1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1999

Volume 15, Number 24

[ Page 13485 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

L. Stephens: This morning in the precincts we have up to 56 grade 7 students from Simonds Elementary School in Langley, with their teachers and a number of parents that are accompanying them. They are here to learn about government and to learn a little bit about the history of British Columbia and of this beautiful building. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

[1010]

The bill consists of some 75 sections. As I said in my first reading and second reading comments, it is largely technical, largely housekeeping, largely about streamlining and the like. The amendments are unanimously recommended by the Pension Benefits Standards Advisory Council. That body is a representative group of leading pension experts. They make the recommendation by saying that these amendments are essential to the immediate and long-term health of B.C. pension plans and member protection.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering questions.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: I see in the gallery a school group that's visiting from my riding -- a grade 7 class from Shannon Lake Elementary School, with Mr. Sanger as their teacher. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

On section 1.

K. Krueger: Briefly responding to the minister's comments, the opposition does not accept for a moment that the thrust of this bill is largely housekeeping. If it is, there is no explanation at all for the government's failure to run the bill past the pension industry Canada-wide, as is the norm and the practice in this country and in this province.

No exposure draft was circulated; no White Paper was put out. It is not a housekeeping bill. There are a number of important changes in it. The most important change -- and the one which the public outcry is building on around this province -- is a frontal assault on pensioners and the ability this government's taking upon itself to suspend their pensions if it catches them working. We believe that is fundamentally wrong and that that is the real thrust of this bill. The minister says that it's unanimously recommended by the Pension Benefits Standards Advisory Council. We have already put on the record our serious and grave doubts as to whether that council, appointed and chosen by this government, is a broad enough cross-section of the pension industry and the expertise in this country to legitimately represent the interests of the many people who'll be affected by the provisions which the minister has set out in this bill.

In that context we will proceed, clause by clause. But I want the public -- the people who are following this debate very carefully, the many people across this province who believe, as I do, that everybody who has a pension or a pension entitlement in British Columbia is impacted by this legislation. . . . The public takes this whole matter very seriously. We don't accept for a moment that this is a matter of housekeeping.

Section 1, and a number of the changes in the act, seems to contemplate better flexibility in pension plans, which could certainly be a good thing. The minister has repeatedly referred to the desire for better flexibility. If that was all this was about, this bill would be proceeding much more quickly, but of course it's not. Looking at clause (b) of section 1, I would ask that the minister please explain the reasons for the changes.

Hon. D. Lovick: This amends the definition of "commuted value" and is required in order to be consistent with Canadian Institute of Actuaries standards.

K. Krueger: The minister, at both first and second readings, has repeatedly stressed that it is the alleged intent of this legislation to protect pensioners. It seems manifestly true -- dead obvious to many people -- that this act, with its changes to the existing Pension Benefits Standards Act, actually adds risk to pensioners and plan members, rather than protecting them in any way. When we look at section 1(b), an important issue to note is that the word "adequate" has been removed in reference to the calculation of commuted values, which are the capitalized value of a pension for portability purposes. Does this reflect a view that participation in a defined benefit pension plan carries an element of investment risk for the pensioner?

[1015]

K. Krueger: The minister says that he can give me the assurance that yes, the answer is no. I don't understand that. Does this change add risk to pensioners or not?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no.

K. Krueger: I'd like to refer to the existing act -- the Pension Benefits Standards Act, a much better act today than

[ Page 13486 ]

The minister has stressed the need for flexibility in pension plan administration. The official opposition can agree with that. We're told that the average Canadian will have at least seven changes of occupation in his lifetime. We're told, and we know, that multi-employer plans cover a unique group of employees -- many employees in our province -- but it does seem to me that a new risk is being introduced here for plan members. Is it true that there currently exists a significant gap between the commuted values determined according to the accepted actuarial principles and market-life annuity rates, such that a pension cannot currently be adequately reproduced outside of the pension plan?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

K. Krueger: Then it seems to me that the basic thrust of this amendment is to spell out provision for commutation on a minimum-transferred-value basis. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

K. Krueger: Let's go back, then, to the change of wording that is being brought in by this amendment. I've already protested taking out the word adequate. Why is the minister choosing to take out the words "generally accepted" and just replace them with "accepted"? What's the rationale? Why make that change?

Hon. D. Lovick: The change is in order to be consistent. The Canadian Institute of Actuaries has created new standards, and the change that they made in their wording is reflected in this amendment.

K. Krueger: It seems to me that it greatly lowers the standard. "Generally accepted" is pretty clear. Most people would have to agree that it's a good idea, I think, before it could be called "generally accepted." But if it just says "accepted," accepted by whom -- by the government, by its appointees, by its appointed Pension Benefits Standards Advisory Council? The government could pick anyone for it be accepted by. They could pick Johnny-Be-Good; they could pick whoever they want. They could pick someone chosen and consulted with using that classic oxymoron "NDP consultation," and they could end up with a very bad result. It seems to me that this provision is set up to put people -- pensioners -- at risk. Is there any way that the minister will concede that the pensioners' risk is larger if this provision is adopted?

Hon. D. Lovick: No. This is a very specialized field, and it's esoteric in the extreme. When the Canadian Institute of Actuaries said that this is the standard wording across this country and that it is recommended that our legislation should be in sync and consistent with that, we defer to that opinion. We are assured that there is no increase to the risk, and moreover, the superintendent advises me that it remains her responsibility to ensure that the assumptions are adequate.

