but the basic reason is, in fact, that that's the one casino that's in dispute. The new regulations are in place.

[ Page 8907 ]

T. Nebbeling: So what happens in the other 16 cases? Is the government now the owner of these properties or the lessees of these properties? To complete my question, is the person who was previously the operator and legal owner of the casino still the holder of the lease of these properties where B.C. Lottery is supposed to be the owner of the operations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Do you mean the others?

T. Nebbeling: Yes, the other 16.

Hon. M. Farnworth: With the other 16, the landlords are still the same. The only change that has taken place is that we now own the equipment inside the casinos.

T. Nebbeling: So the leases are still held by the operators that were previously the owners -- in some cases Canadian Casino and in some cases other operators.

What type of tenure have the casino operators -- who are now actually under contract by the government, I take it -- been given? Previously they were the owners, and now B.C. Lottery Corporation, as the owner, has contracted with these people. What kind of tenure have they been given?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently we have casino operating agreements with these particular casinos. They are under interim agreements for a maximum of two years. After that, as we get through this interim period and we complete the RFP process, they will move to the same terms and conditions as the new casinos, if you like, and there they will be for a ten-year period.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister can tell me the position of the staff. As these new bodies, operators on behalf of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, have to, I believe, be agents of the Crown. . . . Are these operators now agents of the Crown or not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they're not.

T. Nebbeling: How, then, can it be that the government claims that they own and operate the casinos, which is a requirement under section 8, and that at the same time, they do not recognize that these so-called operators are then acting within the rules of Crown, which means they have to be agents?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The agent of the Crown is the B.C. Lottery Corporation. We have, then, contracted with the casinos as the service suppliers.

T. Nebbeling: Under this section of the Criminal Code, one is allowed to contract to a third party an activity that, if the third party did it on its own, would be a violation of the Criminal Code? I don't understand that. I thought the courts were very strict in how the Crown, owning and operating casinos, has to have total control over the action happening in a casino. I get a feeling that what the minister is saying right now is that government actually divests its control into the hands of a third party that is not a Crown agent. How can that happen?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The key to this is because as agent we do have total control over what happens within the casino, right from being able to switch all the machines on or off. We can switch a particular machine off, or we can switch them all off. We have total control over all the machines. We control which games are played in the casino. We control the hours of operations of the casino. There is a gaming operations manager on site in the casino. It is done under the control of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

We contract with the service suppliers, and they do a very narrow, specified range of functions. Everything they do is set out and is determined by BCLC.

T. Nebbeling: Without going much more into this whole jurisdiction issue and the legality of the arrangement that the government or the minister has made with the private sector operator, who now works on behalf of the government. . . . It's not unlike what happened in Manitoba. I'm sure the minister is aware that when the courts in Manitoba looked at a very similar situation, they decided that Manitoba was in violation of the Criminal Code. Although they had put all these elements in place, it was considered to be more a matter of going through the moves, rather than of actually being in control. The only way that that control could be established was if indeed the operators had worked as agents of the Crown, as employees of the Crown, rather than as independent operators who were given an authority that government not necessarily could have given to them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying, and we disagree with that premise. I'm aware of his points around Manitoba. What we have done here in British Columbia completely addresses the issue that he is talking about. It's one of the reasons why Ontario, at the same time that we made the changes that we did, also made similar changes to address the concerns that were out there, in terms of how gaming is conducted and managed. That's one of the reasons why, right now, these changes are being tested before the courts. We can debate this, but the ultimate debate and decision, if you like, is coming.

T. Nebbeling: The minister is still aware and would not be surprised if indeed there is going to be a challenge about the legality of what the government has introduced recently, when it comes to the role the British Columbia Lottery Corporation plays in the running of what used to be charity casinos and now are just casinos for profit, in a sense. Although part of that profit will be channeled for this year -- committed -- to a fund that will be disbursed amongst charity organizations, we don't know the future.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: You can't get around that one.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What is happening right now is that we have made a number of changes. We believe that they are the right changes and that they are in line with the Criminal Code of Canada. They were done to put gaming on stable footing. There is a court case in Surrey, and we have sought a declaratory opinion on how the changes that we have made impact on gaming in the province. That's working its way through the system right now. We'll deal with it as the decisions arise.

[ Page 8908 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The volunteers in the casinos did small tasks in the casinos. They didn't operate slot machines. They didn't deal table games. They did a number of functions, but they weren't there in terms of an actual operating-of-the-casino capacity. So in that sense, there really hasn't been an opportunity or requirement to increase staff because volunteers are no longer there.

[5:00]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: And I haven't played. I tried it one time, and then I thought: "No, let's not do this, because Candid Camera may be taking a shot. Wouldn't that be something."

Hon. M. Farnworth: As a matter of fact, there is.

T. Nebbeling: Right. Anyhow, it looks as if there are more people now on the payroll, and I wouldn't mind getting a number -- if not today, then in the near future -- regarding increased staffing and the percentages. I think the minister just indicated that he would provide that information.

Can the minister also tell me how, with these changes, the salary of people working in the casinos on a full-time basis. . . ? Do they work for the corporation, in a sense, or are they still working for contractors? That's the first question: who do they work for?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They all work for the service provider, and that would be the contractor. We're talking about the dealers, the people at the door, the people who bring you your Coke and your coffee and things like that. They all work for the contractor.

T. Nebbeling: Are these workers on a wage scale that is totally controlled by the operator? Or is it a wage scale that is set by the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a wage scale that is controlled by the operator.

