[ Page 8991 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to be joined by some very important people who are in the gallery: Councillor George Puil from the city of Vancouver; Mayor Beth Johnson of Delta; Councillor Lee Rankin of Burnaby; John Carline, chief administrative officer for the greater Vancouver regional district; Ken Cameron, manager of strategic planning for the GVRD; Clive Rock, administrator for the GVRD in the area of transportation planning; and Dave Rudberg, general manager of engineering services for the city of Vancouver. They are here to join in what has been a long time coming in the area of transit authority, which we will talk about later in the form of legislation. Two guests were unable to attend but have been very important to this process: Marvin Shaffer and Wayne Baldwin, the city administrator for White Rock. I would ask the House to make these people very welcome today.

L. Reid: I would simply add, on behalf of the official opposition, my words of greeting to our municipal visitors this morning and a special welcome to Johnny Carline, who spent many fine, wonderful years with us in Richmond. We miss you, but hopefully, you're enjoying your new position. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: In the precinct visiting us today is Mayor Bill Wilcox. He is the mayor of an absolutely wonderful and beautiful community called Elkford in my constituency. I would ask the House to welcome Mayor Bill Wilcox to Victoria.

G. Robertson: With us today we have Mayor Bob Surch from Port Alice, and accompanying Bob today is his wife Debbie. Bob and Debbie are both examples of the great people from North Island who make North Island a special and unique place to live and raise families. I'm really pleased that they're both here today, and I'd ask that the members make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am very pleased today to introduce the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. This is a bill that creates a new regional transportation authority -- the GVTA, for short -- and provides a new funding and governance structure for transportation in greater Vancouver. The GVTA Act was collaboratively developed by the province of B.C. and the greater Vancouver regional district with the support of local government. It formalizes the agreement earlier ratified by the province and the GVRD.

I would particularly like to thank George Puil, the chair of the GVRD, for his commitment and hard work in developing and supporting this groundbreaking agreement.

This act gives local government control over transportation and transit services in greater Vancouver -- a long-held goal of local governments. The GVTA will be responsible for a regional transportation system that includes both public transit and a regional road network. As well, the GVTA will assume responsibility for transportation demand management and for administering the region's AirCare program. The GVTA will work with the greater Vancouver regional district to ensure that transportation and land use planning are integrated and consistent with greater Vancouver's regional growth strategy.

The act also ensures that the new authority will have adequate and appropriate funding to carry out its responsibilities, including implementing plans for the expansion of transit services in the region. As well, it commits the provincial government to providing substantial capital funding for major projects such as the rapid transit project, which will promote economic development and job creation, reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.

This GVTA Act will help to ensure improved transit services and an integrated regional approach to transportation planning in greater Vancouver. I think it's safe to say that it is unique in its approach throughout North America.

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

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and order to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF SIGHT

Today in Canada there are more than 70,000 persons who are legally blind. About 2,600 of them could benefit from the services of a trained guide dog. There are now approximately 725 working guide-dog teams in Canada. A trained guide dog is worth $30,000 in monetary terms but is priceless to its owner. The $30,000 it takes to train a guide dog covers such costs as veterinary care, collars, harnesses and transportation for blind clients to the training centre. All training costs are covered by Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, and guide dogs are supplied to clients for a nominal $1 fee. "Therefore our program is available to all blind Canadians who qualify." That's a quote from Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind.

[ Page 8992 ]

Until the mid-1980s, Canada was far behind the western world in the field of training guide dogs. Prior to this time, any Canadian wishing to obtain a guide dog had to travel overseas or to the United States to get a dog. In 1984 Bill and Jane Thornton left their work with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association in England and came to Canada with the enthusiastic dream of starting a much needed guide dog school. The Thorntons rented a house in the Ottawa area, turned the garage into a kennel and trained their first guide dog, whose name was Sasha. Sasha graduated with his handler in 1984, and Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind was born.

The school has progressed from its humble beginnings in this small home to a full-fledged impressive training centre which opened in 1988 in Manotick, 16 miles south of Ottawa. Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind also has a west coast presence, with its facility operating in Richmond, British Columbia. Two other guide dog schools exist in Canada; both are based in the east.

Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind has had a volunteer support group working in the Vancouver area since 1986. The group has supported the school with three objectives. I'll spend a few minutes this morning outlining those objectives.

The first is their puppy-walking program. Most of the puppies that enter guide dog training come from our own breeding program. Golden and Labrador retrievers are the breeds preferred. At seven to eight weeks of age, the puppies are placed in carefully selected foster homes for a period of one year. These dedicated volunteer families provide care for the potential guide dogs until their formal training commences at about 14 months. They provide a home for the pups and carry out specified initial socialization and discipline, which is required to develop a successful guide dog. In this important period, with trips through shopping malls, excursions on busy traffic routes and introductions to a variety of people, sounds and situations, the puppy is prepared for future encounters as a qualified guide dog. Puppies wear a beige and red jacket, signifying them as guide dogs in training.

In March 1998, Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, British Columbia branch, moved to a new location on Alberta Road in Richmond. The facility will not only house the administration office and act as a residence for up to three client training classes each year but will be a training centre where dogs will be trained under the supervision of a resident guide dog instructor.

The year 1998 brings important developments to the B.C. branch of Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind: a full-time guide dog instructor, and a new, larger training facility in Richmond. All phases of guide dog training can now take place in British Columbia. The 1998 goal is to graduate nine teams of trained guide dogs and their blind partners here in British Columbia.

[10:15]

Certainly anyone in this chamber who had access to this program would be supportive. I hope that this chamber can continue to -- and more visibly -- support these programs. This is the first time this program has come to British Columbia; the first time that individuals who are visually impaired will be able to secure a guide dog while remaining in the province of British Columbia. They will not have to travel to eastern Canada for that service. This coast-to-coast initiative, which says that it is very, very important to provide that service, now acknowledges that it's very important to provide that service close to where individuals live. To have that animal acclimatized and accustomed to working in this locale and in the areas that are unique to British Columbia, I think, will only be to the good. I certainly look forward to the comments my colleague opposite will make.

E. Walsh: Without a doubt, I feel that the comments that the hon. member for Richmond East has made this morning are very important not only to those people who are blind but to the visually impaired in our province today -- people who are not blind but who face many of the same challenges and are in need of guide dogs. Guide dogs are very important to blind people too. I do salute the volunteers that train these dogs for the blind.

But there are many, many challenges for persons in British Columbia who are visually impaired or blind. Some of the programs for visually impaired persons fall under various multi-jurisdictional areas and under various ministries. I just want to touch for a moment on some of the organizations and the importance that I feel they play within the societies and the province today. Organizations like the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the White Cane club work tirelessly within our province to support the visually impaired. This work is very important, and the government places high value on all those people, volunteers and organizations for the work that they do for the visually impaired.

Some of the work is also done in the office for disability issues. That office advocates for issues on behalf of people with disabilities. I just want to mention that even the word "disabilities" creates challenges that we as British Columbians also have to work on and address. So many people with disabilities feel very strongly that they are being marginalized when they hear the word disabilities. What does the word disability really mean?

Through the Ministry of Education there are numerous initiatives for visually impaired students. This is being brought to the people of British Columbia through the special programs branch and through the Provincial Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired. The branch supplies Braille, audio materials and technical aids for students with visual impairments.

Just for a moment, I want to speak on some personal experience -- my experience -- on the importance of addressing some of the issues for the visually impaired. As a city councillor with the city of Cranbrook, I sat on the access

[ Page 8993 ]

Hon. Speaker, I believe that the challenges that the visually impaired and the blind have to face today go much further. As a paramedic, I also know the importance of preserving the sight of people out in the workplace, preserving sight for people and their families to be able to enjoy this great province that we live in.

I would encourage every person in British Columbia to become more aware of the challenges that face those people who are visually impaired, those people who are blind, those people who require and need the help that city councils, governments and organizations such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in fact do offer to those people, who must meet and face as challenges things that we all take for granted every day that we live in this province. So I would encourage, again, everyone to take part in that challenge.

L. Reid: I begin by thanking the hon. member opposite, the member for Kootenay, for some very insightful remarks about the difficulties individuals face, regardless of their impairment -- the difficulties around mobility and access that are paramount in their lives. Places such as this, legislatures across this country, must do some things in terms of ensuring that we are not in fact creating impediments, that hopefully we are removing obstacles that prevent people from leading the lives they would desire.

If I might spend just a moment or two on the process that continues to allow guide dogs to become active partners in an individual's life, certainly there's a lot of time and attention paid to the interviewing process, because there are some physical demands in owning a dog: exercise, care, maintenance and all of those issues. The match is important. The personality of the individual matching the personality of the animal is vitally important to the success of the relationship.

The retraining aspects are certainly an issue that I wish to touch on. They suggest that the normal working life span of a seeing-eye dog is eight to nine years. Given that, certainly many individuals will require more than one dog during their lifetimes. They say that priority is given to replacement dogs to provide users continuity of guide dog mobility -- that once an individual has in fact been in a situation with an animal, it's much easier for that person to continue their life and livelihood if the services of the animal are provided in a continuous way. I can certainly support that contention.

They talk a little bit about aftercare. "The use of a guide dog may result in a radical lifestyle change for the user. The increased physical demands and the daily requirements of caring for the guide dog impose a regimen and a discipline that may create initial difficulties." Indeed, there may be individuals who have never had an animal in their lives in the past, and there will be some accommodations that are required. Again, I speak to the fact that the professional trainers continue to meet with those individuals, so that indeed they can ease the transition and ensure success in those partnerships.

I want to spend just a moment on the receptiveness of this building when it comes to dogs and handlers. I can only hope that given the opportunity, the members of this chamber and of the building itself, the staff, will rise up to the challenge and ensure that animals and their partners are welcomed into these buildings, because I think it's symbolic of what we would like to put in place, which is better access and better mobility across the province.

Again, I would pay special tribute to Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, who have taken the initiative to house their facility on the west coast to ensure that British Columbians and people from Alberta and Saskatchewan need not always go east, that indeed there are opportunities to come west and receive the service that is vitally important to the productivity of their lives and their well-being, independence, self-esteem and self-confidence. It's a package that's all wrapped up together. If we can do some things that allow people to continue to make some choices on their behalf, I would welcome that.

A TRIBUTE TO B.C. BLUEBERRY GROWERS

B.C. blueberries are the most delicious in the world because of our fertile soil and ideal growing conditions. Warm summer days and cool nights result in top-quality berries with great flavour and storage capabilities. Early blueberries will be available to consumers by late June. Production will continue until early September, when the latest varieties stop producing. August is the big blueberry month, when harvesting is at its peak. August is Blueberry Month in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, 85 percent of the B.C. blueberry crop is hand-harvested by between 2,000 and 3,000 farmworkers. Berries sold for fresh markets are usually handpicked. The remaining 15 percent of the crop is picked by mechanical harvesters. Each bush is picked two to four times during the harvest season. We have a blueberry industry only if farmers can get the required number of blueberry pickers, which is very difficult. Our government can assist this industry by examining the unique, high-labour needs at harvest time. We can help to ensure that the system can maximize workers' earnings and provide for the farmers' ability to pay those wages.

After the blueberry harvest, the berries are either sold fresh through retail stores and farm-gate outlets or sent to a processor or packer. There are about ten major processors and packers in B.C. and a few smaller packers. Fresh and processed blueberries are distributed throughout the world, including the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia and across Canada. Blueberries are good for you. They contain substances that are believed to have health benefits: fructose; fibre; vitamins A,C, and E; and antioxidants, which seem to have a role in the prevention or delay of cancer, heart disease and the aging process.