[1020]

Hon. D. Lovick: Amendment 1(c) amends the definition of employment by removing the reference to section 26(2) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Section 26(2) of the PBSA is repealed under section 14 of this bill, and the reference is therefore no longer appropriate.

G. Plant: I'm rising to speak to section 1(d), which is the definition of spouse. The proposed new definition expands the definition of spouse for the purposes of this act. Then what happens later in this statute is that there are some consequential amendments to, I think, five public sector pension plan statutes. The consequential amendments have the effect of importing the definition in section 1(d) -- the one that's before us -- into each of those five statutes. Recognizing that fact, I propose to deal with the issues that arise now in the context of section 1(d), and I don't think we'll need to revisit them when we get to the public sector pension plans statute consequential amendments later -- although that turns, to some extent, on the debate that we have now.

One of the things that this new definition does is expand the category of persons who may qualify as spouses to include persons of the same gender who lived in a marriage-like relationship with that other person for the two-year period immediately preceding the relevant time. Those are the words from the definition. There are certain contexts in which the expanded definition will operate. In those contexts, the expanded definition will operate to give statutory entitlements to individuals who do not now have certain statutory entitlements. I actually will, in a moment or two, want to explore exactly those contexts, to get a bit of a sense of how this will work.

Any time you potentially expand the class beneficiaries -- to use the term in its broadest, least-technical sense -- of an entitlement program or, in this case, a pension plan, the issue arises of whether that expansion will have cost implications for those who pay into, in this case, the pension plans. Is the minister able to answer this question: will the expansion of the definition of spouse, as contemplated in section 1(d) of the bill -- in particular the last part of it, the same-sex definition -- have cost implications for people who participate in these pension plans?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that the cost implications will be minimal.

G. Plant: To expand on that, cost implications would include both the contributions that the members in these plans would have to pay and also the administrative costs associated with operating the plans. Does the minister's answer apply to both branches of cost?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

[ Page 13487 ]

[1025]

G. Plant: I do want to explore the implications of the expansion of this definition for a moment or two.

I must confess that I still understand pensions less well than I should, and it's probably because I'll probably never have one -- at least, not a pension of the sort that we're talking about here. One of the things that people who participate in pension plans can do, I believe, is designate beneficiaries -- that is, they have an opportunity, as they enrol in a plan or as they continue to participate in a plan, to designate an individual as a beneficiary.

I guess I want to make the suggestion -- and I'm certain the minister will correct me if I'm wrong -- that it is open to, as a matter of law, the participants in private sector pension plans now to designate as a beneficiary someone who is a same-sex partner in a relationship with them -- that is, that opportunity exists now under the law. If I'm right to that extent, then I will look at the way in which the act will change the status quo. If I'm not right, then I'm sure that the minister will correct my misunderstanding.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is not correct in that assumption. Rather, I understand that designated beneficiaries do not have the same rights as a spouse would have under pension legislation.

G. Plant: That was not my implication. I think it's quite clear that spouses have different rights than designated beneficiaries. But there is this group of people who can be designated as beneficiaries, and I want to know whether the law, as it currently exists, prohibits a participant or a member in a pension plan from designating as a beneficiary someone who is a same-sex partner in a relationship.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no.

G. Plant: As I understand it, what this act does, by expanding the category of spouses to include partners in same-gender relationships -- and the implication would be the same for any expansion in the category of persons who are spouses -- is that it primarily has an impact on the way in which pre-retirement survivor benefits operate in section 34 and post-retirement survivor benefits operate in section 35: to expand, if you will, the category of persons whose interests, in effect, must be taken into account by the operation of a pension plan.

There is going to be someone who is a spouse, and if you're a spouse, then under the law there are certain rights that accrue to you -- under this act -- as being kind of mandatory elements of any pension plan that you're entitled to. They have to do primarily with. . . . What happens if the member of the plan dies before retirement? Who has an entitlement to pension benefits? And secondly, what happens after retirement, after vesting, after the pension kicks in? What rights, if any, does the person who is the spouse of the member in the plan have? Those, as I read this, are the two primary ways in which this definition operates to affect persons in relation to private sector pension plans. I know there are one or two other minor points, but have I got the basic thrust of the significance of this?

[1030]

G. Plant: I want to ask a question about section 4 of the statute as it now is, because I want to explore what the implications, if any, of the change of the definition of spouse in section 4 will be.

Section 4 of the current act says: "If a pension plan must be registered under this Act, and the plan is already registered in a designated province, the superintendent may, by order, exempt the plan from the application of all or part of this Act on the condition that the plan complies with the requirements of the designated province." In the broadest possible sense, I think one of the objectives here is. . . . Where you have a pension plan that is registered in, say, Ontario, and it also affects people in British Columbia, it may be that in the interest of avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and so on, British Columbia says: "Well, if your Ontario plan complies with the requirements of British Columbia law, you won't have to register it in British Columbia." I may not have it precisely right, but I think that's the general thrust of section 4.

I suspect -- and the minister will be in a position to verify this -- that in expanding the definition of spouse in the bill that's now before us, British Columbia may be taking a step forward, if you will, that is not currently taken by other jurisdictions. What, then, are the implications for, if you will, interprovincial plans arising from the expansion of the definition of spouse here?

Hon. D. Lovick: My understanding is that several provinces are now in the process of amending and, as well, that all the provinces apparently accept that this is indeed the established case law and therefore aren't challenging it. I guess that's the appropriate way to put it.