T. Nebbeling: And that wage does come from the top, I take it, as operating costs of the operation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct. It comes out of the casino operator's share. That's where the wages come from.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I've been asking these questions is that I'm trying to establish if indeed the B.C. Lottery Corporation is truly in control of gaming in the casinos in British Columbia. I did look at the model in Manitoba, and I did look at the court case there. At this point, I cannot see how British Columbia can claim that they are in control. It seems to be more a matter of going through the moves in order to appear in control on paper. When it actually comes to the operation of a casino, it is clearly in the hands of a private operator who is responsible for staffing -- the quality of staff, the training of staff, paying salaries that are most likely below what government workers would earn. That whole package could, in my opinion, lead to the courts deciding that the government is not running the casinos. In that eventuality -- I'm sure the minister has looked at that kind of scenario -- what would be the next step for this government in taking control of gaming?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We feel very confident in the approach that we've taken. There has been extensive legal research done on this. There has been extensive work done on the system that's in place. The fact is that the B.C. Lottery Corporation does control gaming. I mentioned, for example, that we control the games that are in there, the conditions and the guidelines under which people can work, what games are played. We have a gaming operator on site. We are able to turn off machines. And we have full confidence in the system that is in place. That's why we're getting a declaratory opinion in regards to Surrey. I'm not anticipating doing any other measures, and I fully expect that the system we have put in place is the right one and will meet all the legal tests.

T. Nebbeling: The minister just ran through a number of mechanisms that give the minister the feeling, the assurance and the understanding that indeed the government is in control. You raised four or five points, including that you can switch off the machines and stop the operation. As far as the five or six elements you used as examples of control, how was it before this transition happened? Could you not, in the past, shut down a casino; could you not shut down a table? Could the minister not change the betting limits -- all the kinds of questions that now are the elements that you feel give you control over the operation, to justify that the operation does not violate the Criminal Code of Canada?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make these remarks and I will make them carefully, cognizant of the fact that we do have an ongoing court case. The system that we have now is substantially different than the system that existed before, in that the system that existed before existed under a completely different section of the Criminal Code of Canada. It existed under section 207.(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. It was changed to section 207.(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and that's the section under which gaming is now conducted and managed right across the country. We have every confidence that the model that's in place is, in fact, the right model and the legally sound model. That's going to be addressed in Surrey.

At the same time as we were making our changes -- not in concert but separately addressing their problems, which in many ways were similar to what was here -- Ontario also moved to the same model that we did, to address many similar problems and the concerns that the member raised. So we have every confidence in the model that's in place.

T. Nebbeling: I don't want to walk into a trap and enter into an area of gaming questions that are in front of the court because of the Surrey situation. I'm not going to talk about slot machines, because I think that really is the issue there. Other forms of gaming are not necessarily what has led the council

[ Page 8909 ]

What I would like to focus on briefly is the so-called for-profit casinos. Who has been responsible for the evaluation of the applications? I would like to know the people who were involved in that: the representatives of the various commissions that you named and the various outside organizations that were part of it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a fairly extensive list of groups that are involved in the evaluation process. They include the gaming policy secretariat within my ministry, the Lottery Corporation, the Gaming Commission, the gaming audit and investigation office in the Ministry of the Attorney General and a number of external experts who are under contract to the province.

T. Nebbeling: Who are the external experts on gaming? Is it a group from L.A. or from Las Vegas or from Toronto? Who are these so-called gaming experts?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We've retained the services of Coopers and Lybrand and their two top gaming experts, one of whom is a Canadian from Toronto, and the other is an American from Philadelphia.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: For clarification, they're both Canadians.

T. Nebbeling: The Americanized Canadian. Can the minister give me the name of that individual?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's a dangerous statement.

T. Nebbeling: We've been talking about expertise in an industry. If the Canadian living in the States brings expertise with him, I would expect that to be on American gaming. That's why I made that statement. The minister wasn't fast enough in his thinking. I would like to know the name of that individual who works with the Coopers and Lybrand organization and if he has been an employee for a number of years or if he has been brought in by Coopers and Lybrand as an expert, as an independent. I'd like the same, actually, for the Canadian gentleman as well. So can I have these two names?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only reason I made the comment to the hon. member was that I was going to say once a Canadian, always a Canadian. You don't sort of become a. . . .

The names of the two individuals are. . . . The Canadian Canadian, who is from Toronto, is Rob Scarpelli and the other individual is Mike French.

T. Nebbeling: Have these people been in British Columbia? That is not a fair question. Are these individuals actually spending time in British Columbia, and are they looking at the areas identified through the proposals that have come to the ministry over the last five or six months? How were they made knowledgable about what happened in British Columbia?

Hon. Chair, can we have a five-minute break?

The Chair: If it pleases the committee, we'll adjourn for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:15 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: In the expansion of gaming in the province, the government has expressed as a goal that they did not want to adversely impact on small businesses in those areas. Can the minister advise if they have a system or a process in place in which they are going to be able to monitor either positive or negative impacts around areas where gaming has been put in?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Is the member talking about gaming facility impacts on gaming facilities, or gaming facility impacts on businesses in the area of the casino?

R. Thorpe: Let's just use the example of the Stockmen's in Kamloops, which is a relatively new gaming facility. Does the ministry have a model in place with respect to the impact on businesses within that community -- increasing their business or decreasing their viability?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There isn't a model in place. I'm not sure you could determine the makeup of a model. I mean, where consumers choose to spend their money is ultimately up to them.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps there's not a model, but has the minister thought of advising the appropriate authorities that they should be doing surveys within communities from time to time to see if it's having a positive impact or a negative impact in those areas with respect to the viability of those businesses? I'm sure what we don't want to happen is 100 jobs created here and 120 lost over there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points, I guess. One is that there is the experience of existing casinos in the province that are up and running, and we have not had complaints or concerns raised about the impact. We have said that we want to hear from communities about issues of concern. I guess there are some you can measure: concerns around crime and safety. You can do some very demonstrable measurements around that particular issue. We've had a willingness to address those types of issues. I have no doubt that we will do more research as casinos get up and running and we have the ability to assess what's happening.

R. Thorpe: We look forward to receiving some of those assessments as time unfolds.

I just wonder. . . . I'd be extremely surprised if the minister had this information here. I know that in his very positive willingness to always cooperate, he'd probably undertake to supply it. But let me ask it. Could the minister, since the Stockmen's in Kamloops has opened, provide us with an analysis of the impact of, for instance, Keno sales in that Kamloops market area? Would that be a possibility?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can give you the information on Keno sales in pubs in Kamloops.