Blueberries are good for us, and blueberry farming is good for the B.C. economy. This is a growing agricultural

[ Page 8994 ]

B.C. blueberry farmers support the B.C. Blueberry Council through a 1-cent-per-pound levy. The council's directors are mainly farmers. The organization conducts a strong promotions program to encourage increased consumption to meet the increasing world supply, resulting in increased sales of fresh blueberries. The farmer-supported B.C. Blueberry Council grants over $50,000 each year towards research projects aimed at improving crop management and the industry's competitiveness. Provincial and federal governments can and should support these important research and development projects. Research is necessary for the blueberry industry to remain competitive in the global market it now faces. Examples of current research trials include a mechanical harvester trial to assess crop losses and a survey to assess the prevalence of beneficial insects that eat insect pests.

Thanks to the Minister of Agriculture and the extensive meetings he is holding with farmers across B.C., we will know what the industry's problems are. The new B.C. agricultural food policy now being developed needs to also address the problems inherent in the B.C. blueberry industry. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Labour need to work closely together. We need to work toward solutions and create opportunities with compassion for farmworkers, providing fair wages and decent working conditions. We need to provide farmers with a greater understanding of their issues and assistance to relieve the pressures of a competitive marketplace.

[10:30]

Neither our agriculture industry nor our government gets to set prices for our agriculture commodities. The prices are basically set by what happens in Michigan or California. The United States system has an invisible, migratory and often illegal workforce. We need to recognize the proud history that has provided entry-level agriculture work for an agrarian culture, leading to ownership of farms in British Columbia. We need a labour accord that allows for the flush of work that occurs at the height of berry-picking season and also allows for the slow, subsequent picking as the fruit nears final harvesting.

The new agrifood policy will simplify the overlapping regulatory regime. We can now introduce a superfund for agriculture and look seriously at land banking. We can consider federal-provincial wage subsidies for sectors of the industry. We can acknowledge cultural differences, and we can eliminate worker exploitation in the agriculture industry.

To protect the farmworkers and farmers, we also have to protect the farm. We must address the escalating costs of farmland, assess the costs of operating and harvesting, and pursue creative solutions. Members of the Legislature need to speak for B.C. farmers. On that note I look forward to the hon. member's response.

M. de Jong: I like blueberries. I thought that the best way to demonstrate my support for much, if not all, of what I heard from the member would be to share with members my recipe for blueberry muffins. I thought I could. . . . No props, hon. Speaker. Instead, maybe what I'll do is share that afterwards with any members who are interested, and we can put together the cookbook later.

I too come from an area that grows a lot of blueberries; the Matsqui prairie-Abbotsford area. Besides Richmond and Maple Ridge, where the hon. member comes from, these are probably the major growing areas in the province. Production has increased dramatically over the last ten years, and the people who are producing those berries are not just farmers. They are innovative marketers who have gone forth and been able to carve out a niche market not just locally with respect to the fresh product but right around the world, for reasons that the hon. member alluded to in terms of the quality of the product and the desire that people the world over have to access that product. That's a good thing. That's good for British Columbia and good for the people and the families who are involved in the farming industry.

In my particular riding, I have two of the larger producers. Berryhill Foods is a relatively new processor. They've been around for four years and are very progressive. I want to acknowledge the fact that last year they received the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce award for agricultural excellence. From a chamber of commerce that I think is the largest in British Columbia, that is quite an achievement.

The Abbotsford Growers Co-op, also in the part of the province that I call home, is celebrating 50 years in the business of marketing berries -- blueberries, raspberries -- and, I should say in passing, an organization. . . . Coincidentally, I just noticed today as I was making a few notes that I'm using their pen, which says: "The Abbotsford Growers -- Celebrating 50 Years." Their history largely chronicles the history of the Abbotsford-Matsqui area, insofar as the influx of Mennonite people in the 1930s and forties, and then the passing on, in more recent times, of many of those farms to the Indo-Canadian members of our community. . . . The history of that organization largely follows the history of the community as a whole, and that's a good thing.

The member talks about the challenges facing the growers producing blueberries, and I think it's important that we remember what some of those challenges are. There are employment issues. Some of the producers tell me that as recently as four years ago, they had 300 growers working in their fields. This year they'll have 25; they hope to be down to five next year. It is becoming more mechanized, and one of the reasons for that is the cost. It is a marginal existence, from the point of view of deriving a profit out of growing blueberries. The government must be aware. . . . As we are in the midst of a debate on one component of labour relations, I will say quite candidly that farmers will be concerned when the government starts talking about a labour accord that could very possibly add to the cost of production.

Yes, we have to protect the rights of farmworkers -- absolutely. But if the government proceeds in a way that fails to acknowledge that for every action it takes, there is a reaction on the part of the people who have to pay the bills, then they will not be doing those farmers any service. I would urge this member to convey to his colleagues on that side of the

[ Page 8995 ]

We're into the season for bird control. The best way to protect against the damage that birds do to a crop is through a net, but that's very expensive, and it doesn't always lend itself to some of the mechanized equipment that is now used to pick the crop. Lastly, as I take my seat, let us also be mindful of the concerns that farmers have with drainage issues and of their ongoing battle with the federal Department of Fisheries -- the challenges they face in that respect in terms of ensuring that they can take their crop to market. It's a good-news story; let's not make it a bad-news story.

W. Hartley: Our government has shown the political will to promote and protect farming. We have taken action. B.C.'s Farm Practices Protection Act ensures that a farmer's operations are not liable to nuisance lawsuits against farm practices. A 23 percent increase in this year's Agriculture budget significantly strengthens the farm safety net. Tax breaks in the budget will also help farmers, and we'll do much more. The B.C. agrifood policy is being actively pursued and will be finalized later this year. In April of this year B.C. farmers reached a historic accord with the Ministers of Agriculture and of Environment to resolve environment issues by October. Areas where regulations can be reduced or eliminated will be identified, and financial impacts will be considered -- all through a single-window process. This is a fundamental shift by government and industry.

I was encouraged by the minister's statement in this House on June 4, Agriculture Day, when he talked about the unique agricultural operating advantages that we have in B.C. over other areas. It's a fact that we have the oldest and best farmland protection system in North America: the agricultural land reserve. It's a fact that we have farmed only half of the land in the agricultural land reserve and produce the equivalent of 50 percent of total food purchases for our local population. That means we have 100 percent growth potential in both land availability and domestic markets. We can make B.C. farming more viable and more affordable.

Agriculture cannot be sacrificed for urban sprawl. The industry is far too valuable. The blueberry sector has enormous potential to create more jobs and economic growth for British Columbia. It's very important that the consuming public is aware of our superior B.C. products -- over 100 different commodities -- and that the public is encouraged to buy B.C.

For the past three years, August has been declared Blueberry Month by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. This means that local businesses will do special blueberry promotions. We'll see special blueberry products in White Spot restaurants, ABC Country Restaurants and Thrifty Foods stores. We can all attend the blueberry tea in the Richmond Nature Park on August 16 or visit the Clayburn Village Store in the member's riding, which features blueberry products in August. There's also the Abbotsford Berry Festival on July 10-11.

Once again, it's my great hope that this year will see the realization of a great blueberry bhangra celebration in Pitt Meadows.

FORESTRY, JOBS AND FAMILIES

I reflect on the fact that for all the rhetoric, for all the discussion and for all the announcements, there is one group of people that we keep missing, and that's the families in British Columbia. Those are the people who are affected by a downturn in an industry. Those are the people who want to know answers to questions as to why their jobs are missing. They're the ones who want to know why forest sector costs have risen by 75 percent in the last five years. They want to know why red tape has choked off the forest sector. They want to know why we have $22.70, on average, in stumpage in British Columbia when it's $4.50 in Alberta, $10 in Ontario and $8.52 in Quebec. What they want to know is: "Are you going to make another announcement that's going to tell me you're going to create jobs? Or are you really, really going to address the industry?"

There is a time in our society when we have to recognize that communities are hurting. We have to know that when communities are hurting, something else is hurting, and that's the fabric of B.C.'s society. That fabric is made up of people who volunteer in a community. They could be people who are involved in a charitable organization, somebody involved in a service organization or a group of people who, basically for self-help, belong to something like Toastmasters or whatever. As the economy slides in those communities, with massive layoffs and job losses, that fabric starts to slide as well. People can't afford to belong and be involved in the community at the level they could before.

When you think about that, you ask: "Well, if we count the job losses, what are we accomplishing?" If we recognize, however, that there's more than the job loss. . . . We aren't counting the layoffs, we're not seeing the real people who are being affected, and we're not reacting to what they really need. What they really need is stability. They need economic stability, and they need a feeling that somebody is actually getting something done and to see that something is being done to help create balance in their lives.

We have to ensure that we do this and not raise false hopes, that we do it in such a way that we put partisanship aside. We sit back and say that it's time, when families are hurting in this province, that we don't have any more rhetoric. It's time, when families are hurting in this province, that we don't try to sell them a brochure, to sell them a TV ad, to sell them anything but the truth, the facts and the future. People in this province want to know that the forest sector will turn around. They want to know that we as legislators will work together to make that happen. It's absolutely fundamentally important that we do that before the fabric of our society in the rural areas of British Columbia and throughout this province -- where hundreds of thousands of jobs are affected directly and indirectly by one sector. . . . We must do something about it.

[ Page 8996 ]

[10:45]

G. Robertson: I'm really pleased to be here today to respond to the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. The member made some good points about young people and families in resource communities and the importance of the forest sector to those communities. I see it every day; I live in a community that's dependent on the forests. Yes, we have some challenges in British Columbia today.

The member talked briefly about the jobs and timber accord. The jobs and timber accord was embraced by our government and the forest corporations in this province. It is a five-year plan to do just what the member was talking about -- that is, diversify product in this province, diversify opportunities and also get more jobs out of the sector. That will be an ongoing challenge for our government and indeed for the opposition and all the elected representatives in this province.

The member also went on to say a little bit about red tape. I think we've recognized that problem and have worked very cooperatively with forest corporations to reduce red tape over the course of the last year, particularly in the Forest Practices Code.

But I will say that economic stability will not be achieved by downgrading our environment; rather, the opposite is true. We're seeing forest corporations in this province today signing on to the Forest Stewardship Council in order to gain access to European markets. They're discriminating buyers and discriminating markets. There's a lot of focus on what we do in British Columbia. We have to make sure we do the job properly and look after all the different resources in our forests -- and there are many.

I was reading the paper just yesterday, and there was a really interesting quote in there about Mayor Russ Hellberg of Port Hardy. Russ is a good friend of mine; he is also the chair of the Coastal Community Network, which basically represents all the communities throughout the coast. "Mayor Russ Hellberg is targeting his political efforts primarily on the ailing fishery, because rehabilitation of forestry is already underway. . . . He points to the Forest Practices Code, designed to ensure more environmentally friendly harvesting, and to Forest Renewal B.C. programs that pump dollars into more value-added, sustainable types of forestry businesses." So we're working very diligently at that. Families and children and communities are a priority, and making sure that we have good, sustainable forest practices will encourage stability over the long term.