G. Plant: The significance of that statement, then, is that the proposed amendment won't undermine -- at least in the short term -- the basic objectives of harmonization and administrative simplification that are implied in section 4 of the act. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

G. Plant: I want to explore for a minute or two another aspect of the change in the definition of spouse. The act, as it currently reads, defines spouse in part. . . . I'm now looking at the issue of people who are married and living separate and apart. The current definition of spouse in that respect includes "a person who at the relevant time was married to, and not living separate and apart from, that other person." There is a change proposed here, and the change is to insert a time

[ Page 13488 ]

First of all, I want to ask a technical question, and then I'm going to ask the minister to explain the logic behind that change. The technical question is this. My sense, from having looked at this, is that this is the change to the definition of spouse which caused the government to revisit the definition of spouse and change it in each of the five public sector pension plans. As the minister will know, we in fact amended the definition of spouse in each of those plans just last summer. So we're back here less than 12 months later making another change, and it is this two-year period that I believe is the change. When we discuss the significance of this change, we are talking about it as it relates to the Pension Benefits Standards Act -- but also to the five public sector plans.

[1035]

G. Plant: With that as the context, could the minister then explain the logic behind introducing the two-year period?

Hon. D. Lovick: There are two answers to the question. Number one is that that is the recommendation, I gather, of the Law Institute. The second, I understand -- and the assumption behind it -- is that it gives the separated spouse time to get his or her affairs in order under the Family Relations Act.

G. Plant: One of the issues that arises in the context of family breakdown is pension entitlement. It's often a very divisive and also a very complex and frustrating issue. One of the things that I think the law can and should legitimately do is create a situation where members of pension plans are essentially discouraged from participating in the dissolution of their relationship in a way that facilitates the disentitlement of spousal benefits that would otherwise arise. To put the point in what is perhaps an unfairly exaggerated way, I think there is a public policy interest in avoiding the situation where all someone who is a member of a pension plan has to do is move out of the house, and they divest their spouse of any of the pension entitlements that they would otherwise have.

The minister is right. I understand the minister's explanation in talking about the time period as a way of saying that the spouse who's on the receiving end of what I guess we used to call desertion will have an opportunity to go to court and make the necessary application. It seems to me that the change -- by inserting the two-year time period -- is actually a change that enhances the position of spouses in terms of protecting their entitlement to pensions over the previous definition, which could, in its strict language, contemplate the possibility that a couple would live separate and apart for only a few weeks and then the pension entitlement would be gone.

I invite the minister to comment on whether he sees that one of the objectives here in this change is not simply the objectives that he spoke about earlier but also, perhaps, enhancing the position of spouses in terms of pension entitlements.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's assumption in the question is quite correct. Yes, I do see it as enhancing, in fact, the right of a spouse, and I think that's desirable.

G. Plant: I have tried to read through the old definition -- the existing definition, that is -- and the proposed new definition from the point of view of asking myself this question: is it possible for there to be more than one spouse at a time? I have to confess that although I have read the proposed new definition a number of times, and I think I understand the sequential way it works, I want the minister to answer the question, at least from the government's perspective on the construction of this definition: is it possible for there to be more than one spouse at a given moment?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer I am given by the superintendent is that it is possible but highly unlikely, insofar as there is such a thing as a common-law spouse and now the same-sex-couple spouse, and either of those relationships starts from the premise of exclusivity.

[1040]

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

G. Plant: I guess the answer to the problem is that to the extent that it ever does arise, it would presumably be resolved by the courts in applying the definitions and attempting to give effect to public policy purposes behind them.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.

G. Plant: Is it the government's view that there is any priority if there is a conflict between these two classes of persons? I fully accept, for the sake of argument, that such conflicts are likely to arise seldom, if ever. Does the definition work in a way which gives priority to one relationship over the other?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no.

G. Plant: Good. So it'll just be a real old-fashioned dispute.

There is one other aspect of this, before I want to get to the larger issue which I discussed in second reading debate. The proposed definition of spouse introduces the term "marriage-like relationship" in the context of same-sex relationships. It is the central ingredient, if you will, in the test for determining whether there is a same-sex relationship that complies with the statutory requirements, apart from the time factor. The term "marriage-like relationship" has now been used by the government in, I think, at least two other statutes. From the government's perspective, is there a working definition of this term at this point? That is, what does marriage-like relationship mean?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have it at my fingertips, but I believe there is a definition of that terminology in the Family Relations Act. We could certainly pull that up.

G. Plant: My recollection -- and I, like the minister, don't have it in front of me -- is that the definition is virtually the same. That is, the question I'm posing now could have been

[ Page 13489 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, the member is correct. Indeed, I reviewed the Family Relations Act and the public sector pensions act, which are the two others that, as the member correctly points out. . . . One was done in '97 and one was done in '98, both using the same terminology. The member is quite correct. It is essentially the same terminology as we find here. I don't believe there is anywhere extant, beyond that, another definition.

G. Plant: Which does lead to the question, then, of whether the government has a sense of what this term means, beyond the words.

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't claim to be giving the orthodoxy, if you will. But I can say that notionally and intuitively, dare I say, I think I know what we intend -- or certainly what I intend in my discussions with. . . . It has to do with exclusivity, the concept of partnership, shared responsibility, shared duties and so forth and -- I guess, above all -- commitment. This is a longer-term commitment to share one's life together.