[ Page 8910 ]

I'm just wondering: in the B.C. Lottery Corporation with the Scratch and Win, what kind of co-op marketing programs do you run on losing tickets with respect to various suppliers?

[5:30]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what kind of moneys Rogers provides the Lottery Corporation with, with respect to this type of program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There was no money exchanged. It was basically a question of exchanging product.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise why, with this program, the government has chosen to support one of the largest video companies in Canada, versus the small video operators across British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was a pilot project with a company that has a wide distribution around the province. It was done on a one-time basis, and the results are still being evaluated.

R. Thorpe: I look forward to receiving a report, if possible, on the evaluation of that program.

I would also like to strongly urge the government, which professes to support small business, to look at the smaller communities of British Columbia. If they're going to continue in this area, they should look at offering the program, if they believe it's a good program, to all video suppliers in communities. What you're doing here is you're putting some very small operators at an extremely distinct noncompetitive situation. I would appreciate some undertaking from the government that after they receive and assess this report, they will look at a more equitable way to ensure that small mom-and-pop operators in British Columbia have an equal playing field against large corporations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, it was a pilot project, and it's being evaluated. I have no trouble supplying the member with the results of that. I would say that one of the things that happens when you do a pilot project is you evaluate what's going on. Then if you decide to take it further, you look at all kinds of options, and you look at the impacts. Those are the sorts of things that you evaluate. I have no hesitation in saying that those things would be taken into account, and we would look at a whole range of options. I think you will find, hon. member, that your concerns will be addressed.

R. Thorpe: I must just clarify, for the record, that it's a concern of small video operators in British Columbia; it's not my personal concern.

With respect to the Gaming Commission, has the Gaming Commission currently accelerated an audit review program of a number of people who receive funds through different gaming activities in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is not an accelerated program, but there is a standard compliance audit program in place, and it's currently functioning. But it has not been accelerated. Does the hon. member think it should be accelerated?

R. Thorpe: Well, of course, we'll make that decision when we form government, and we look forward to the member's questions at the appropriate time.

Can the minister advise, with respect to their audits: is it the practice to have their auditors go around to various locations, or do they have another practice of asking people to bundle up all their information and ship it to a central location?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of an accelerated program, I guess the member will be waiting for a while yet before he gets a chance to make that decision -- if ever.

However, in terms of the current situation, it's a combination of a number of methods. One is to go out to different places; another is to have records sent to a central location. It varies throughout the province. It depends upon the geographic region. Both methods are used.

R. Thorpe: I'll resist the chance to give another little dig, so we'll go right to the question.

How do you define the size? I mean, from Penticton to Kelowna is not that far. I would think that it would be much more efficient for the auditor to come down to Penticton and review the various organizations in the Penticton area. That way the records are kept intact. People are able to run their businesses, and of course, you eliminate the tremendous risk of documents being lost or destroyed or misplaced. I would just ask that when they're embarking on these kinds of things in the future, they take a little bit more care and, again, not have that one size fits all, because it is alarming and disruptive to some organizations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the hon. member knows, I am a great fan of the idea that one size does not fit all. If the member has particular concerns or ideas that he thinks can improve our methods, I'm always open to that. As he knows because he's been able to come and talk to me on issues any number of times, my office is always open.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I think it's called cooperation and trying to get things done and get problems resolved. I think we've had a good relationship. So I'd say to the member that if he thinks that there are ways of doing things better or if he's got concerns about what's happening in a particular area, I'm more than happy to address it and see if we can resolve it.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the issue, one of the things that many groups find difficult is coming forward and sharing information. Quite frankly, they project to me that they can't ask or suggest too many things to the Gaming Commission, because the minister. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I'm not sure exactly what he heard, but he didn't seem to accept that comment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You heard, and I'd even put it on the record.

[ Page 8911 ]

R. Thorpe: Many groups across British Columbia feel intimidated in raising these kinds of legitimate questions with the Gaming Commission. Whether the minister wants to accept that or not. . . . I'm sure that if he's out in his constituency, he knows that. Again, I thought I heard something else, but I probably misheard him.

It's not an issue of coming and talking about these things. It's about the minister's comments on directing the Gaming Commission to have a little bit better understanding with respect to the clients they deal with, instead of this one size fits all. As a matter of fact, the minister's had to say today that he did not find the one-size-fits-all letter that has been sent out acceptable. I'm just suggesting that here's another issue, where perhaps he could instruct his officials at the Gaming Commission, through the appropriate ways, to work a little bit more cooperatively with the folks out in the field that are trying to run their various charitable organizations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've heard the member's comments, and quite frankly, I don't buy them. What I said was: that's a load of b.s. You wondered what I said, and I put it on the record. The fact of the matter is that the individuals on the Gaming Commission are community people. Check the résumés of the individuals on the Gaming Commission. They're community people with solid community backgrounds, and many of them come out of the charity sector. The fact of the matter is that those are the bodies.

I've said to the member that there is always opportunity and room for improvement and that if he's got concerns, I'm willing to address them. I think some of the harshest critics of the Gaming Commission in the province have been charity groups. I don't think they're afraid to speak up. I don't think they're afraid to criticize. So I don't think they would be intimidated by the Gaming Commission.

But I do take the member's concerns about one size fits all, and I've said that I am very open in terms of addressing issues like that. It doesn't matter whether it's letters going out or the way in which audits are conducted, I have absolutely no hesitation in always looking at ways of improving the system and making it more user-friendly, because I think it needs to be. That was the message that I gave to the head of the Gaming Commission when I first met with them. There's always room for improvement, and I'm prepared to see that things improve.

T. Nebbeling: I'd like to come back to where we were before the intrusion of what your working relationship reflects. . . . We were talking before about the expansion. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I was trying to find a delicate word.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's called an open-door policy.

The Chair: Order, members.