The Japanese market plays very, very significantly, particularly with coastal producers in British Columbia. Some people don't seem to want to understand or recognize it. I have a quote from the CEO of MacMillan Bloedel on April 23. He said: "The situation in Japan will continue to retard our progress over the next several quarters." Tom Stephens also said: "The biggest concern is the continued deterioration of markets for lumber in Japan." And the chief economist for the Export Development Corporation says: "Make no mistake about it. The big story today is the ongoing financial crisis in Asia and the fallout that B.C. can expect from this economic downturn."

We're seeing that with export products from British Columbia. One example is baby squares, which we export off the coast. They were a high of $980 -- last year $1,000 -- and they were recently being shipped into Japan for $500. Pulp prices are down around $600, and Malaysia and Indonesia are putting out hardwood pulp on the global markets for $100 a metric ton. Those are all concerns, and we're continuing to work on those initiatives.

Some of the initiatives we're working on are the stumpage reduction that we've seen recently given to industry, at $233 million; the streamlining of the Forest Practices Code, at $350 million; a two years' wood-ahead commitment that our government made to the forest corporations, which was part of the jobs and timber accord; a 70 percent increase to the small business and value-added manufacturing sectors to diversify our product and our market share in British Columbia; and over $1 million of undercut. We're delivering on all those things.

We are doing a lot. We've gone from $291 million in. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is now up.

R. Coleman: I was talking about families -- families affected by an industry -- and that's the topic I want to stay on. They don't want to hear any more about the jobs and timber accord. They don't want to hear any more about a five-year plan. When you're down at the grocery store and you're having trouble paying for the milk that you need for your children, announcements and rhetoric don't work. Only action will ever get this moving again. To say that we're doing enough is not right; we're not doing enough.

Just look at the future of the children in these communities. In these communities, how are the parents going to have the money to pay for the expanded education of their children?

Interjections.

R. Coleman: I find it interesting that members of the government want to heckle during a private member's statement when somebody is just talking about families and about their education and about them having to pay their mortgage.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

R. Coleman: All I'm doing is saying that it's time we got together and recognized where the real problem is and where the real action is necessary. The real action is on the ground. It's not in an office; it's not in a program. It's actually on the ground doing stuff for people that are in need -- people that need our help and need direction from us to put an industry back on its feet. They won't get it through rhetoric. They'll only get it through cooperation and common sense, and that's what we're prepared to give them -- not the rhetoric of plans, etc.

[ Page 8997 ]

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

DOCTORS, NURSES AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES

Many will say that it is not right nor appropriate in our society to place patients at risk and to jeopardize the quality of their health care. In many ways, I think those concerns would be appropriate. Now that the dust has settled on the northern doctors' dispute, I think it's important to look back at that dispute and ask ourselves what public policy alternatives are available to government to ensure that patients are not put at risk. I want to emphasize that point. My observation on what was happening in northern British Columbia is that patients were being used as pawns in the course of that dispute. We were watching pregnant women from northern British Columbia hauled down here to the Legislature in Victoria and watching their vulnerabilities played on as part of a larger political game where the patient didn't really matter. At the end of the day, it was all a negotiating tool.

We have to look at public policy options in terms of what it is that government can do to prevent the withdrawal of services. Some have argued that the solution lies in putting more money into the health care system in British Columbia to satisfy the appetites of those that withdraw their services. I reject that as a solution for the following reasons: doctors here in British Columbia have the highest fees in Canada; British Columbia spends more per person on health care than any other province; funding for health care in British Columbia has increased 43 percent over the past seven years; funding this year is up $228 million, and it's the seventh straight year in which funding has been increased; and British Columbia now spends $7.4 billion per year on hospitals and health services for families. That is far more than the $4 billion that the Leader of the Opposition, during the last election campaign, said was all we needed in that regard.

I don't think putting more money into the system is necessarily the solution. Some have suggested that physicians should be covered under the essential services provisions of the Labour Relations Code. If there is a dispute in a hospital, and HEU and BCNU workers want to go out on strike, then the Labour Relations Board and the employer have to sit down and work out essential services designations. They have to determine which services can be withdrawn and which cannot be withdrawn. The operative determination, of course, is the level of services provided to the patients who would be put at risk.

Physicians are not subject to an essential services determination, because they are not covered by the provisions of the Labour Relations Code. Some have argued that that would be an appropriate public policy response to the situation that we found ourselves in over the past few months. Others have suggested that there are other methods that ought to be used to ensure that services to patients are not jeopardized. For example, some have put forward the argument that there ought to be breach-of-contract litigation against those who signed a contract and then withdrew their services. In this instance, physicians in British Columbia had signed a legal contract with the province of British Columbia to provide services. They very consciously chose to withdraw services on Fridays, Mondays or Tuesdays -- as the case may have been, in different parts of the province -- and this had a consequent ripple effect both on patients and hospitals throughout British Columbia. In so doing, they did not fulfil the implied or actual terms of the contract -- namely, their obligation to provide services in British Columbia five days a week as a minimum. Now, that would be interesting litigation, but I'm not sure that the solution lies in that regard.

I want to suggest today, in the time that I have, that we look at a fourth option, which I think would be an appropriate response. Hon. Speaker, as you are well aware, given the constituency that you represent, there is a model in James Bay and elsewhere in the province known as the registered nurse first-call system, wherein salaried nurses deal with patients on a first-come basis. In other words, they assess the patients and then decide it it's necessary to pass them on to a physician. This, of course, saves money in terms of not having to have a physician attend to the patient in a fee-for-service setting, and it allows the patient to be examined by a nurse who has the ability to make initial assessments and provide a level of care without compromising the quality of care that the individual will receive.

[11:00]

Hon. Speaker, I will outline in further detail the contents of the first-call system after I allow the member opposite to respond to my initial comments.

P. Nettleton: In January 1998 a significant number of physicians in some northern rural communities of the province began to withdraw their on-call services at local hospitals in many of the communities I have the privilege of representing. These initial actions were later joined by physicians in other rural areas of the province. Most actions resulted in physicians being available in clinics during the day and on call for the community during the off-hours, resigning their hospital privileges and being on call for hospital emergencies only in the case of a life-or limb-threatening nature.

Certainly this became a wake-up call for northern residents and arguably for the Ministry of Health and the current government, in terms of health care delivery in northern and rural communities. It became apparent that there needed to be a long-term strategy to address many of the underlying issues with reference to the recruitment and retention of physicians -- not only the whole question of recruitment and retention of physicians but health care delivery generally provincewide and, in this instance, in northern and rural communities.

[ Page 8998 ]

"In a society where equity of service provision remains a goal, it is not enough simply to recognize the differences between practice modes in rural and urban areas of the province. The thesis of equity of service provision demands that these differences serve as the underpinnings for a provincial medical human resource strategy. It is therefore axiomatic that government be seen to inculcate within its policy development process an attitude of proactive engagement rather than one of reaction where service inequities occur. The recommendations in this report attempt to broker a resolution to the present impasse and direct the ministry to future actions which would strengthen the rural service patterns and allow for positive relationships with important stakeholders."

Her concluding comments, with reference to their concerns, are that "governments, regulatory bodies, professional associations, educators, unions, health care facilities, health care practitioners and the public all have a role to play in dealing with this issue." She concludes by saying: "We need to work on this together, and we need to act now."

I think that very nicely summarizes the whole sense of urgency in terms of addressing health care delivery provincewide, and particularly in rural and northern communities, both in relation to nurses and to physicians. With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you very much.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, let's be clear: doctors have a contract that they voluntarily agreed to. Rather than fulfil the terms of their obligations under the contract, when the going got tough, they withdrew their services. They went on strike. That ought not to be acceptable for doctors in the same way as, I think, most would suggest that it ought not to be acceptable for nurses and other health care workers who, unlike doctors, are covered by the essential services legislation and the Labour Relations Code. There has to be a powerful response from government to indicate very clearly to doctors that there have to be consequences for their behaviour. And a consequence, I would suggest, is that others who have the skill base to do some of the work that they do ought to be given more responsibility for the provision of health care services in British Columbia. And particularly what that means is expanding the scope of services that salaried nurses can do in British Columbia.

This province needs legislation to expand the scope of work that is done by nurses, and we now know, from models that exist in Victoria, Ashcroft, Comox and Pemberton, that that work can be done by nurses. We now know, for example, out of the Ashcroft experience, that nurses, properly trained, after signing appropriate protocols in four or five areas in the Ashcroft example, can handle the emergency cases that come in, much like here in downtown Victoria. When you go into a hospital, the first thing you see is an emergency nurse who makes an initial assessment and provides care. That can be done throughout.

A recent report utilizing the Ashcroft experience indicates that 50 percent to 70 percent of cases in small communities can be diverted away from physicians, and that care can be provided by nurses. If those kinds of savings can be realized in the health care system, if we can make better use of the skills that nurses have, if we can expand their horizons to make better use of their skills and if we can model on the experiences that exist elsewhere, then it seems to me that we will have better served the health care system, which definitely needs better service. And we will have delivered a powerful and needed message to those who choose to withdraw their services, go on strike, use patients as pawns during a dispute and do not put patients first. That concludes my statement. Let me end by saying that it's time that legislation of that ilk was introduced in this House.

G. Bowbrick: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a class of students from Lord Kelvin Elementary School, with a number of teachers and some other adults from my old neighbourhood in New Westminster. I ask all the members of this House to please join me in making them welcome today.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members for their thoughtful statements this morning. With that, I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we will be examining the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In Committee B, we'll be examining the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

The House in Committee of Supply B; S. Orcherton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

D. Symons: On a point of order -- in the sense that I see this as a very important issue -- we don't have a quorum.

[11:15]

The Chair: Members, I see that we have a quorum. We'll continue.

C. Clark: I want to start today by clarifying some of the matters with regard to the federal transfer that's coming into the ministry, for children in care. I note that the minister

[ Page 8999 ]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: We were still waiting for the federal government to give us the exact amount. Once we've got that amount, we can then add that in. But we weren't aware of the exact amount at that time.

C. Clark: How is that amount determined? What is the criterion for transferring that money to the provincial government? Do they just simply look at the number of children in care, do a multiplication and then transfer the money to the government? Or are there some other criteria that they use? Are there different levels, different amounts for different types of care that the children might be in?

Hon. L. Boone: I told you last time -- a couple of days have gone by -- that each month, we determine the number of children we have that will be in care longer than a month. That number is then sent to the federal government, and they send us a cheque on a monthly basis.

C. Clark: Does the federal government require that that money be transferred directly to the individuals -- to the children in care, or to the caregivers who are caring for them?

Hon. L. Boone: No. I answered this last time as well. That money comes into the ministry's budget, but there's no connection to going to any particular child.

V. Anderson: Just for my clarification, is the money that we're talking about -- money being transferred from the federal government to the provincial government -- part of the new national child benefit program that was announced and that begins on July 1? Or is it something different?

Hon. L. Boone: It's money that has always been coming to the ministry and to government, but the increase has been identified as part of the national child benefit.

V. Anderson: So the increase is part of the national child benefit. Under the national child benefit, $135 comes to each low-income family, and that's paid directly to them. So how does this affect. . . ? Are there other moneys that you'll be receiving -- besides this $35 a month, as I understand the extra to be -- for the benefit of children receiving your services, through the national child benefit?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not going to get into an in-depth discussion on the national child benefit, because that is in fact under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources. The increase is moneys that are coming directly to us, but in addition to that there are dollars that are going into the provincial general revenue for various programs. The $103 that you're talking about is actually not the national child benefit. It is moneys that we as a province have been giving to low-income families for a number of years. We have in fact been promoting that the federal government institute a national program similar to the one that we have. The federal government has recognized that and recognizes that we have actually been prepaying the national child benefit for some time. But the national child benefit is being handled by the Ministry of Human Resources.