[1045]

As I said in second reading, there are two issues, broadly speaking, raised by the proposed amendment. I'm now dealing with the expansion of the definition of spouse to same-sex relationships. One is the issue of discrimination; the other is the issue of remedy. The issue of discrimination is an issue that has been most recently discussed and considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the M. v. H. decision. One of the interesting aspects of that case is that the court made it clear that the Ontario Family Law Act, in its definition of spouse -- which included common-law different-gender relationships but expressly, by omission, if you will, excluded same-gender relationships -- was, in the context of that act, discriminatory. I think that, for my part anyway, the logic behind that analysis applies with equal force to the definition of spouse in the current Pension Benefits Standards Act. So we have a situation where the law, as it now is -- in my view -- would probably not withstand a Charter challenge and is discriminatory. It discriminates against the rights of gays and lesbians to be treated equally under the law.

The second issue, as I said, is the remedy issue. That is, what do we do, as legislators, to respond to the first issue? Interestingly, on that question, the Supreme Court of Canada really refused to speak and has left it to the Ontario Legislature to deal with the Ontario Family Law Act and to make whatever amendments to it that it sees fit. We have somewhat the same challenge here; that is, as I've said, we have the situation where the Pension Benefits Standards Act definition of a spouse is, in my view, according to the highest court of the country, discriminatory. We have a need to amend it to remedy that flaw. We have an urgent need to remedy it; I mean, I don't want to undermine that at all.

The question, then, is: how do we do it? As the minister knows, on the two previous occasions -- one in 1997 and one in 1998 -- where we had virtually the same issue, we on the opposition side introduced a term called "domestic partner" as a way of responding to the discrimination issue, as a way of giving effect to the Charter promise of equality for all Canadians -- but doing so without altering the traditional conceptions of spouse and marriage which are held by many British Columbians. In other words, we took what we saw as a need to respond to an issue of discrimination and looked at it from the perspective of: how can we provide this remedy? How can we respond to this fact of discrimination? How can we achieve the aspirations of equality for gays and lesbians, causing the least upset, if you will, to the principles held by many British Columbians around the idea of what it means to be a spouse and what it means to be in a marriage?

[1050]

I said we did two things. We took out the requirement of physical intimacy. That is what we did. But I think the second thing that is meant or implied in that is that this definition of domestic partner would probably be expanded beyond persons in a conjugal same-sex relationship. It might well include siblings or a grandparent and a grandchild living together in circumstances that meet this requirement, where there is a close personal relationship and where -- for my part -- there is pre-eminently not just the emotional tie but also this fact of economic interdependence.

As much as anything, when we are looking at the rights of spouses under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, for example, and when we're looking at the kinds of things that the government is doing with the amendments they're proposing, we are recognizing -- as a public policy matter -- the importance of protecting economic interdependence in relationships. We're saying to people who are spouses: "You have contributed to the ability of your spouse to earn a living by perhaps working to look after the family and the house and so on, and you have rights that flow from that. You have a share of your spouse's pension."

The circumstances of emotional connection and economic interdependence are not limited in our society to husbands and wives -- to common-law husbands and wives, if you will -- or to partners in a same-sex relationship. They exist in other circumstances. As the minister notes, a year ago when this

[ Page 13490 ]

[1055]

So the proposal that we made last year and that we make again this year is not a proposal which, on the information that I have, would have any adverse economic implications for pension plans in the private sector or for the people who participate in them as members. And that is, I think, an important consideration, because I know that as the government considers the implications of the M. v. H. decision across the whole range of statutes that are now going to have to be looked at, the government is going to have to look at the economic, or fiscal, consequences of expanding or changing entitlements to ensure that same-sex partners are not discriminated against.

There's a bit of an overview of what we have tried to do in the past and what we want to do here in the context of this bill. I spoke at greater length about these issues when they came before us in 1997 and in 1998. Practically all of what I said then applies now and probably doesn't need to be repeated, but it applies with equal force today, in my view.

Let me say this as a technical matter. We are here amending not just one statute but, consequentially, five other statutes. To give effect to the amendment requires not simply introducing the new term of "domestic partner" but also ensuring that in every context in which the word "spouse" is used in each of the six statutes, the words "domestic partner" are introduced in a way which is consistent with the purpose of the use of the term "spouse." It's not just as simple as adding the words "or domestic partner" after the word "spouse" in each of the six statutes. I discovered that last year.

We have not so far this year drafted what might be described as a comprehensive set of technical amendments. I do wish and hope to engage the government in the issue of the definition of domestic partner. It seems to me that if the government accepts the proposal to introduce the term "domestic partner" as an addition to the existing definition of spouse, then procedurally, the appropriate thing to do would be to stand down the debate on the bill until the balance of the technical, consequential amendments are made. So that's, I think, a way of accommodating the fact that I don't have access to legislative counsel.

[1100]

[To add the following definition:

"domestic partner" means in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom "spouse" applies, a person who lived with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;

SECTION 1 (e), in reference to the entirety of the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act that the words "or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".

SECTION 1 (d), in reference to section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 352 by striking out subparagraph (b) and replacing it with the following:

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply, a person who at the relevant time lived with that other person as husband or wife for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time.

SECTION 49 (a), in reference to section 32 (7) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 212, to add the definition of "domestic partner" paragraph included in: Section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act;

SECTION 49 (b), in reference to the entirety of the Hydro and Power Authority Act that the words " or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".

SECTION 50 (a), in reference to section 1 of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and Pension Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 257, is amended by adding the definition of "domestic partner" included in: Section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act;

SECTION 50 (b), in reference to the entirety of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and Pension Act, that the words " or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".