T. Nebbeling: Prior to my colleague from Penticton speaking out on some of the concerns he has about the impact of casinos on smaller businesses in the vicinity of these casinos and on communities where these casinos are open, we were taking about expansion. The minister gave a list of groups that participated in the evaluation. Can the minister briefly talk about how these groups came together? Where did they come together and look at the applications? Did all the parties participate in the initial review of the whole group of applications? Was there a system in place where certain applications were immediately put aside by a small working group and then a larger group looked at the final proposals, or something of that nature?

The Chair: Noting the hour, minister.

[5:45]

T. Nebbeling: The criteria that were used to evaluate the initial stage, excluding that component of community support. . . . Once you got over that hurdle, who was responsible for setting the criteria that were used?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Mindful of the time, the evaluation criteria were set out in the proposal call. If the member wants, I can briefly -- quickly -- go through what the criteria were. They were: corporate experience and expertise, executive experience and expertise, business plans and costs, community relations, security and surveillance, financial strength and capacity, a knowledge of relevant British Columbia markets, and economic benefits.

T. Nebbeling: Once the groups found compelling reasons to move forward, did it then go to a level where a broader representation of all these groups got together and made some recommendations? Was the final element prior to going to the external agent. . . ? I suppose the external agent came at the end of the process. Or was the external agent part of it right from the beginning?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The external contractors from Coopers and Lybrand were involved throughout the whole process.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

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

The committee met at 6:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: We were doing a bit of a line on the review panel which looked at all the applications for licensing of a

[ Page 8912 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make two points. The first, very quickly, is to reinforce that the applications that were not considered and that did not go through any review process whatsoever did not have the requisite community support, which was a requirement of the process. So that's why they didn't go forward.

In the case of Coopers and Lybrand, they didn't have a decision-making role. They were picked because they had been through a similar process in Ontario. The criteria that were used were the latest criteria that had been used in both Ontario and the United States. They were familiar with that, so they had expertise to contribute in terms of evaluating the criteria and ensuring that the steps went appropriately. But they didn't have a role in decision-making.

T. Nebbeling: You established that Coopers and Lybrand's role was really to advise -- to look at the proposals from an experienced perspective -- and then to share that with the committee.

Did the group that did the evaluation actually go and visit the places where these applications came from? Did it go to Penticton? Did it go to various other areas?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they didn't. What we required, in terms of the information, were detailed plans -- not only of what their facility was but where it would be located in the community and all that kind of information. They did not visit the individual sites.

T. Nebbeling: How many proponents were there at the time of, let's say, the original batch of proposals?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There were 49 proposals submitted; 12 of them failed because they didn't have the requisite community support, and that left 37. I can break that down for the hon. member if he so wishes. There were nine from the north and the Kootenays, five from Vancouver Island, ten from the Thompson-Okanagan and 13 from the lower mainland.

T. Nebbeling: Did any of these proponents come to Victoria and meet with any ministry -- be it the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the Premier's Office or other ministries -- to make a pitch for being chosen? Is the minister aware if that has happened?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A number of proponents were asked to come in and clarify particular details about the proposals. Basically those were proposals that had scored very well on a number of key points and would have had a good expectation of working their way through the system.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister give me the names or locations of the proponents that were actually invited to come to Victoria and, in a sense, elaborate on their proposal and that were thereby given an advantage over the people not asked?

[6:45]

T. Nebbeling: If I can get the names, then, if you can provide me with that. . . . In the meantime, you may be able to tell me how many of the 37 were actually invited to come to Victoria.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll get the exact number for the hon. member; I do know that it's over half of them.

T. Nebbeling: Were the three sites that have been approved within that group of 18? Well, I suppose that's a dumb question, because you already. . . . No, maybe that is a good question. You have recently approved three applications.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right.

T. Nebbeling: Were these three part of the 18 that were invited to come and address the issue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they were.

T. Nebbeling: How did the ministry then deal with applications that came from the same area and were, in a sense, competing with each other? Let's take Penticton, where, I think, you have four applications. Did you invite all four? Or did you choose favourites for whatever reason?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It didn't matter where they were from. The basic criteria were that if they didn't have a hope in terms of getting to a final stage, they weren't asked to come and present further to us.

T. Nebbeling: If I can take Penticton, then, as an example, there were four applications, I believe. How many of the four applicants were invited to come to Victoria?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are only three proposals from Penticton. I can give the. . . . I just want to be careful, because we do have the RFP proposal. I don't have any hesitation giving the member the number, but once you start doing that, then people who may not have been notified become aware, and I want to be. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm willing to brief the member privately on this point. Subsequent to the decisions being made, I have no trouble in saying it publicly.

T. Nebbeling: I suppose the next question applies to the same situation. I was going to ask if there were other areas

[ Page 8913 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is that there is not a set number that I'm necessarily trying to shoot for. I'm not trying to say that we have 39 applications, and under the 39 applications, ten will make it or five will make it or two will make it or one will make it. What needs to happen is that a good evaluation is done of them, and the ones that make sense can go ahead. The key elements around community support are definitely of prime importance. The issue around competition on neighbouring facilities. . . . Some communities already have facilities, so even though there are proposals, it may not necessarily make sense -- even if it's a good proposal -- to allow something to go ahead. The actual number where we end up is still to be decided, but certainly I couldn't see any more than -- what? -- nine being approved, just from my sense of things. I mean, looking at the impacts on the market and things like that, it certainly wouldn't be any more than nine.

T. Nebbeling: In a sense, we already had this discussion earlier on, where the commitment was made by the Premier not to exceed five. The defence the minister made was that, well, that was Las Vegas-type casinos, and casinos that we are now incorporating into our system are certainly not of that size or of that nature. I thought it was interesting, because I knew that for a long time this province has rejected the concept of Las Vegas-style casinos. For that reason, I didn't buy the argument for why the minister thought that this province could absorb more casinos without having a negative impact on charity organizations.

Having gone through the clippings quickly, I found this quote from 1996: "The NDP government conducted a full review of gaming in our province, and after listening to British Columbians, we said no to Las Vegas-style gaming and video lottery terminals." So the thought process and the action by the government, in my opinion, when directing their attention to what this province can absorb, was always based on that fact that it was not going to be Las Vegas-style; it was going to be smaller casinos. And on these smaller casinos, five in total was the limit, according to the Premier's statement, that could be introduced without negative impacts. Now the minister says nine. What kind of studies. . . ?