V. Anderson: Could the minister explain, then, what. . . ? As I understand it, the Ministry for Children and Families is responsible for the care that the children in the province get -- not only the children in care but also the care of the children in the province. . . . Is the minister saying that Human Resources is providing money to children in the province separately from the Ministry for Children and Families? What is the connection between the money that comes from Human Resources and the care that Children and Families has? Are the two separate ministries at work, and if so, what's the connection between them?

Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Benefits provides the family bonus, which is $103. It is provided through the Ministry of Human Resources. That is not done through this ministry.

V. Anderson: So the minister is saying that there are two ministries -- Human Resources on the one hand and Children and Families on the other -- which are providing resources to the children of the province. Am I right that there are two sources of funding and care for children in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: Human Resources provides resources to the family that come in the way of a cheque which is given. Human Resources has always done that -- provided cheques through social assistance. In addition to that, there's the B.C. Benefits, which is under Human Resources. They provide dollars through the family bonus, which goes out to every child. Those are the dollars that are given out. We as a ministry provide services and programs, but we don't actually provide families with money. That is not within our mandate right now.

V. Anderson: Then I'll ask the second part of my question. Is there money coming to the Ministry for Children and Families from the. . . ? There's the $103, which comes with the national child benefit, but there is other money coming to the province for the care of children from the national child benefit program? Is some of that money coming to Children and Families to be used in your services to children in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, the national child benefit is in fact being handled by the Ministry of Human Resources. They are the lead ministry in this, and the minister is the lead minister. I would ask that you direct your questions on this issue to her, as it's still being worked on with the federal government. I don't believe it's my responsibility to discuss that at this time, so I would ask that you discuss this with the Minister of Human Resources.

V. Anderson: I understood that the Gove report -- and perhaps this is where some of the confusion is -- indicates that all services to children should be integrated and that children should be served through the Children and Families ministry. Is the minister saying that the services for children -- programs and finances -- are not integrated, that there are two separate ministries operating independently of each other to provide services or finances, whichever way you want to discuss it, to children? Are we saying that there is not an integrated, one-step program to serve children in the province at this time?

Hon. L. Boone: The Ministry of Human Resources has been the lead ministry on this. It is the ministry that provides

[ Page 9000 ]

V. Anderson: I'm not asking who delivers the cheques, but who makes the decision as to which families receive the cheques. Is the decision about which families receive cheques, which children get support, being made by Children and Families or by the Ministry of Human Resources -- by another separate ministry? Who makes the decision? Not who issues the cheque, but who establishes the policy, and who makes the decision?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm at odds as to why the member is questioning this program, which has been around for several years. We all know that it is income-base-tested. Families receive the child bonus automatically, based on their income tax. So it's not a decision that the Ministry for Children and Families makes. It's not an arbitrary decision. It's a decision based on income, and it goes to low-income families to help reduce child poverty.

V. Anderson: Let me approach this another way. In the negotiations between the province and the federal government, was the Ministry for Children and Families part of the negotiating team working out the support to children in the province? Was Children and Families part of that process, part of the team, or were they excluded from that process?

[11:30]

V. Anderson: I'm finding it interesting that the lead ministry in providing for the care and well-being of the children in the province is not Children and Families. I'm surprised by that. When the minister says it has historically been that way, that was before there was a Ministry of Children and Families. Things were supposed to change when we had a Ministry for Children and Families, not remain the same.

Let me ask another question, then. Children in care, as I understand it, currently receive $25 as a kind of comfort or support allowance or extra money they have for their own use. Is the money that children under the care of the ministry receive the responsibility for monitored by the ministry itself?

Hon. L. Boone: I just want to clarify the differences for the member. Those areas that provide income support, and what the Ministry of Human Resources does is provide income support to families. That is why the family bonus is administered through the Ministry of Human Resources. This government took the lead on that issue. No other province had been giving a family bonus, a children's bonus, to every low-income family. We took the lead on that, through the Ministry of Human Resources, because it was income to that family. It's not money that is going specifically into a child's pocket but money that is going to that family as support for that family to provide services for the children. The Ministry of Human Resources took the lead on that, and it remains so. We as the Ministry for Children and Families still coordinate integrated services to children and will continue to do so.

As for the $25 that you're talking about, I am not aware of what $25 you are talking about. If there is money coming from the federal government to the province and it would normally go to a family, then it would come to the province. But I'm not aware of the $25 you refer to.

V. Anderson: Perhaps I could ask the minister to inquire into that and report back to us. It's my advice that children in care currently receive a children-in-care allowance of $25 a month. When the new program is in effect, as of July 1, they will receive $50 a month. That's in the packet of material that was presented to us. British Columbia's second initiative is focused on children in care -- in the care of the ministry. Through the NCB reinvestment, B.C. will increase the children-in-care allowance by $3 million, which works out to from $25 to $50 per child as the children-in-care allowance.

I'm surprised that the minister is not aware that children in care have been receiving $25 historically, and they will now get $50 which, I understand, is for their own personal spending, the same as children would have in a normal family relationship. Could the minister review this and report back to us on this?

Hon. L. Boone: There is no $25 that goes directly to a child. A foster parent may choose to give a child an allowance, the same as you may do in a non-fostering situation. What you're talking about is a special allowance, which we discussed last Wednesday night. I indicated that that was being increased.

The province receives dollars from the federal government for all our children in care, which is what we were talking about earlier. We identify, on a monthly basis, the number of children that we anticipate will be in care longer than a month. We make those numbers known to the federal government, and they reimburse us. It was $85, and it's now going up to $130. That is money that comes to the ministry; it is not money that is directed to any particular child. We would be reinvesting that money into services for children. It does not indicate that those moneys go directly to that child.

V. Anderson: We understand that the $3 million which is called a children-in-care allowance, is, according to this minister, not a children-in-care allowance; it's a new parent allowance. It's not an allowance to the children in care. We will verify that and come back to the minister on that.

Could I ask the minister, then: is she also saying that the other $22 million, which is coming for initiatives for low-income children in the province over this next year, has nothing to do with her responsibility or the children that she's responsible for -- that's a separate program entirely by Human Resources, outside of the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I didn't say that at all. I talked about the national child bonus, which is $103 per month that every family gets. That is administered by the Ministry of Human Resources. The $22 million that you're talking about -- those are programs that we have, as a ministry. . . . The Ministry of

[ Page 9001 ]

V. Anderson: I'm pleased to hear this. If I understand rightly, the minister is saying that policy about the expenditure of that extra $22 million for children will be made by the Ministry for Children and Families, and then Human Resources will write the cheques accordingly. The policy about the expenditure of that money will be made by the Ministry for Children and Families. Am I right in that understanding?

Hon. L. Boone: There will be no cheque-writing. As I said, the Ministry of Human Resources does the family bonus. The other dollars are dollars that are coming into this ministry. As you know, we've had an increase in our budget, and we will be identifying where those areas are and what we will be spending them on. Some of them are programs that we have identified that will benefit children. Those are decisions that this ministry will be making.

V. Anderson: I asked for clarification. That extra $22 million and the extra $3 million that go to children in care -- that extra $25 million, then. . . . Was that included in the budget that we're dealing with, or is that over and above the budget? As the minister indicated earlier -- as I understood her to say -- those were still in negotiation at the time the budget was prepared. This $25 million is over and above the money that's in the budget because it wasn't negotiated at that time.

Hon. L. Boone: We as a government are still identifying what programs will be there. The $22 million you talk of is for programs that may be found within other areas, not necessarily within this government. We are committed to working with Human Resources to identify the areas that will go toward the national child benefit. As I said, we are working with the Ministry of Human Resources on that, and we will be identifying those in the future.

B. McKinnon: This question has come to me from this discussion with my colleague. When Judge Gove did his report and said that a children and families ministry should be formed, he said that five ministries should come together, with everything to do with children. It was my understanding, when the Premier decided to form the Children and Families ministry, that it would be completed within six months -- which everybody went ahead and tried to do. They found out that there was too much chaos created in the ministry by putting all these ministries together. Now they realize that they should have listened to Gove and done it over a three-year period.

My question to the minister is: has the Ministry of Human Resources not brought over to the Children and Families ministry everything to do with children? If they haven't, then how does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? Everything to do with children is supposed to be under one ministry; that is what Judge Gove said. So I'm asking the question: why isn't everything to do with children under the one ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't seem to be able to understand this very easily. Please understand this, and listen very carefully. The Ministry of Human Resources is responsible for anything that has to do with income assistance. The child bonus that every family gets is income assistance; it's assistance given to families. It's a cheque that is given to families to assist them in raising their children, to help them provide better food, better clothing, better everything for that child. That money still comes through the Ministry of Human Resources, as it always has done.

We, as a ministry, have no interest in getting into delivering services such as income assistance to families, or in identifying and sending a special cheque out for every child. That is not what this ministry is doing. We have integrated services as a ministry; five different ministries have come together. We integrated our services so that we have them -- five different ministries -- under one area now, and we are working very hard. However, I must admit that there is still an element out there that won't come under this ministry, and that's education. That has to do with children, and it won't come under this ministry any more than income support will come under this ministry.

V. Anderson: That leaves a number of questions, but I won't pursue those anymore. On the one hand, when we talk about the $3 million, that's the Ministry of Human Resources, but it goes to children in care. On the other hand, the $22 million is going to be spent on programs within her ministry, so that's not Human Resources. But I won't follow that anymore.

What I would like to ask the minister is. . . . We asked her earlier in the week about the regulations for support to families who have extra financial resources and have adopted children, and if she was going to get the regulations of the previous Adoption Act and the current Adoption Act that had to deal with those children. Have you been able to get those regulations for us?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be getting those to you. I don't know whether or not we've done so yet.

I just want to clarify again that the $22 million that you're speaking about will be spent across government, and the Ministry of Human Resources is working with us to identify the areas within government where it will be spent. So it's not $22 million that will be identified strictly within Children and Families.

V. Anderson: I thank the minister for getting the other information. I hope we can get it while we're still doing estimates, so that we may have time to discuss it as well.

[11:45]

[ Page 9002 ]

If we look at the total budget of the Ministry for Children and Families for children in care, and we subtract the amount that the federal government transfers to the ministry for children in care, we end up with $192 million last year and $191 million this year. The minister can confirm if my numbers are correct. Can the minister confirm that indeed the provincial commitment for funding of children in care has decreased? While the total budget has gone up, that's solely due to an increased federal commitment. In fact, the provincial government, by decreasing its commitment, is filling up room that the federal government is increasingly funding.

Hon. L. Boone: I think that's a little weird logic, given the fact that we now have $600 million less from the federal government coming into the provincial government, on behalf of the federal government, to fund education, health care and social services. It used to be that the federal government paid 50 percent of the costs. They are now down to just a very small portion of the cost of any of the social programs. For many years now, we have been filling the gap that the federal government has abandoned. They've abandoned that across this country and continue to do so. To say that they are filling the gap by giving us $4 million extra. . . . It's really just a pittance in terms of the amount of money that they have withdrawn from us over the years.