SECTION 51 (a), in reference to section 1 (1) of the Pension (College) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 353, is amended by adding the definition of "domestic partner" in: Section (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act;

SECTION 51 (b), in reference to the entirety of the Pension (College) Act, that the words " or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".

SECTION 57 (a), in reference to section 1 (1) of the Pension (Municipal) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 355, is amended by adding the definition of "domestic partner" in: Section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act;

SECTION 57 (b), in reference to the entirety of the Pension (Municipal) Act, that the words " or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".

SECTION 64 (a), in reference to section 1 (1) of the Pension (Public Service) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 356, is amended by adding the definition of "domestic partner" in: Section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act;

SECTION 64 (b), in reference to the entirety of the Pension (Public Service) Act, that the words" or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".

SECTION 70 (a), in reference to section 1 (1) of the Pension (Teachers) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 357, is amended by adding the definition of "domestic partner" in: Section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act;

SECTION 70 (b), in reference to the entirety of the Pension (Teachers) Act, that the words " or domestic partner" be added after "spouse".]

[ Page 13491 ]

The purpose of the amended definition of "spouse" in the Pension Benefits Standards Act is, among other things, to allow pension plans to conform to the new Income Tax Act definition as required by three recent court cases. Including "domestic partner" in the definition would again force British Columbia pension plans to be inconsistent with the Income Tax Act definition and would therefore make them vulnerable to revocation of their tax status. That's our advice, and therefore. . . . As I say, there are other reasons. I'm not going to pretend that that's the only one, but I think that's the most compelling reason why we will not accept the amendment and subsequent ones listed on the order paper.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's reference to the Income Tax Act. It seems to me that the relationship between what the province does in entitlement legislation, if I can call it that, and the Income Tax Act of Canada is going to be a continuing question for the government as it examines the discrimination issue -- the equality issue -- in the context of other provincial legislation. I omitted it from the questioning leading up to moving the amendment because it is quite a technical issue. I was interested in the interprovincial issue in section 4, and I did think it was important to pursue that.

This government, in respect of some of the other aspects of the issue before us -- which I'm certain I can anticipate the minister's views on -- has not in the past hesitated much in stepping out and breaking new ground, even where the consequence is that British Columbia might, for example, be offside, if you will, the Income Tax Act in respect of one particular issue. I acknowledge the force of the minister's answer to the motion, but I am of the view that the public policy purposes behind our proposed amendment outweigh the objection raised by the minister, and therefore I continue to pursue the amendment.

I want to acknowledge, though, the minister's comments and certainly say that that is a legitimate consideration in the context of this issue. But I think the amendment nonetheless commends itself, and I've said just about all there can be said in support of it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the tone and the arguments the member presented. Clearly, on this one, we simply agree to disagree.

Amendment to section 1 of Bill 58 negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 29
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Coell	Chong
Sanders	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	Penner	J. Wilson
McKinnon	J. Reid	Dalton
Barisoff	van Dongen	Symons
Thorpe	Krueger	Stephens
Coleman	Hawkins	Hogg
Nebbeling		Weisbeck
NAYS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Sihota	Lovick	Farnworth
Waddell	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht	Goodacre	Janssen

R. Thorpe: I'm going to ask the minister's indulgence here, in the interest of trying to understand these things as best we can. In looking at the definitions and adding definitions, I note that a government commitment announced jointly by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Small Business and Tourism seems to be missing from the definitions added to this bill. I thought it was the government's intention to do this as they move forward. So I'd just like to ask: why was the definition of "business lens for regulatory change" not added to this bill, as it was the undertaking of the government to do this session with bills?

Hon. D. Lovick: I guess the short answer is that we don't see any need to, given the nature of this bill and what it intends to do. Indeed, a good part of the animus for the bill is to increase efficiencies and to achieve some streamlining. Frankly, there doesn't seem to be a reason to do beyond that. If the member wants to offer something, I would certainly be prepared to listen, but I have no idea why we would do so.

R. Thorpe: I guess why I thought it might be added was that in the March 26 release of the government, they said that although legislation is needed to implement it, the government would "begin immediately to act in the spirit and the intent of the new approach." One of the key criteria in that new approach was to demonstrate that meaningful consultation with stakeholders has occurred. In watching this debate unfold and being advised by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson, it appears to me that some stakeholder groups have not participated in the meaningful consultation. I just wonder if I could have the minister's comments on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: There was indeed extensive consultation on this bill. The council is a representative body representing expertise in the industry. As well, the profession of actuaries in the province were certainly directly involved in this. I put on the record a couple of times, I think, just what that consultation was, and the member may want to review the record and find that out.

[1115]

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have 31 grade 6 students from Assumption School in Poco, accompanied by their parents and their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding, and I will. . . . I'm sorry that I haven't been here for all the debate. As the Chair

[ Page 13492 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, as I already suggested to the member, the council itself is a representative body. By definition, it consults with its members and speaks on behalf of its members -- the people whom it represents. That's the first point.

Second, there was indeed significant exposure to this bill. I would remind the member that the amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act were part of an earlier bill. Bill 44? No, I'm sorry, that's particularly section 48, I guess. So I retract that one. Rather, there were a number of speeches and papers given. The superintendent of pensions, Ms. Miller, has given a number of presentations and talks vis-à-vis the subject. The discussions surrounding pension benefits standards in this province have indeed been very much part of the professional ferment and discussion going on for at least a year -- more like a couple of years. So there are no surprises to any professionals in the industry. They all know about those, and indeed, as I say, the council has given its enthusiastic endorsement of the changes. So it isn't as if there is some surprise out there -- some radical changes that caught people by surprise. Indeed, this has been well known among the professionals, and the professionals have supported it.