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, the minister said in his own statement. . . . This is after he was confronted by the press. . .that there was a commitment of five casinos and no more, because that would eliminate any fear of negative impact on the smaller charity organization. "Mr. Farnworth is now stating that the number of casinos will only be restricted to a number less than ten" -- that's what he just said -- "nine sounded great" -- as he just said as well -- ". . .this would then allow for almost doubling the number of casinos the NDP stated would be its limit."

What studies has the ministry done to give the minister that sense of comfort that indeed a doubling of casinos will still not lead to charity organizations having to fear that this competition is going to lead to reduced funding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points, I guess. One is on my comments around the nine. I said that was the maximum. You know, that's probably. . . . I certainly said I couldn't see any more than nine going forward.

I think you have to look at some of the casinos. The ones that have been approved to date are very small, a very small niche market. They're certainly not anywhere near the realm of a Las Vegas casino. They're not what one would call mid-sized casinos. They are very small in comparison. Two out of the three, hon. member, are not even in the realm of or the size of existing casinos in the province.

We have done the studies in terms of market analysis, in terms of what can be supported. Communities have come forward and supported what they want in their own community. The issue around competition with charity casinos figures heavily in the RFP process in terms of when and where you can locate a new casino. I stated a few moments ago that -- you may have what appears to be an obvious site, but the fact that there is an existing casino there plays heavily on the decision as to whether a proposal can go ahead or not.

As regards funds to charities, we have made it clear that there is the guarantee in place, which would guarantee, in this case, $125 million a year. That will grow over time as gaming revenue grows, and they will share in that growth. Charities do not have cause to worry. The commitment to the funds being there is clear, and I have stated it repeatedly. So that's the message that I can give to the hon. member, and that's what's going to take place.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to go on, because obviously the minister is not going to recognize that certain commitments were made that are being violated. Commitments at the time were made based on studies, on discussions within the communities and on discussions, I think, with the gaming industry or the charities. That led to the decision for five casinos. The Las Vegas element that has been thrown into the fray is, I think, more for the purpose of confusing the issue than clarifying the issue, because the Las Vegas-size casinos were never considered. It was never part of the consideration.

So to say now: "Well, we talked about five; we can maybe now go to nine, and we still feel comfortable, based on studies. . . ." I want to know if these are new studies or the studies that we did prior to the decision for five. These studies were all based on old casinos of a rather small scale.

So again this is one of these issues where the minister is going to stick to his guns. I do not believe that it is based on facts, but politically it may be the most astute thing to do. So I'm not going to go further on this one.

The minister reintroduced $125 million. If the minister is so committed or believes that his government is so committed that his $125 million is available in perpetuity as the base and can only grow from that number, depending on factors that the minister must know. . . . I'm not sure I know, because the $125 million today is based in part on income and then a generous topping-off.

If the minister is so convinced that this $125 million was the base and will grow over years to larger amounts, why was that not incorporated as a line of security for the charities? They today are truly doubting that the minister was sincere when he made that statement, although at the time the announcement was made, many people wanted to believe it. Today, because of the sunset clause and of it being clear that it is a one-year commitment, why did the minister, when he made this a one-year commitment, not incorporate in his

[ Page 8914 ]

[7:00]

T. Nebbeling: Words.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "Words." Well, it's clear that he doesn't understand the process that was announced. This is an interim model that was put in place, with the key of bringing in legislation in the spring of next year. The work is underway to deal with that. The one-year sunset clause was asked for by the charities themselves. It was asked for by the British Columbia Association for Charitable Gaming. That's why it was put in.

Regardless of that -- regardless of whether there was a sunset clause and that we look at this interim model for a year or not -- on the issue of moneys available for charity purposes in British Columbia, it is $125 million this year. It will be more than $125 million next year. It will grow and grow as gaming revenue in this province grows. And it will not be cut back; I stand by that statement. I can't make it any clearer than that.

T. Nebbeling: If the minister at the time had put these words in a statement on changes that were made in how charity organizations will receive funds in the future, I think we wouldn't have had this debate. It is the uncertainty of it not being in writing. The minister can make a statement of that nature ten times. Future colleagues of his who may take over his position one day may not have, in any way, shape or form, that same commitment. For that reason it is very hollow. Although I think the minister is sincere -- I like to think the minister is sincere -- he cannot guarantee what his future colleagues will do. It will be future colleagues who will make these decisions. So there is no commitment. There could have been a commitment by having put that type of statement into the document at the time of the changeover -- that $125 million this year is the base from which future years' funding will increase.

Where am I going now? I think the minister will repeat his statements that he fully believes the commitment is there. What I would like to do now is focus a little bit on the B.C. Gaming Commission. When these expansion plans are being discussed. . . . I know that a representative of the Gaming Commission is involved in the evaluation of the projects that are under consideration. Am I correct in assuming that they are indeed part of it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct.

T. Nebbeling: At the time that this review was happening, who was the chair of the Gaming Commission?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There have been three individuals involved with the process: Bill Snowdon, George DesBrisay and Jim Carter.

T. Nebbeling: Were they all involved in the capacity of chair of the B.C. Gaming Commission? Or was George the chair and the other two. . . ?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In their capacity as chair.

T. Nebbeling: When the selection of the three casinos that have been approved was coming to fruition, who was the chair at the time? Was that Carter or George?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would have been Jim Carter.

T. Nebbeling: So at the time of that decision Jim Carter was only recently appointed as the chair of the commission. If I look at the time frame between when these announcements were made and his appointment, there was a very short period of time in between.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's true, hon. member. However, through the entire process, the executive director of the Gaming Commission was also involved through the tenure of all three individuals.

T. Nebbeling: What was the reason for George DesBrisay being fired from the Gaming Commission?

Hon. M. Farnworth: He wasn't fired; he had a one-year appointment.