C. Clark: On the one hand, the minister says that she's not prepared to talk about what's going on in the Ministry of Human Resources, because it's not in her bailiwick. But on the other hand, she's quite happy to talk about what's going on in education, health care and everything else that's not in her bailiwick. That wasn't my question. My question was: will she confirm that the provincial government commitment to providing money for children in care has actually decreased from $192 million last year to $191 million this year?

Hon. L. Boone: Your original question was not whether the budget was down. Your question was: is it true that the federal government is filling the gap that the provincial government has made? I stated to you quite clearly that the provincial government has been filling the gap for years now -- that the federal government has withdrawn from services. As I said, more than $600 million in funding no longer comes to the provincial government. So we've been backfilling for the federal government for years on this. With this $4 million increase, that's a very small amount of increase that we are bringing in. It actually brings our budget up to more than it was last year.

C. Clark: The minister seems to want to keep answering the question that she thinks I asked the first time, rather than the question I did ask the first time or the question I asked very clearly the second time. The question was: am I correct when I do the math? I subtract the federal money that's coming in to provide for children in care, and I come up with $192 million last year for provincial commitment to children in care and $191 million this year.

Hon. L. Boone: You've got your numbers wrong. Last year, if you include the special warrant, it was $199 million, and this year it's $198 million. But when you add the additional federal money that's coming into the province, that brings it up to $202 million. So we do have more money coming into the province this year.

C. Clark: The minister should check her math. I don't want to lose everybody in the math on this, but it's an important point I'm trying to make here.

My understanding, when I look at the Blues from Wednesday, is that the total moneys in the budget are $199 million for children in care. The minister indicated that $7 million of that last year was a federal commitment from the children's special allowance. So that brings it down to $192 million for last year, after you subtract the federal commitment. The provincial commitment to children in care last year was $192 million. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: Last year, including the special warrant and including the federal money, we had $199 million. When you take out the federal money, you have $192 million. That's the provincial commitment, including the special warrant.

This year we have $202 million, including everything. Then, when we take away the federal commitment, which is $11 million -- which is what the minister indicated in debate on Wednesday -- we end up with $191 million. That's the full portion of the provincial commitment for this year. Can the minister confirm that that is also correct?

Hon. L. Boone: If you want to take away that amount, fine; that's fine with me. The bottom line is that we have more money for children in care in the province this year. If the federal government chooses to give us a little bit more money this year, then I'm more than happy to take it. They've withdrawn so much from us over the past few years that any amount of money they give back to us is really a drop in the bucket, compared to the amount they used to fund. The federal commitment to social services, to social programs for children, to health and education -- to all of those things -- has incredibly deteriorated. The province has in fact been picking up the ball for many years.

C. Clark: Well, not this year, not in the Ministry for Children and Families. They're not picking up the ball, that's for sure. This year they're dropping the provincial commitment to caring for children that are in the care of the government by $1 million. That's putting aside the growth in the number of children in care; that's putting aside the anticipated growth in population. That's putting aside all those other factors. The ministry is still cutting $1 million from its commitment to children in care. So for the minister to stand up and just dump all over the federal government while she is at the same time doing exactly the same thing is. . . . I mean, it's certainly cause to stand back and ask what's going on.

That's what the provincial minister is doing. She's cutting her budget for the provincial commitment of dollars to children in care by $1 million this year. While she stands up and blames the federal government for cutting its commitment to social services, she never, ever has the honesty to point out that she's doing exactly the same thing. I suppose we could talk about this cross-government, but for the purposes of these estimates, let's talk about this ministry. In this ministry, the opposite is in fact happening. The federal government has increased its commitment to supporting children in care in British Columbia, while the provincial minister has diminished her commitment to doing that. The exact opposite is happening in this ministry, so it's ridiculous for the minister to stand up and dump all over the feds for a problem that she is causing in this ministry.

We haven't even talked about the increase in the number of children that are coming into care. The minister said on

[ Page 9003 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I can't confirm that there are going to be 250 more; we're estimating. How can anybody sit over there and ask: "Will you confirm that there are going to be 250 more children?" If we have fewer, we'll be happy. If we have more, we'll be sad, but we will deal with it. We are estimating, and that's what I keep trying to make the member understand. We're dealing with human beings here. This is not a science. I can't give you a formula that says that we will have X number of children in care.

But I do want to point out to you the commitment that has taken place with regard to children in care in this province by the government. I want to point out to you that the federal government used to pay 50-50. I can understand that you might not understand this, because it was before you were elected. We used to cost-share 50 percent. So if we spent a dollar on social services, the federal government would reimburse us an equal amount. It was cost-shared. We are now down to 21 percent in some areas -- from 50-50 down to 21 percent.

So for you to say that we have neglected or abandoned our commitment to the children, or any of those things -- that we're reducing the amount of money -- or to even suggest that we shouldn't consider the amount of money we're getting from the federal government towards our budget, that we should deduct all this and not even see this as part of our budget, is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, as you have noted, we were at $171 million in '96-97; we went to $199 million in '97-98, and that includes the federal amount. This year we'll be up to $202 million. I don't think that's a reduction in care. I think that's an increase by any amount. . . . To say that because the federal government is giving us more money we shouldn't include that within our budget amount, and to say that we're reducing our commitment to children, is absolutely ridiculous. I don't quite understand where you're coming from.

C. Clark: Well, I'd be happy to help the minister to understand. The point I'm making is that the provincial commitment of money to children in care has been decreased this year. That's something that this minister, or this government, presumably has control over. They've dropped the provincial commitment in the provincial budget by $1 million this year. The federal commitment has gone up this year, as the minister has pointed out. The provincial minister's commitment, on the other hand, has been reduced by $1 million. That's simply the point I'm making. The minister has confirmed that for us already in this debate. I don't know why she's trying to backtrack and change her statement.

I will point out, though, that I did get my numbers wrong. This isn't a case where, yet again, the minister got her numbers wrong. I pointed out that the minister said that there will be 250 more children in care next year; I was mistaken. I was remembering the minister saying that there would be 250 more foster homes required in the system, based on the ministry's predictions for next year. Based on what the minister said on Wednesday, the ministry was predicting that there would be approximately 920 more children in care. The minister's right: it is not a science. But for the purposes of budgeting, the ministry does have to predict how many more children they expect will be in care every year. Those predictions are important, because they tell us whether the ministry is budgeting honestly or not. When I look at the budget, I don't see that it's providing for these increases in the number of children in care.

That 920 is about 10 percent growth, which is what the minister said they were predicting this year. Now, it could be that they overpredict, that there are fewer children that come into care, and so the ministry has a little extra money. But the fact is that for the purposes of this budget, the ministry is predicting an increase of 920 children in care, and they're predicting a budget increase or change based on that. If you do the math, and you find out that there are going to be more children in care, at the amount that the ministry spent this year, which is $22,472 per child in care, that would require a $20 million increase. Based on the $202 million, if that growth happens it would require a $20 million increase in the budget to keep pace with what the ministry was paying per child last year. Can the minister tell us how much they've reduced their estimate of how much each child will cost them in care if they're not increasing their budget by $20 million? In fact, they're only increasing it by about $3 million. That's a $17 million shortfall, so they must be reducing their cost estimate per child in care for the next year.

[12:00]

Hon. Chair, I went through that on Wednesday. I think this is repetitious, and I would ask the member to revisit the Blues from Wednesday if she wants to ask those questions again. We've been through it.

C. Clark: The minister is mistaken again about my question. I wasn't asking what the ministry plans to do to reduce the amount of time that children are in care. I'm asking a question that isn't in the Blues. I'm asking about the total amount of money that they are anticipating it will cost for each child in care. The minister said she's got all these grand plans to reduce the amount of time that each child spends in care by an average of 10 percent. I know that; I'm not asking the minister that. They estimated that they are going to be spending $22,472 per child in care this year. They're going to be $17 million short, to be able to spend that in the next budget year. How much are they budgeting to spend per child in care for this fiscal year? If each child is in care for less time, and they don't have the money to pay for it, then certainly they must be reducing the amount of commitment for each child in the care of the government.

Hon. L. Boone: As you stated, $22,000 is the average. That's the same as what we are budgeting this year, but we believe that we can reduce those costs by having children in care for a shorter length of time. So we're not spending less on those children when they're in care, but we're reducing the

[ Page 9004 ]

C. Clark: I don't understand, because the minister just contradicted herself. She said: "We are spending the same amount of money per child in care, but we're reducing it by a ratio." How can you spend the same amount of money if you're reducing it? Now, if the second part of what she said is true, then there must be a new amount that they're spending -- if it's been reduced. If it stayed the same, it stayed the same per child in care. But I am making the assumption -- and I think this is logical -- that if you reduce the amount of time that they're in care, it costs less for every child in care. I think that's a fairly simple, logical statement to make -- that if the child is going to be in care for less time, it should cost less.

It seems to me that sometimes that's where the minister is going in her thinking and sometimes not. If they are spending less money per child in care, if that part of the statement the minister made is correct, could she tell me how much less money they are going to be spending on each child in care?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll try this a different way, and maybe you can understand this. We're looking at averages, and it's an average that I've given to you. We will be trying to place more children into foster care instead of into more expensive care -- at a cost of $20,000 as compared to $55,000 per child. We will hopefully be reducing the amount of time that they will be spending in the more expensive care. With more social workers, we will be able to prepare more adoptive plans and do many different things. Therefore we will not be spending as much on a child as we have in the past.

J. Weisbeck: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisbeck: In the House today is a well-known British Columbia artist and resident of Kelowna, Lee Claremont. With her is Christopher Poynter, who is visiting us from down under, from Australia. Would the House please welcome Lee and Christopher to Victoria and to this House.

C. Clark: It sounds to me like the minister doesn't have a number. Otherwise she wouldn't be avoiding answering the question and working so hard to make sure that she dodges the question. I've asked it three or four times, and I don't think it's due to lack of clarity on my part that the minister fails to understand the question. The fact is that the minister does not have an answer to that question. What I will do is spend some time looking through the Blues this afternoon and do the math myself, if the minister doesn't have a calculator over there.

Clearly, if the amount of money they're spending on the number of children in care is not growing at the same rate as the number of children who are coming into care, then the amount they're going to be spending on each child will decrease. My question was really a very simple one: how much will that decrease be? The minister said the amount of time by which it will decrease; she's given us all the reasons she thinks it will decrease, but she can't tell us the number -- can't give us an answer -- for how much it will decrease. That seems to me to be a pretty basic part of the budgeting process for this ministry. And it's a genuine surprise that the ministry doesn't have that number to be able to tell us exactly how much they're budgeting this year for each child in care. If it's decreased, it's decreased. But the question is: by how much has it decreased?

Well, there was one last try to see if the minister could come up with a number, but I guess she can't. I can use a calculator too, so if she's unable to figure it out, I'll figure it out for her, and we can bring it back to estimates next time we have this discussion. Then she can confirm or deny whether the numbers are correct, although I should remind the minister that the estimates process is a process where she is supposed to come prepared with the numbers. She's the one who's supposed to come in and be able to tell us where she's spending her money. That's what the estimates process is about; it's about being able to come in and inform the Legislature and the taxpayers about where the money is going and where it's being spent. That's her job. Anyway, I'm happy to pick up the slack for her if she doesn't want to do that.