R. Thorpe: I'll just make two comments on the business lens and the commitment that the government had made. That couldn't have been part of the consultations, because the government only announced that on March 26, 1999. So that couldn't have been part of the consultation process -- or, at least, it would have been at the very end of the consultation process. So I have a concern there.

Also, the minister made reference several times in his last statement to the professionals. My concern is not about the professionals; my concern is about the affected workers and the affected businesses. Perhaps the minister could share his thoughts with me on this. How do the minister and the staff have comfort that those groups that had the responsibility to consult with their constituents, whoever they may be, had meaningful consultation with those employees that are going to be most adversely affected by these changes?

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me make two points. The first one is that the council which I have referred to does indeed represent those who are members of the pension plans -- those who receive pensions as well. So it isn't simply a matter of the professionals talking to themselves. Rather, they represent those people, and those people are part of it, in effect.

[1120]

R. Thorpe: I'm almost in shock that I would receive such a compliment from the member.

I did, hon. Chair, if you remember, I ask the minister's indulgence, because it wasn't in here. I just want to say -- and I appreciate the minister giving me that opportunity to ask the question. . . . My question originally was: why isn't it. . . ? I believe the minister said that he doesn't think there are significant changes to require the government to live up to the commitment it made in spirit and intent.

I guess I would just offer. . . . Perhaps the minister would want to comment on it, and then we can move along. I have been led to believe by the people I've talked with that they do believe it's significant, and they do wish that the government had put in this definition and that we could move on in that spirit. So perhaps what we'll have to do is discuss that at appropriate times in the bill. That was my intent, and that's why I raised it under the definitions.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might go back to take a look at section 1(b), which the member for Kamloops-North Thompson took a look at earlier. It's the removal of the words "adequate" and "appropriate" that he asked about, and I would like to just ask the minister, basically, that those words, I think. . . . A few moments ago my colleague here used the word "comfort." I think those words in there tend to give to those on pension, those about to go on pension and those contributing to pension plans some comfort that the program they are participating in is going to be adequate and appropriate. By removing those words, I think you may be removing that comfort they can feel about their pension plan. Would it hurt some eternal plan, in spite of the fact that the Canadian Institute of Actuaries has taken it out of theirs, if we were to leave those words in ours? Would it hurt some eternal plan to leave those words in, to add that comfort to those pensioners and potential pensioners?

Hon. D. Lovick: Our intention is consistency. I have said that from the beginning. Indeed, the recommendation of the council is about consistency, at least in large measure.

I would also make the point that we had been proceeding sequentially. We have gone 1(b),(c) and (d) and if we're going to start going back and forth harum-scarum and in a random way, then I would like to know that before we proceed further.

D. Symons: We are indeed still in section 1, and I didn't note that there was any agreement to do them seriatim. Well, we're going back and forth a little bit, then.

Just carrying on with that, though, basically there's the concept of commuted value in a pension plan -- basically the value that that plan, at any given time, would buy a market life annuity. . . . If you tie those rates in, you begin to determine whether your pension plan is on a solid footing or not. It would seem, by taking out these words "adequate" and "appropriate," that you're really indicating that there is an investment risk and maybe substantial risk on the part of the participants in these programs. So I'm still back at those two particular words. Maybe the Canadian Institute of Actuaries is saying that all pension plans have a risk inherent in them, but the minister, by removing them, seems to be consistent and seems to be substantiating that indeed these people are participating in an investment risk when they're taking part in these pension plans.

Hon. D. Lovick: That is not correct. Also, I have answered this question already.

[ Page 13493 ]

[1125]

Subsection (e). I would like the minister to explain this amendment.

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the point that the member's making. He's absolutely right. You know, everybody does indeed have a right to understand precisely what we're doing here. My job is to explain that to the members' satisfaction. My only concern is that we proceed in -- dare I say -- a more formal and logical manner, so we don't go to point 6 and then go back to point 3. If we understand each other on that, there will be no problems.

To the member's particular question as to 1(e), it's a consequential amendment. In effect, what we're talking about here is section 26(2) of the public Pension Benefits Standards Act being repealed under section 14 of the bill subsequently. Therefore that particular section is no longer appropriate.

K. Krueger: I'm not going to do this for every section, but subsection (f) also. . . . I would like the minister to provide an explanation.

Hon. D. Lovick: This amends the definition of termination of membership. The amendment corrects cross-references respecting the transfer of the commuted value of a pension.

K. Krueger: This issue -- the repeal of section 26(2) or the striking out of that section -- I would rather deal with in section 14. But I don't want to find out then that I should have dealt with it under the next item, item (g). I would like the minister if he would, please, to expand on the full rationale for striking out section 26(2).

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is that 26(2) is no longer needed, because of the new vesting rule.

K. Krueger: With the Chair's indulgence, I want to give my colleagues a moment to consider whether they have questions, because I propose to move right on down to item (k). Looking around me, I see no inquirers. So I would like to deal with item (k). This is a brand-new term; it didn't exist in the act that we are amending. Perhaps we could just start off with a global explanation from the minister of the necessity for this term and what it's all about.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. The one-word answer to the question is consistency. The new definition is required to accommodate the new vesting rule that I referred to earlier, which came into effect on January 1, 1998.