T. Nebbeling: Was he asked to extend his one-year appointment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, he wasn't. I can explain that, because I was the minister responsible. When I made the changes, one of the issues I had dealt with. . . . I had talked to a whole host of groups to get a whole range and sense of concerns. One of the things I felt we needed to do was to bring a fresh approach, a new commission. While I gave consideration to continuing with the same chair and appointing a new commission, I thought no, if a new change is coming in place, I will appoint an entirely new Gaming Commission. That's the reason why I did it.

T. Nebbeling: How long had that particular Gaming Commission team, headed by George, been in place? Was it a one-year period or a five-year period? I'm asking this question because the previous Gaming Commission was chaired by Mr. McCormick. I believe he was one of the chairs at one time, and he was there for a number of years. But let's not get stuck on the name McCormick; there was a McCormick at one point. I do know that most of the members on the Gaming Commission had fairly lengthy periods of participation. That's why I would like to know what the term of tenure was on that commission -- the team that was removed and replaced recently. Four or five members were removed, I believe.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hope the member will clarify that just to make sure I understand. On the previous commission a number had been there for a number of years, and then they left. We were left with the board chair. I can tell the member that the reason the decision was made the way it was is that one of the prerogatives of being minister is that you have the ability to put your stamp on something. In the case of the Gaming Commission, I recognized it as being an integral part of the overall process. Basically, it was a decision on my part to say I'm putting my stamp on the commission. I want to put individuals on there who represent my views or my approach -- that would be a better way of putting it -- to how the

[ Page 8915 ]

T. Nebbeling: Although I don't want to insinuate in any way that I expect something to be wrong, considering that the commission was going in a whole new direction with new guidelines and a much more serious role to play because of the charity casinos becoming part of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, with charity organizations having to rely on the goodwill, to a certain extent, of the Gaming Commission. . . . I can understand that the minister wanted to see some changes, although I have no reason to question whether the people who were there up to that time were doing a good job or not, or to think that they had been in that position for such a long time that a certain type of staleness may have been part of their way of thinking. There is still some suspicion in my mind about why it had to happen. Without me trying to insinuate that there was anything wrong, can the minister tell me if any of the old members on the board were card-carrying members of the NDP?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have no idea -- none whatsoever. Let me put it this way. I'm responsible for a number of boards of a number of Crown corporations. Many of them have appointments that are already filled, and their appointments aren't due for some time. This is a board that was, and I looked at it from the point of view that there's a new change in the industry, in the way gaming is conducted in the province. We're going forward in a new direction; I am the minister responsible for gaming; it's my issue to deal with. There are a lot of challenges in it, so my job is to address those challenges.

One of the key messages I want to send out is that we are making changes and looking at dealing with some of the challenges out there in a new direction. Very firm was my conviction that we'd start with the Gaming Commission, because it is a symbol of gaming. It has an important role to play. There were changes taking place with regard to how gaming is conducted in the province, and I wanted it to reflect that. That's why I felt it was important that we have a new board, right from the chair to the rest of the board members. I felt it was important that we have a new commission and a new chair, to put a face on that commission.

T. Nebbeling: It must be awesome to have that much power; I want to know how the minister feels at night when he has used that power.

Was the existing Gaming Commission -- the Gaming Commission before it was replaced -- content with the way things were going? Or were there messages coming from the Gaming Commission that they were quite uncomfortable with some aspects of the new direction?

[7:15]

T. Nebbeling: I know that the minister was fairly new when it all happened, so he had to rely on advice from his staff, I take it. Maybe through his staff he can find out if indeed there was some discontent amongst the board members -- related to some of the new elements that were being incorporated in the actions of the Gaming Commission -- prior to their being asked to resign.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will endeavour to do that for you.

T. Nebbeling: I was hoping that the minister could, as he's doing all the time, consult with his staff and then give an answer right now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of issues. Some I would say are of a more confidential nature. But I also know that there was discontent, because in large measure, they had been making decisions for the previous ten years, and now there were changes being contemplated -- changes in the direction of gaming in the province. There was probably some sense of concern around that, amongst other issues. They are there to deal with that, and sometimes people decide they want to do other things.

T. Nebbeling: I'm pretty sure that the minister is aware that there were indeed some serious questions about the new direction that was happening within the Gaming Commission, and that that led to some debate as to whether these people should be there when the new plan was going to be put in place. I can understand that the minister had to consider that.

What I do not understand is how, in a group of six, there can be a number of card-carrying members of the NDP appointed who have no experience in the gaming area. Maybe the minister can explain to me if he was aware of the fact that there were a number of card-carrying NDP members coming onto the new team and on the new team. Are these people, like good soldiers, abiding by the messages that they are getting through various sources on how to act on certain issues? When the minister made a statement yesterday that the commission works hands-off, he should understand that people who are watching what's going on take that with much skepticism.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The people on the Gaming Commission have a wide variety of community backgrounds and expertise in a whole range of community organizations. I am quite sure that there are some New Democrats on the commission.

T. Nebbeling: Three.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Pardon?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, likewise there are also supporters of the Liberal Party on the commission. In fact, hon. member, I can even name one, and I'll do it right now. There's a woman on there; her name is Thelka Wright, of Port Coquitlam. I worked with her husband on the city council of Port Coquitlam for a long time. She is an individual who was being actively recruited to run for the Liberal Party in the last provincial election. Thelka Wright is a prominent individual with a long history of community involvement in Port Coquitlam. She is an individual who has no association with the New Democratic Party in any way, shape or form. In fact, I think I can even produce some newspaper articles where a Liberal riding executive was even mentioned. What I'm saying is that there is a good political-spectrum base on the Gaming Commission. Yes, there are New Democrats on it, and yes, there are non-New Democrats on it.

[ Page 8916 ]

I believe the new commission is now also involved in the disbursement of the funds that were held in trust until such time as Judge Owen-Flood could make a decision about who that money belonged to. Can the minister give me a report or an update on how these funds that have been held in trust are being disbursed -- maybe I should say have been disbursed -- and how much. . . ?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Approximately $30 million was received in the provincial trust in January, and the Supreme Court has allowed approximately $20 million to be paid out to charities. There's a further $10 million that remains in the trust.