The numbers for foster care, the minister pointed out, have gone up this year by just a little less than $20 million -- from $74.5 million to $94.4 million. The numbers, if we add in the federal commitment for total children in care, are $199 million and $202 million. Now, I don't want to lose anybody again on this math equation, but if we compare the total amount for children in care and subtract the amount that's being spent on foster care -- because the minister has pointed out that her financial commitment is going up this year by $20 million. . . . If you subtract that from the total number of children in care, you end up with a commitment of $124.5 million last year for children in care that are not in the foster care system and a commitment of $107.5 million this year for children in care that are not in the foster care system. Because the foster care budget is increasing and because there's a total budget decrease per child in care, that must mean that the children who are in care outside of the foster care system are taking an even bigger bite than the $17 million shortfall would seem to indicate. The foster care budget is close to half of the total budget. So that $17 million is coming out of 50 percent of the budget, not out of 100 percent of the budget, which makes it an even bigger bite. Would the minister confirm that those numbers are correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are the things that I was talking about earlier. We are hoping that we will able to move children from other places, which is more costly, into more foster homes. That's the difference, as I mentioned earlier. I think it's $20,000 in foster homes as compared to $50,000 in other resources. So we believe that we can make those shifts and that we can save those dollars. That's why we have the increase in foster homes, which we believe is hopefully more appropriate. We believe that would be a more appropriate setting for some children -- moving them into there and out of other terms.

C. Clark: So how many children does the ministry predict will be in foster care this fiscal year versus last?

Hon. L. Boone: The staff are working on our estimates for those figures right now. But while we do that, I just want to read into the record for your information some of the variance explanations that we have. The $19.94 million increase in the foster care budget, which is close to the $20 million that you talked about, results from. . . . A Foster Care 2000 initiative in implementing recommendations of the foster care task force is $3.31 million. Caseload growth at 10 percent is $14.32 million. The shift from contracted homes -- 115 children in care are

[ Page 9005 ]

The other reduction that you're talking about, the $8.97 million reduction, results from. . . . Caseload shifts to family care -- that's 115 children in care, as I mentioned before -- is $6.33 million. Supervision orders, reducing the number of children coming into care -- 175 children in care for eight months equals 117 children in care for three months each -- is $1.35 million. And guardianship workers will lead to better planning for children in care, which is 942 children in care for 1.5 months less, and that is $1.3 million. That's a total of $8.98 million.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell me, then, what total percentage increase we'll be looking at for foster children? When we discussed this the other day, and we talked about the total number of children in care, we talked about a flat number of 10 percent. This is the first I've realized that this would be a disproportionate increase. I suspect that the ministry is assuming that there will be an increase in the number of children in foster care disproportionate to the number of children in other kinds of care. Could the minister give us those numbers?

[12:15]

C. Clark: Could the minister walk us through the totals for the other children in care budget envelopes? You've got a foster care envelope, but from the total children-in-care budget, you're left with $107.5 million, which is a substantial chunk of money. Could she break that into envelopes for us for the different types of care that are provided outside the foster care system?

Hon. L. Boone: As we've gone through, family care homes -- that's the foster homes -- $94.4 million; intensive child care resources, $84.3 million; family care of children with special needs, $6.2 million; ICCR -- special needs -- $10.6 million; family care training and insurance, $8.7 million; services to children in care of director, $2 million; and Independent Living, $3.6 million. I've rounded those numbers off.

C. Clark: I am cognizant of the time. I want to ask one or two more questions about the foster care numbers. The minister indicated that there would be something in the neighbourhood of 1,000 more children going into the foster care system. She also indicated that today we are already short 250 homes for foster children, as it stands. The ministry is expecting to transfer 1,000 more children into that system. Where does she expect those new children to go?

Hon. L. Boone: As indicated earlier, we anticipate a shortage of 250. We are not short 250 foster homes right now. We could use some to put people in better placements -- ones that are better suited to their needs. However, at this particular time we have no children waiting for foster homes. We do anticipate that we are going to be needing 250 over the year. We have a recruitment program plan for the fall of this year, and we are very hopeful that we will be increasing them. We are working with the aboriginal community to get more aboriginal foster homes. We will be working with the multicultural community in Vancouver to try and increase the numbers of multicultural foster homes. We're very hopeful that with the fall blitz we are putting on, we will in fact see our increase of 250 foster homes.

C. Clark: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: I've just seen in the gallery Robin Pike from the Federation of Child and Family Services, here to observe our estimates. I hope the House will make her welcome.

So can I infer, then, from the minister's comments that if she's recruiting 250 new foster homes and there are a thousand new children coming into care, the ministry is planning that they will be putting in four of the children per home?

Hon. L. Boone: We are expecting to put in two children per home. But as we reduce the amount of time that children are in care, they will be moving in and out. As I've said, it's not a static amount. You know, you don't place children in a home and have them there for the entire year. Sometimes you do, but often they move out and go back to their families, etc. So we are going to be requiring -- we think we'll be requiring -- 250 new foster homes, and we can use them.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, I'd like to 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. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I want to wish all members safe journeys. I hope they get some time off this weekend.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:23 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

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

[ Page 9006 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is referring to the work that's being done by the Public Accounts Committee. That's what I take from his comments and the use of the term "accountability-for-performance matrix." That would be correct.

[11:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will get those reports for the hon. member. I can't promise that they'll be there for Monday morning, but we will get them as quickly as we can.

K. Krueger: The minister and I were on a line of questions and answers just before the House rose last night. I have one quick wrap-up question on that aspect.

I think the minister made it very clear that the government's policy will remain: no municipality will have to accept a new gaming venue if it doesn't want to. Those municipalities that already have them -- in the government's mind -- are subject to the government's decision as to what games are available within the venue, including, obviously, gambling machines right now, slot machines and who knows what in the future. I'd just like the minister's confirmation of those two points: first, no municipality will be obliged to accept a gambling venue that it doesn't want; and second, the outstanding issue about gambling machines has been submitted for judicial determination, but the province wants to put those machines in the existing venues.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The policy that we announced some time back is still the same policy. The member is correct about the issue around the existing casinos, particularly the ones where we have a difference of opinion, if you like -- Surrey and Vancouver. Those are separate from the rest, and that is in the case of new facilities, new casinos, going in.

There will not be new casinos if they do not have local community and local government support. As I said last night, if North Shore has not voted to approve a casino and if there are no applications for a casino, then the government will not be imposing a casino on that community. Likewise, I said last night that, for example, my own community of Port Coquitlam does not currently have a casino. I'm not even sure if they've passed a resolution on one, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that they passed a resolution saying that they do not want a casino in Port Coquitlam. There would be no casino in Port Coquitlam.

K. Krueger: Any municipality, then, that doesn't presently have casinos and might consider them but doesn't want slot machines or gambling machines of any kind can only be sure it won't get gambling machines within its borders if it refuses to have any new casinos within its borders. Is that a fair assessment of the situation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: When a community makes a decision as to whether or not they want a casino, they are making that decision based on the knowledge that the province will decide what games are included in the casino. So if you were to vote in favour of a casino, you would be voting not only for the traditional table games -- card games -- but for slot machines as well.

K. Krueger: Does the minister anticipate that that last aspect of the government's policy, the right of a municipality to decide against gambling machines while allowing a new gambling venue or a casino within its borders, will be reconsidered? Or does the minister expect that to remain firm?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have no plans to change that policy at this particular time. It's not something that I'm reviewing.

K. Krueger: Have any studies been undertaken by the provincial government with regard to the effects on municipalities of the existing gambling expansion and the changes that have been made to the casinos -- the 2,000 percent increase in betting limits and the wide extension of hours?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not aware of any specific studies that have been done on the change in bet limits or the advent of slot machines in casinos. It would almost be too early to do any studies in most cases, because the changes came late last year; I think it was October or November. The slot machines, for example, have only just been turned on in a number of areas of the province. It would be very difficult to do anything at the present time. In the areas around criminal activity, it is easier, because you can get daily, weekly and monthly facts and figures from the local police authorities. We've had no indication to date that there has been, for example, any increase in criminal activity as a result of casinos.

K. Krueger: Have any studies been undertaken by the government with regard to the effect of gambling expansion on local economies and on small business in British Columbia? Again, I hear what the minister is saying about the recentness of some of the changes, but it's pretty well a year after the change in hours and the change in betting limits. There's probably some data. Studies like that could have been commissioned to forecast the effects on local economies and small business, as well as to study what's happened thus far.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, there are no studies around particular casinos and particular impacts. We canvassed this somewhat yesterday, at which point I said that I haven't had any complaints from local businesses. I am aware of some issues in a particular community, but I think that's part of another issue. When the government made its decision, an initial study was done that looked at the issue from a general perspective, but certainly not in terms of specific areas or communities.

K. Krueger: Which study was it that the hon. minister was just referring to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The KPMG study.

K. Krueger: Then that would be the KPMG study that Peter Clark used when he had his press conference announcing gambling expansion in March 1997.

[ Page 9007 ]

K. Krueger: And there have been no further general studies of that nature commissioned by the provincial government since that date.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct.

K. Krueger: In the material I've seen, the numbers often vary, but there seems to be a general understanding that money spent in the local economy goes round and round. It's spent in a restaurant, and the servers, dishwashers, cooks, proprietor and everyone else take it home and spend it on other things. Some studies say that the same dollar will go around a local economy eight or 12 times. One of the complaints that I've seen throughout my research on gambling and gambling expansion is that the money just gets sucked out of the local economy as soon as it's spent. Granted there are a few jobs in a casino, but not many jobs revolve around gambling machines, slot machines and so on. The money just disappears.

In the case of my own community of Kamloops, 40 percent is raked off by the operator who is based in Kelowna, and the rest of the profits go to Victoria, where we have the usual situation of local people having to come cap in hand to get some of it back by way programs. It gets folded into general revenue, and from our perspective in the interior, it's like a black hole. When resource money, tax money and now gambling money disappear from the community, it doesn't tend to come back. Whether the minister agrees with that last assessment or not, it isn't really what I was trying to drive at.

I'd like to know whether or not the provincial government has analyzed this question of the effect of money disappearing directly from a local economy through slot machines and gambling expansion rather than being spent time and again within the same community.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can compare studies on this, but the study we have is the KPMG study, which said that what the member is saying would not be the case. There aren't any specific studies in the case of Kamloops, for example, in part because it has just opened up, but the same principle would be in effect. There's been a casino there for some ten years -- not one with slot machines, but certainly with table games and the traditional games. What we have heard since then is that there are tour buses now coming in, that the hotels have noticed an increase in occupancy in terms of room rentals and that it seems to be doing well. People choose to spend their money as they see fit. In terms of studies on the impact since the expansion, there are none.

K. Krueger: Pretty well every other jurisdiction in North America barged on into gambling expansion ahead of British Columbia. I always felt, as I did my research when I was gaming critic, that it was to our benefit that we had dragged our heels. Many of them were already trying to withdraw somewhat from that battleground, realizing they had made a mistake in going into gambling expansion to one extent or another. Having the benefit of those other jurisdictions' unfortunate experience, I had hoped that our government wouldn't proceed -- and, of course, it has.