K. Krueger: Is the change then seen as a universal benefit to pensioners? Are there any pensioners or potential pensioners -- contributors to pension plans -- that will be hurt by this change, by the addition of this term in this definition?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no.

[1130]

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no.

K. Krueger: In 1997 an organization known as Shasta Consulting Group published a report with regard to. . . . It's called "Report on Pension Benefits for Employees of Highway Constructors Ltd." It's dated February 28, 1997, as a publication. It would take a great deal of the House's time to go through it in detail. But the thrust of the report is that under the provisions of the Highway Constructors Ltd. model which at that time, the public had been assured, would only be used on the mid-Island Highway and which since has been expanded greatly. . . . There are major projects underway in my own constituency under the HCL model. There have been various announcements -- most recently the announcement that the HCL model was expanded to the whole Trans-Canada Highway from Cache Creek to the Rockies, impacting a lot of day-labour contractors. Everybody's having to get involved with HCL, in spite of that early assurance. SkyTrain is another HCL project. The HOV lanes in Vancouver, I believe, were another HCL project. So this thing has become huge -- far bigger than the mid-Island Highway.

Shasta Consulting Group, in this report, came to a conclusion that at least 45 percent of the people working on HCL-model projects were going to be disenfranchised -- that they would never be able to collect anything from the pension funds into which a portion of their salaries and benefits were being funnelled. That was a concern to him. He published the report, and it received some publicity at the time -- and, of course, some negative reaction from the public. At that time there was a substantial amount being contributed to, essentially, union pension funds, as I understand it. For every hour that HCL workers worked on HCL projects, I think it was over $2.50 per hour at the time. Now the amount is $3.05, I believe, and perhaps the minister could confirm that.

So for every hour that a worker puts in on an HCL project around British Columbia -- and there are a lot of them; there are more announced all the time -- we believe that the HCL model substantially inflates the cost of public infrastructure and therefore the cost to the taxpayers' pocket. But for every hour, as I understand it, an additional $3.05 is funnelled by this government into the pension development fund and, as I understand it, finds its way into the various unions' pension funds.

Shasta Consulting said that 45 percent of the people who are doing this work are never going to be able to claim a pension from it. They believe that is wrong. In the bigger picture, there is this evolution taking place -- across our country and perhaps around the world -- where organizations, employers and employees seem to be moving from defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans. Not

[ Page 13494 ]

All of that is just for context, because while that debate goes on around us. . . . And obviously many of us hardly ever think about these things, especially if we're far from retirement, and other people think about them all the time, including what I've referred to a number of times already in these debates as the pension industry. While that debate is going on, here are the HCL workers, apparently -- at least 45 percent of them, according to this report -- who will never get either a defined-benefit plan or a defined-contribution plan.

[1135]

So I'd like the minister to comment on whether there was ever, in his view or the view of any of his advisers, any indication by this government that it intended to provide for immediate vesting in multi-employer plans in general or the HCL-model employees in particular.

Hon. D. Lovick: There was no intention at all nor, as far as I can guess -- as much as it's in my capacity to say so -- would there ever be. We covered this ground earlier in second reading debate a little bit, and that doesn't mean that the member isn't perfectly legit in raising the questions. However, I think there is some obligation on his part to acknowledge the answers he received.

We said very clearly that the consultant's report which he refers to -- which is, as far as I know, the only report ever written and the only argument that has ever been offered against this legislation -- is by one person, one consultant. That report has effectively been repudiated. It has been discredited; it has been denied. The superintendent of pensions has said very clearly, and I quote. . . . I believe the member has received this correspondence.

The superintendent of pensions wrote in a letter dated April 30, 1997: "The [Shasta] report concludes that pension plans are unlikely to deliver pension benefits to employees who were not affiliated with a council union before their date of hire with HCL. For the reasons set out above" -- in other words, the letter, which again was shared with the member opposite -- "it is our view that this finding of the report is fundamentally incorrect." Moreover, the superintendent says: "Please contact me. . .if you wish to discuss this matter further."

We can't make it more clear than that. The superintendent has analyzed that report. She has come to the conclusion that it is fundamentally incorrect. Moreover, it's worth noting that even if what the Shasta report author was contending about needing the 350 hours to be vested and whether that would have a negative impact on HCL workers, the evidence is not true. The reality is that most workers worked for 752 hours or more. They were required to be vested at least 350 hours in each of the two years. Most workers for the HCL project were therefore vested and indeed, even under the new rules, would be vested. So the notion, then, that somehow something untoward is happening and that 45 percent of workers are not going to collect pensions is absolute, utter and arrant nonsense.

Quite frankly, I'm offended that even though that has been said as a matter of public record, even though the superintendent has staked her reputation and the integrity of her office on that declaration, we nevertheless are hearing similar kinds of comments here. I don't think, frankly, that is responsible.

K. Krueger: What the minister is hearing, of course, are questions -- perfectly legitimate questions -- in committee-stage debate on a bill amending the Pension Benefits Standards Act. What more legitimate forum is there to ask these questions?

[1140]

She also wrote a letter on April 30, 1997, to Mr. Neil J. Roos of the Christian Labour Association of Canada, where she concedes this: "The worker in the first example will not become vested, since the member will have less than 350 hours of pensionable service in the 1996 and 1997 plan years. Most pension plans in British Columbia, both multi- and single-employer, would not provide vesting to an individual who worked less than 350 hours."