T. Nebbeling: A lot of it had to do with categories of charity. Did Judge Owen-Flood actually stipulate that only $20 million could be paid out? Are there reasons why the other $10 million has not been disbursed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It wasn't Owen-Flood that made this decision. It would be another judge that's ruling on the disbursal out of the trust. Owen-Flood made the initial decision. Then it goes back to court, and another judge hears it and makes the decision on the disbursal. That judge at the time made the decision to disburse the amount of money that would have been in the trust prior to the Owen-Flood decision. Then he said: "After that's done, then come back to me. I want an audit on the $10 million, and then I'll make a decision on the moneys remaining." That's the $10 million which is still at issue.

T. Nebbeling: The amounts of money that have been disbursed -- are they disbursed in a manner that it is truly catching up with what organizations should have had in the first place, based on last year's activity? Or are we using these funds to have them disbursed against applications that are coming in for the coming year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This does not count towards new applications. It is last year's applications.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I'm asking the minister this is that a number of organizations have contacted me. They were made aware -- because of the court decision -- that as organizations they were entitled to a further disbursement from the trust fund. The amount was then mentioned, and they were instructed to apply for the money that they were entitled to -- but as part of next year's application, not in return. I will happily provide the minister with copies of letters reflecting this.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The money goes back to the charities. In some cases. . . . It doesn't go proportionately. Just for the sake of argument, let's say your charity got 2 percent of the total revenue last year, and there's now this $20 million that's available for disbursement. It doesn't automatically guarantee that you will get 2 percent of that money. One of the key factors has to be your charitable activity, the activities that you as a charity are doing. If you used all your money to cover that charitable activity -- you accomplished what it was that you set out to do -- then it may be that you would have to apply again. The application would be considered this year, because you've already accomplished the activity that you said you wanted to do. Like, you've already spent. . . . The money has already gone for the charitable purpose; it may have already gone to the charitable activities. To be consistent with the Criminal Code, you still have to show that the money you would receive, even if it was a top-up, would go to a charitable purpose. I hope I've explained that correctly.

T. Nebbeling: I have one situation where an application was made, and the organization was given $5,000 less than the application reflected. This same organization was then recently notified that the funds that they were short -- $5,008.26 -- should come to the organization. "These funds will be considered to be available to meet your eligible charitable purposes for your next fiscal year." So what this is saying is that whatever you need next year, regardless of whether you are still in a situation where you're $5,000 short for activities in the past year, the $5,000 that we owe you cannot be used for that; you have to use that against the next fiscal year. That means that the application does not refer back to the $5,000 you were short for last year's activities.

I hear what the minister is saying. If everything had been paid with the funds that were made available -- maybe the program was cut short or whatever -- I can maybe see the argument, but that is not necessarily the case. Here's an organization that is $5,000 short. They're supposed to receive $5,000 because of the trust fund decision. Now they receive a letter saying: "No, you can't use it for the shortage you had for that year; you have to apply it to your needs for next year." That is what I think is fundamentally wrong.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically what I need to do is look at the specific case the member has, and I'll do that. I'll have the staff look at the specific case and go through it. One of the key components. . . . One of the issues may be: was activity that was carried out eligible for gaming or charitable purposes? There could be a number of reasons. Anyway, I have committed to the member to look at the particular case that he has and wishes to bring forward. We'll examine it.

The basic premise has been that if you got money last year and you applied for it, then you'd get it. Really, the only concern would be that the money is still being used for charitable purposes. If you weren't doing the charitable activity, then you wouldn't receive funds. If there's something that needs to be examined, I'll look at the case for the member.

[7:30]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: No? The minister goes: "For what?" It's creating a couple of excuses, technically, to say: "Sorry, but

[ Page 8917 ]

I would then put as a counterargument that many of these organizations, whenever they were able to fulfil the objectives that had to be covered by the dollars that were coming out of that fund, may have taken other steps to have that fund in place. Then they lent it to the charity parents. I'm talking here about the school. The parents have been able to fulfil the financial obligations, not because of the funds that they were getting from the Gaming Commission or from their charity activity, but by putting money into the kitty, albeit in the form of a loan.

So is the minister saying that if that type of situation was created where the financial commitment was met -- although not because of charity funding covering that cost but by parents putting money into the kitty to get to that amount -- these parents cannot be compensated and get their money back? If that's the case, then I'd like the minister to extrapolate from that one, as well, about how the minister could go back to the court in return and say: "We have not been able to distribute this money because of the following reasons." It's somewhere; you can't have that stalemate. At the end of the day, the ministry is saying: "It's too bad, but we're taking that money."

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, a couple of points. One, the government has no interest in keeping any of this money. So to suggest that somehow the government is trying to put up roadblocks or anything else to prevent the disbursement of the money is just plain wrong. The fact of the matter is that the disbursements and the payments from the trust have been made in complete accordance with the court's order. I think that to suggest otherwise is just plain wrong. What I have said is that if the member has a case that he wants us to look up, I'm more than willing to look at it.

On the issue around payment of moneys to charitable groups, the court makes it quite clear where the money is to go. We have no interest other than to ensure that the court's instructions are carried out, and that's exactly what has happened. I can't make in any plainer than that. When money doesn't go into general revenue, it doesn't go anywhere else. It goes right back to the charities.

T. Nebbeling: Not the anger but the dislike for what I just said that's on the minister's face. . . . The minister must realize that the only reason that there is a trust fund, which has held up to $30 million. . . . That was money that charities worked for through various activities, be it in the casinos or the bingo halls. It was this government and the minister's predecessor who were playing games, who wanted more of that money. When the charities were saying, "Hey, wait a second; you have taken enough," as a form of punishment the government said: "Well, then we're not paying out anything; we'll put it into a fund and let somebody else make the decision on whether you're entitled to that money."