[11:30]

I think it would be a responsible thing for the government to very thoroughly analyze those aspects of social costs that change our social fabric, which we've covered -- and a couple of others I'll talk about momentarily as we go along -- in order that decisions might be made to rein in this thing or even turn it around if the consequences are as negative as I understand they've been in other jurisdictions. I wonder if we could have the minister's commitment that he will try to ensure than an ongoing study occurs with regard to the effects of gambling expansion on the people of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will be reviewing operations. I'm sure there will be all kinds of studies being done -- some by the Lottery Corporation, no doubt, and others probably by academic institutions, because this is a clearly new industry. It's a fascinating industry for many people from the point of view of research. Before we went ahead with the changes that took place, there was a lot of work done. There has been a lot of looking at what has gone on in other jurisdictions, dealing with all kinds of issues -- from the issue around crime, to slot machines, to VLTs, to where they should be located -- and trying to make sure that we deal with some of the issues. I think we've learned a lot from those.

That's one of the reasons why, for example, when we went ahead and made the changes that we did make, we didn't do what they've done in Manitoba or Alberta, which was: say no to the VLTs; not put electronic gaming into pubs or into corner stores; and make sure that there is local community approval around the issue of new casinos. From what I have seen in terms of impact or where the public has been particularly hostile, it has been in those provinces where it was put in every conceivable location.

That, I think, has been a real problem because there you're not able, for example, to monitor for underage kids. They had them in corner stores at one time in New Brunswick, and they had to take them out because of that problem. I think New Brunswick was probably in very early on. In other jurisdictions, they said: "You can't do that." In the case of Alberta, it was like: "Well, we'll put them into bars." That's a problem. We said: "No, we're not going to put them into bars."

That's an issue that I am particularly aware of, because I know the pub owners and bar owners are lobbying to have the slot machines in pubs and bars, and I have said no to that. We have watched what has gone on in other areas, and we will continue to look at what happens here in British Columbia, as I'm sure other outside groups and agencies will as well.

K. Krueger: First, let me advise the minister that I share his conviction that these gambling machines shouldn't be allowed in pubs and bars or in any situation where the potential to develop a cross-addiction to alcohol and gambling is high. The pubs and bars have been lobbying me, and we'll talk about that in a moment. They probably know better than to lobby me for gambling expansion within their premises, because that hasn't been the issue with them. I want to really encourage the minister and the government to never allow that. Already, even in the casino we have in Kamloops, I understand that there has been an application for the develop-

[ Page 9008 ]

I do want to ask the minister respectfully, if he is relying on the KPMG study or the initial work done by Peter Clark before gambling expansion was launched in British Columbia, not to rely on them. I think that was a Mickey Mouse study. I think that Peter Clark was sent out to make it happen. The previous minister of Employment and Investment made it very clear the day he got the portfolio that he wanted to see large casinos in British Columbia. He tried different names for them, as if that was the determining factor. He didn't want to call them Las Vegas-style, since he knew that those weren't acceptable. He called them Monaco-style and tried various monikers. But the fact is that British Columbians didn't want the expansion, and we in the official opposition believe that it's been a dangerous and unfortunate move.

I know the minister has many responsibilities in his portfolio, but I would urge him to really get into some of the research that's available on the effects of this type of expansion on society. There's no reason to expect that they aren't going to happen in British Columbia, when they've happened everywhere else. Perhaps there can be a slowing of those negative effects, though, if the government genuinely holds the line on combining gambling expansion with alcohol and so on. I also want to urge the minister not to think that these slot machines are substantially different from video lottery terminals, because they aren't. I'm told that it takes 15 minutes and a microchip to convert one to the other. The technology is very similar, and the effects on people are very similar. For whatever reason, they are tremendously addictive.

Getting back to the effect on small business, we can talk about pubs specifically. The Neighbourhood Pub Owners Association just had a convention in Kamloops, and I went up and talked with them. They are already experiencing a dramatic decline in business since the casino in Kamloops expanded and opened up. They can actually quote the numbers, and it's remarkable. There are other small businesses in Kamloops that are already reporting an effect, and it doesn't seem to be just the general effect of a slowing economy. People believe that small business in Kamloops is hurting already. Pub owners say that they are definitely hurting, and hurting badly. They believe that it relates directly to the opening of this much larger casino. Apparently the bingo halls are also experiencing a dramatic slowdown in business.

Those effects are there. Granted, that's anecdotal at the moment, but that's what I expected, based on research from all around North America, which says that small business shrivels with gambling expansion -- that for every job in a casino, there is more than one job lost in the larger community -- and that there is a downward spiral in the local economy. That money is going into a casino and not coming back to the community to nearly the extent it would from other businesses.

I don't want to be tedious with this line of questioning, but I do want to be specific about certain areas. I'll make this series of questions quite brief, if the minister would like, but I do want to ask him. . . . We have ministries that deal with these various aspects of our economy and our society. We have a Ministry of Small Business. Has any study been commissioned by the government with regard to the effect of the gambling expansion in British Columbia on small business?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is no.

I just want to follow up on that by responding to some of the comments the member has made. I am not interested only in the KMPG study but also in a wide body of research and reports. One of the things that I have found most interesting -- I don't have enough time for more reading material; I have enough on my plate already -- is the opportunity to learn more about the different aspects of the portfolio and to look at issues from different perspectives -- what's going on in other jurisdictions. So from that sense, yes, I am quite interested in what's going on in other provinces and in other jurisdictions -- in the United States, for example -- and in looking at what works and what doesn't work to see ways of improving things here in B.C. and of addressing issues to make sure that the decisions we make are the right ones. I said earlier that when we made the changes we did, I think we did learn from what had gone on in other provinces around the issue of the location of slot machines. I think that's as it should be, and I will continue to do that.

As minister responsible, I went to the casino in Surrey. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was apparently the first minister responsible for gaming in the province who went into a casino during his or her tenure -- like in the last ten years. I was quite surprised by that. I do have opportunities to go out and find out what's going on. I intend to take advantage of those opportunities to learn more, and I will do that.

On the issue around studies, again I come back to the fact that a lot of studies have been done of a general nature on the topic as a whole and on different jurisdictions specifically. As I said, we're always interested in those things. With specific regard to certain locations in British Columbia, no, there aren't any, as I said, in part because a lot of things are still new, and we're still getting up and running. I expect you will see those studies done over time.

I'm aware of the issue the member raises around the pubs in Kamloops, and I understand it. Right now it is, by and large -- as I think both of us agree -- primarily anecdotal. I do find it interesting that their solution -- if there is a problem -- is to have slot machines in the pubs. Like the member, I too have said that I'm not in favour of that. We watch and read and see how things go, and I always have an open mind on things.

K. Krueger: May it never happen that the pubs and bars in British Columbia are allowed to have slot machines. Already there are some machines in them that look suspiciously like gambling machines, although I think that the proprietors would argue that that's not what they are. As I'm sure the minister knows, there are all sorts of ways that a pub or a bar can compensate clients under the table if they win on an electronic machine that's there. Again, it's one of those things that we hope the government is mindful of and watchful over.

I was thinking of asking these questions one at a time, but I'm getting the sense that the answer to each one is going to be no, so I'll just ask them all at once.

We have ministries dealing with crime -- the Attorney General, obviously -- and I heard what the minister said about getting the anecdotal reports from police. That's good, but I'm not sure it's adequate. What I wanted to ask in each ministry was: has the government actually commissioned a formal study to learn the effects of gambling expansion on British Columbians? I wanted to ask that with regard to the increases in crime which can be expected, according to all the material that I have. Presumably that would be the Attorney General's ministry. Increases in addiction. . . . The material

[ Page 9009 ]

[11:45]

I hoped there might have been some studies, specifically by the Minister Responsible for Youth -- who is the Premier, of course -- on the effect on aboriginal people. Again, for reasons beyond my understanding, the facts seem to be that aboriginal people are twice as likely to develop gambling additions as the general population, so aboriginal youth are four times as likely as the general population to develop gambling addictions. I can't say why, but I do believe those things, because I've read enough to believe that they've been substantiated.

There are particular effects on women around gambling expansion. We have a Women's Equality ministry. Some of those effects are that the spouses of male pathological gamblers are three times as likely to attempt suicide as the general female population. Women who live with compulsive gamblers have eight times the frequency of a whole range of really serious health ailments. They are much more subject to violence in the home.

I, personally, and some of my colleagues put these questions to all of the ministers in estimates last year. I didn't want to do it again, because I don't want to burn up the House's time -- especially since my experience has been that everybody refers it to the Minister of Employment and Investment anyway. As I say, I'm getting the sense that none of these individual studies has been commissioned.

But a couple of other ministries which I was hoping would have actually done those studies are the Ministry of Women's Equality and the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. Some seniors seem to be really preoccupied with gambling. When we had the B.C. Gaming Commission hearing in Kamloops, I was astonished at the level of support for gambling expansion demonstrated by seniors who attended that hearing. I wonder what effects gambling actually tends to have or has already had on B.C. seniors.

Obviously the Ministry of Health would be interested in what I'm talking about because of those serious effects on people's health through gambling addiction. I'm sure the minister, with all those responsibilities in his portfolio, has much less reading time for gambling issues than even I do, now that I've moved on to other things. But it's clear in the research that gambling addicts kill themselves faster and more often than any other type of addict. I was astonished to find that out, but gambling addiction kills people more quickly on average than any other type of addiction. I think it's because it destroys their self-esteem, having destroyed all of their assets, credit and pride. Again, I was hoping that the Ministry of Health would have taken a serious look at that as gambling expansion has unfolded in British Columbia.

The Ministry of Human Resources' research suggests that many more families end up on welfare because of gambling addiction. It might be too early for that with the relative recency of B.C. gambling expansion. I'll wrap all of that up into one question. Is the minister aware of any studies that have been launched in British Columbia by any ministry with regard to the effects of gambling expansion?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not aware of studies. That's not to say that there aren't studies in different ministries. But I make the following point. Within this ministry, we are interested in looking at what's happening, looking at what's taking place in jurisdictions. As I said, I expect that as you see new facilities open up, there will be a lot of interest in what happens, and you'll see a lot of research. No doubt I will receive those reports.

In terms of some of the other specific ministries the hon. member mentioned, particularly around crime, I know that within the Attorney General ministry they have said that they would. . . . Crime statistics and that go to the Attorney General ministry. I don't know of studies in particular, but certainly crime statistics do. I would imagine you could find information on that basis.

The Attorney General ministry has committed. . . . It is my understanding that if additional resources are required around prosecution and things like that, we will look at that. Gambling addiction programs are within the Ministry for Children and Families, so they look at it from the point of view of children and families and from a health perspective as well. There may be studies there, but I'm not aware of specific work that's taking place within those ministries. As the member said, it's. . . . I have a lot of reading to do in my own ministry.

K. Krueger: Watching the minister respond. . . . Hansard will never record his hand motions and body language, but the sincerity is there and I know that. This minister, and I believe the government itself, is concerned about these issues.

I want to caution the government not to assume that other people are doing it. The B.C. Lottery Corporation is ethical, I believe, and concerned about these things too. But without specific instruction to really do this in a zealous way and to explore all these different aspects that I'm suggesting, it won't happen. When the minister talks about other jurisdictions, I've read that stuff and it's there. All of those effects are reported in all those other jurisdictions.

It's almost like we're clearcutting first growth here. We have launched something in British Columbia -- a Pandora's box -- that wasn't there before. Of course, we had the B.C. Lottery Corporation and we had the little casinos with the $20 bets and so on, but this is huge. It's a really dramatic, massive increase in gambling in British Columbia, and there is going to be significant revenue from it. That's not new money; it's money that comes out of the provincial economy that was there anyway. It's people's disposable income at first, and then, with many of them, it's really not disposable income. It's money they should have spent on their mortgage payment or their children's clothes or groceries. I read a study a while ago that said that there's more money spent on VLTs than on groceries in Manitoba. That's how bad things get. It will unfold. It's going to happen to us. There's no reason to believe that it won't happen here when it's happened everywhere else.