When we talk about the integrity of the government. . . . When it comes to how money has been disbursed and how, from time to time, predecessors of this minister have tried to take more from the system than they were legally entitled to, I think that is the reason we have this trust fund in place. Had the minister responsible for gaming at the time played ball with the charity organizations, there would not be a trust fund -- as there wasn't one in the past. That money would have been disbursed according to the rules that were set out and the percentages that were agreed to a long time ago and that have worked for a long time. So I don't want to see indignation on the minister's face from me questioning the total integrity of the plan for disbursing this money. It's primarily because of past experiences.

Clearly it is my hope -- and I will watch this; that's why I'm asking questions -- to ensure that the money that is rightfully owed to these organizations will go that way and that there will not be technical ways found to say: "Sorry, it may be yours, but that's too bad. We can't do it; we would violate the rules and the law." I am watching for that, and I won't accept that. If indeed the government is committed to honouring its commitments to these organizations as far as this fund is concerned, disburse it. Organizations applied for the funding, they named a number, and they justified that number. It wasn't disputed. The Gaming Commission at the time, looking at the applications, found a justification for that number, so it was agreed on. Then when they got less, charity organizations had to scramble. Then the decision was made by Judge Owen-Flood: "Pay out." I would suggest that we do that and stop looking at technical reasons to not honour that commitment.

When I see this letter. . . . I've got a number of these letters. I've had a number of phone calls. Colleagues of mine have received a number of letters. All these are focused on the same issue: "Hey, we were supposed to get that money, and now we are being told to apply it -- and we will get the money, according to the government -- to next year's application." So they're still in the hole -- still losing in the end. That was not the intent of the decision, I'm sure.

I accept the indignation on the minister's face, but I don't think it is justified. My skepticism is totally based on what we have seen happening over the last year and a half when it comes to the percentage of funds that is supposed to go to charitable organizations.

My next question is: if indeed there is an attempt by the Gaming Commission to include the funds owed to charity organizations allocated against next year's budget. . . ? I believe that the minister said that there is still $10 million to be disbursed. I hope that if it is more, the minister can advise me. But if it is $10 million, is the minister committed to tell us today that the total disbursement of funds to the charity organizations will be $135 million -- $125 million under the new funding formula, plus the top-up of $10 million or whatever amount of money is still in the trust fund? Can the minister give me that number?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The money in the trust fund is completely separate and over and above the guarantee. How the $10 million is disbursed -- where it is to go -- will be ruled on by the judge.

T. Nebbeling: Then maybe you have to go with the $20 million that is supposed to be available for disbursement. I think that was the number the minister said earlier on.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what has already gone out.

T. Nebbeling: The minister confirms that that money has gone out. It's not committed on paper as part of next year's application, but it's a top-up of money for the various organizations that were entitled to get that extra money. Is that what the minister is saying tonight?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, the judge has ruled on the disbursement of the $20 million and how that goes out. The

[ Page 8918 ]

T. Nebbeling: There's a fundamental difference between what the minister keeps saying and the answer to my question. What the minister keeps saying -- and if I'm wrong, he can correct me -- is that the $20 million has been disbursed by the judge. Those are the words you used. I'm not interested. . . . I don't think the judge was given $20 million to write cheques to various organizations. I think the minister got instructions to disburse that money. What I want to know from the minister is: when the disbursement took place, was that disbursement based on a delayed payment on a retroactive application, or was it disbursed on the basis of using this money in this year's -- the upcoming -- allocation? Is it old money that was returned to its rightful owners, or is it part of the applications that are coming through the mill right now?

The Chair: Noting the hour, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to the question is quite simple. You apply for the money, to access the $20 million -- the fund that's in there. You receive notification that you're eligible to access it. If you're doing charitable activities that you can use the money for, then you get the money. If you're not doing charitable activities that you can use the money for, you can't get the money. We cannot give it to you if you're not doing a charitable activity. But then what you can do is: if your activity continues into this year, you can apply and access the $20 million to do activities in this year. That would mean that if you need money later on this year, you would not get the same amount of money that you would have got last year, because you're doing activities for which you're already getting money from that $20 million. That doesn't affect the guarantee, however, because it means that it frees up room for another charity to access the $125 million. Does the member understand what I'm saying here?

[7:45]

I'm going to read this. If the minister wants to go on. . . . It says:

"Following May 1, 1997, the review of licence applications was conducted by the commission on the understanding the new revenue regulations would be forthcoming and the gaming proceeds which would be raised by licensees were restricted. The amount of revenue you were anticipated to receive was approved to be applied to the uses set out in your application. However, it was not known that you would receive the excess funds from your events now held in the pooled revenue trust account, and the use of those additional proceeds by your organization has not yet been approved by the commission."

It says:

"A review of your application and supporting documentation indicates a level of need from gaming revenue for last year of $9,814.92 was approved for your organization. You were scheduled into gaming facilities to meet that financial goal. Your charity is now eligible to receive an additional $5,008.26 from the pooled revenue trust account in connection with your gaming events." -- these gaming events were approved by the commission to achieve a goal of money to be raised that evening to cover the cost of operation of this applicant, which was shortchanged -- "These funds will be considered to be available to you now to meet your eligible charitable purpose for your next fiscal year."

So if the minister still maintains that this money that was held in trust is used to fulfil the obligations that the Gaming Commission committed to during last year's session, then this letter is totally contradicting that. I'd like the minister to explain that.

The Chair: Again, noting the time, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair.

The key issue that is. . . . The point that is at issue here is the eligible use for the funds -- okay? If you don't have an eligible use for the funds, you can't get more money -- right? You have to demonstrate the eligible use for the funds to get more money. The Gaming Commission can't just write a cheque. You have to demonstrate the eligible use. If you haven't got the eligible use for that year, then it's. . . . Look, you can access it this year. That's the point; that's the key thing. You know, I can't make it any clearer than that.

The Chair: Minister, according to sessional orders, a motion to adjourn would be in order at this time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only question I was going to ask is: how much more. . . ?

T. Nebbeling: It could be days.

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that, I move the committee rise, report glacially slow progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:53 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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