I think the government has a responsibility to take a chunk of the massive revenue that's rolling in now and that will grow as addictions grow and as more venues are opened and destination resort casinos come in, and to channel some of it -- which, as I say, is not new money -- into ongoing

[ Page 9010 ]

There are documents on record which I obtained from the University of British Columbia. Dr. Tony Phillips, who is the head of the department of psychology there, had proposed a centre of excellence based at UBC, using resources they already have -- and they needed some operational funding to make it happen -- to deal with this and to treat people who are victims. Honestly, they become desperate victims. With gambling addiction, it's a tragic thing to see what happens to individuals and families.

I know that the minister can't give me a commitment today that he'll do it, but I would really appreciate a commitment to talk with his colleagues and consider channelling a portion -- 2 or 3 percent, maybe, which is not unreasonable -- of what flows from gambling into the coffers of the provincial government into an ongoing assessment of the social effects on British Columbians, in order that the government knows from month to month, year to year, what the experts say is happening as a result. How else will we ever know when we've got a problem that needs to be dealt with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of points. I understand the member's concerns around gaming, and I fully appreciate his concerns and his remarks. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's a valid point of view.

I think, though, that Pandora's box has been open for a long time. Not just here in. . . . Well, specifically, if we're talking about British Columbia, it has been open in B.C. The ability to access gaming has exploded in recent years. I'm not just talking about the extension of hours or the increase of betting limits or the opening of new casinos in different parts of the province, but rather in jurisdictions close to us. If you are on the border of Alberta, the VLTs in the pubs are right there. If you're across the line in Washington State, the ability to access casinos and huge, giant bingos is right there. So with that Pandora's box, if the lid was opened a bit, it has opened a lot more.

I think one of the real dangers has been the growth, in the last five or six years, of the Internet and the ability to game on the Internet, which is completely unregulated, extremely difficult to regulate and conducted, by and large, offshore. As each week and each month goes by, there are more and more sites on the Internet that you can plug into and that are becoming increasingly sophisticated. As advances in technology happen almost on a daily basis, they become real competition for legitimate gaming establishments, not only in this jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions. Because that technology's so fine now, you're no longer looking at some sort of grainy image that looks suspicious. You're now looking at something that's state-of-the-art, high-resolution, very sophisticated and has an appeal to it. You can go onto the Internet, call up a search engine and click on gaming or blackjack or whatever you want to do, and you'll get page after page of opportunities. You just click the mouse and up comes. . . . Give them your credit card number, and they'll take your money -- and you don't know who's on the other end.

That's a real problem that we don't have the ability to deal with. It is very difficult to police those things, because they change location and change. . . . That's a whole industry that is out there. That, to me, is an area of real concern, and that's something the industry itself is trying to grapple with throughout North America -- in fact, I know they're trying to figure out how to deal with this particular activity in Europe. But the box is open, and our challenge, I think, is to recognize that. There are approaches that we've taken here in British Columbia; we've looked at other jurisdictions, and we'll continue to watch what goes on in other jurisdictions.

I said earlier that the issue around. . . . For example, I don't want to see and I don't support putting slot machines or electronic gaming in bars and pubs. That's something we've learned from watching what's happened in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, among other provinces. There will no doubt be research done on the effects of expanded gaming on communities here in British Columbia. I said that earlier, and I will look to read that research with great interest. I will monitor what happens, and I've said I'll take a great deal of interest in it.

In terms of the member's question around centres of excellence and issues around gaming addiction, that's in the Ministry for Children and Families. But I have no trouble in sitting down with the Minister for Children and Families and looking at what our program is and trying to see what's happening in other jurisdictions. If there are things we need to incorporate, maybe we should be looking at doing things like that -- and supporting that we do have a good, solid program to deal with the problem aspects of gambling.

[12:00]

There is a lot of work that is going on, and I'm quite sure that there could always be more. I have an interest in this, and I will continue to do the best I can.

K. Krueger: This is my last question. I believe all of that, but I also believe that everybody has so many other responsibilities that nobody is going to keep a handle on this thing -- unless the minister takes charge of formally structuring a way to make sure that they do. I think that the Attorney General has so many things on his plate, the Minister of Human Resources has so many things on her plate, and so on. I believe the Ministry for Children and Families will try. They have hired professionals to counsel people with gambling addictions in various communities, and so on. I'm well aware of that, but it's a completely overwrought ministry that is having severe challenges in foster parenting and in looking after children, essentially, all around the province. I've never been really happy that this particular program was given to them, because I don't think they have time for it. I'm not saying they aren't doing their best, but I don't think they have time for it.

I know he can't commit funds today, but I would really appreciate a commitment from the minister to talk to his colleagues about channelling some percentage of the net proceeds from gaming specifically to experts. I propose the University of British Columbia, although I have a university in my own constituency, and I'd love to have them operating something like that. But I believe UBC already has. . . . They showed me a business plan. They have a building. They have facilities. They have the experts right there. They're teaching

[ Page 9011 ]

I'm not thinking at all from a political point of view, of having something to beat the government over the head with. I don't care if the results are kept confidential. I just want to know that somebody competent is in charge of monitoring all of that, because this is virgin territory. The minister's right: Pandora's box was opened a crack. We had our small casinos, our small betting limits. We had people who would trip across the border and come back, but it wasn't at all the same as having the venues in your back yard, all over British Columbia, and having that kind of access. Something has changed dramatically, and there will likely be consequences that flow from that. I would like to know that experts are tracking that and that the minister is receiving regular updates on the many aspects of the effects of gambling expansion on our economy.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member knows that I can't commit to money or things of that nature. What I would be more than happy to do, for example, even before I talk to my colleagues, is to meet and hear. . . . Obviously there is some interest at UBC, and I would be more than happy to meet with them, to discuss what it is they have in mind and get an idea for myself of what their thoughts are. I would be more than happy to do something like that.

K. Krueger: I'll help set that up. Thanks very much.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I could raise an issue today, with the understanding that we will probably want to continue the discussion on Monday. I'll try to set out the parameters of my interest in this particular aspect of gaming policy in the province. The last time I injected myself into this discussion was to alert the minister to a circumstance involving particular local charities and the difficulty they were having. This is somewhat similar, but the obstacle these groups are facing -- in one case, a minor hockey organization -- relates to what I understand is a realignment and rejigging of the priorities around the awarding of licences and access to revenues generated at local bingo halls.

I'll give the minister some background. A minor hockey organization that heretofore has had a certain number of dates reserved for itself has developed a budget and a fundraising strategy around that. The minister's heard the story before. What the minister -- the Gaming Commission; I shouldn't say the minister necessarily -- giveth to one group of charities, the Gaming Commission taketh away from others. That automatically results in animosity and difficulties for the charities that are losing access to those moneys.

If in this case the minor sports organizations are being told -- and on Monday I'll present some of the documentation that they have been provided with by the Gaming Commission: "Look, our strategies, objectives and priorities now are to try to direct more of the revenues generated, in this case from the Abbotsford bingo facility, to agencies that are directly involved in education." I think health care is the other broad category. "Therefore there will not be the same number of dates available."

The first thing I'd say is that everyone recognizes that all of these organizations are involved in useful enterprises. But the question that arises -- and it arises partly out of the Owen-Flood decision. . . . There is an expectation that the provincial government assumes the primary and overwhelming responsibility for funding of education and health care. The suspicion that minor sports organizations and others have is that this is a not-so-veiled attempt to download responsibility for the funding of health and education services onto the backs of charitable organizations which derive their funding from, in this case, bingo revenues. That's the broad category.

The kinds of questions I want to ask the minister are: to what extent has the Gaming Commission been directed that this is a priority for government, that this is a strategy developed by government? Does the minister recognize the difficulties associated with that kind of a strategy, whether or not he has been involved in its formulation? That is the range of questions. I will also say, recognizing the time, that I will be critical of a strategy -- and I signal that to the minister now -- that says that more and more of the costs associated with the delivery of these services is going to be assumed by charitable organizations through gaming revenues. I think that represents something of an abdication, as the court decision said, of a responsibility that primarily rests with the state. So that's the broad category of the discussion I need to have with the minister insofar as it impacts very directly on a number of minor sports organizations in my community.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll take the opportunity to answer a number of things. First off, there has been no direction to the Gaming Commission from either the government or, more specifically, me. In fact, nothing has changed in terms of categories; nothing has changed in terms of how the money is allocated by the Gaming Commission. There have been no instructions of that nature of any kind.

There is no strategy in terms of there being a focus specifically on health care and to make a shift; no, there isn't.

In terms of changes to the eligibility criteria or to the categories, there have not been changes taking place. I guess one of the things that happens around bingo. . . . We discussed a fair bit of this yesterday, around how licences change, because in the case of bingo -- and it sounds, from what the member said, that there is a bingo licence -- quite often licences are given for a two-year period. This is different from other forms, in that. . . . I can see the issue being: "Well, we've got it for two years, and if we've had it for two previous years, then we will continue to get it for two years." It becomes an expectation. That is something that isn't the case. Just because you get a licence for two years does not mean you will get it renewed. Just because you get X number of dates in that two-year period does not mean you will get that two-year period the next time you get your licence. There's a renewal process that comes up about six months before the expiry of that, upon which the renewal of the licence for that bingo association takes place. So when the licence expires, then you've got a new two-year licence with a new set of charities participating. Hopefully, that will give some of the answers, in the broad sense, to the member. If there's a specific case that he wishes me to look at, I am prepared to do that.

The other thing that I would raise -- and I'm not sure if the member was present for the discussion -- is around the appeal process. If a charity, for example, feel that they have been shortchanged on dates or that they haven't got sufficient funds, there is an appeal process that they can go through that can, in many cases, rectify their concern.

M. de Jong: I understand we are at a time when we are supposed to utter the magic words -- okay.

I wonder if I could ask the minister and his staff to examine this, between now and Monday. I know they haven't

[ Page 9012 ]

These minor sports organizations have been left with the impression that there has been a change in priority within the Gaming Commission. In some cases, they've received that in writing. They have been told that the priority relates to education and possibly health care. If he isn't the source of that change, could the minister ascertain who is, how it has come about, what the change in priority is and how the Gaming Commission, for which he is responsible from a ministerial point of view, intends to implement it? The communicating of this change is certainly giving rise to concerns, and I think it is appropriate here to ascertain what the change is and to try to particularize that change. It's going to have an impact on a whole bunch of organizations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just because I spent one weekend in Orillia does not mean that I have nothing better to do on my weekends. Only someone from the upper Fraser Valley could come out with a comment like that.

Anyway, on the amount of moneys, for example. . . . I understand the member's concern. If he has specific documentation, then we're more than willing to look at that. As I said, there's no strategy to make change; there's been no direction from me to change the way things are going. I can tell you that in this past fiscal year, youth sports received 14 percent of the access to gaming revenue and public education received only 13 percent of the gaming revenue. That's until the fiscal year '97-98. We're only just into the new fiscal year, but there has not been any direction to change that one way or another. I think one of the best solutions is to monitor that.

With that, and mindful of the time and that some of us have to get to Orillia for exciting weekends and some of us have to go to Matsqui for exciting weekends, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:15 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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