For the record, the first example to which the superintendent is referring was the example that she was using in this letter. It says: "(1) Worker A participated in the carpentry workers of British Columbia pension plan for a total of 328 hours in 1996. No further hours of pensionable service were credited." That is the example she was referring to.

So the superintendent is agreeing that workers whose wages include a contribution to a multi-employer plan and who get less than 350 hours of work in a year under that model. . . . Certainly one would hope they have a lot of hours

[ Page 13495 ]

That was April 30, 1997. More than two years have passed. The government that committed that the HCL model would not be expanded beyond the mid-Island Highway has expanded it throughout British Columbia. So there are many workers involved in this process and caught up with the problems which will flow from this.

I talked a little bit earlier about the move from defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans. I wonder why it doesn't seem to have occurred to the government -- or at least nothing appears to have been done -- to deal with this inequity. Even by the superintendent's quote from the first letter, where she said most HCL employees will be vested in their pensions, obviously the rest of them won't be. If they won't be vested in their pensions, but the money is flowing in a massive way -- this pipeline has been expanded greatly -- the money's flowing from the taxpayer base somewhere -- millions and millions of dollars. It's going somewhere. But these workers who are earning that benefit won't be entitled. It doesn't seem like a great stretch to address that, perhaps through some provision for RRSPs, through defined-contribution plans. It doesn't seem like a terribly difficult thing to address that.

But there we have it. It's been on record for more than two year. The minister gets annoyed that we ask about it, which I think is patently unreasonable. British Columbians are very concerned about the HCL model. British Columbians and the official opposition believe that it is vastly inflating public expenditures on infrastructure. A big chunk of that money is being skimmed off -- or slushed off, as the 1997 report says -- to somewhere else. In many cases, it's not going to the benefit of the workers who are working on those HCL projects.

The HCL model is constantly promoted by the Highways minister and others as one that emphasizes local hire. Many HCL projects, certainly the day labour projects that have been in the news for the last number of weeks, are of a relatively short duration. The employees who work on those projects, local hires -- many of them probably will never get 350 hours in a year. They'll go in and out of the HCL model, back and forth to other types of employment. Their group of employees and their contractor may work on one portion of a highway project.

If the minister understands what day labour is, it is called day labour for a reason. It may only be a matter of a few days. But these workers are being paid under the HCL model with public money. For every hour that they're paid, $3.05 is supposed to go to pensions, obviously for them. What other intent would be fairer than for the amount that's going into pensions to go to the people who are doing the work?

[1145]

The health and welfare benefits may be a different matter; they appear to be. But the pension benefits. . . . This HCL model is a problem. It's tied right into this definition of "years of continuous plan membership." It's a brand-new definition. If you look at the 1997 Shasta report and this definition, you could easily believe that this definition was written to disenfranchise those people. I see that the minister is anxious to make a comment, and I invite him to do so.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me start with something conciliatory. If the member truly believes that, as he says, big chunks of money are being skimmed off, I invite him to meet with the superintendent and present to us any evidence he has whatsoever to support that claim. I give him my assurance that we will investigate to the full extent of the law to ensure that it is not happening. I am, frankly. . . . That's the conciliatory part.

Alas, in the name of asking questions, this member has in the past made other outrageous claims which have been proven to be absolutely baseless. I am responding with a little trepidation in offering to be helpful, when I know that this may well be as foolish and unsubstantiated as certain other claims made in this House by that member. Let me remind him that our evidence is that of people who work for HCL, the preponderant majority did indeed vest. Therefore the notion of millions of dollars being paid into pension funds never being claimed is, frankly, ludicrous. That's point No. 1.

Point No. 2. People who went to work for HCL, remember, got an opportunity to buy into a pension plan and actually get some pension entitlement. Many of those people would otherwise never have any opportunity to be part of a pension plan. That's one of the things that HCL made possible. HCL also paid a higher wage than many of those workers would otherwise have ever received. That's something, again, in defence of it. I guess my point is that there is no evidence whatsoever of anything untoward happening. There is no evidence at all that large numbers of people paid into that pension fund and in fact never got to qualify; rather, the opposite is true.

On that basis, I therefore say that I am having difficulty being entirely diplomatic and as civil as I would wish and as ought to be the norm in this chamber. I have listened too many times to statements made from that side of the House -- particularly by that member -- that are, quite frankly, exaggerated and without foundation.

G. Janssen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: Joining us today from the beautiful Alberni valley are 27 grades 4 and 5 visitors, five adults and their teacher, Ms. L. Taylor, from Cherry Creek Elementary School. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

[1150]

[ Page 13496 ]

We find that if you're going to work 350 hours of employment in order to become vested two years in succession -- you must do that -- you will have to work for approximately three months in order to become vested. Quite often, in the day-labour aspect of it, they will not be working 350 hours in a given year under this particular plan. The people who work day labour are often self-employed -- small companies, often not unionized. These particular people are being asked -- or forced, I should say. . . . In order to become employees on a highway project that's going through their neighborhood, they must register with HCL. Therefore, when they're registered with HCL, they will be able to access the jobs that are there. Once they do that, then, they are going to have -- not deducted from their wages; it's a separate one paid by HCL. . . . But it's paid on behalf of that particular employee, in lieu of higher wages, into a pension plan. Those dollars that are going into that pension plan will not necessarily go to that individual.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Day-labour HCL. . . ? The minister's going to tell me -- I hope he's going to tell me -- that the day-labour people, then, are not contributing to a pension plan, that there's not money going into a pension plan under their employment arrangement and that $3 an hour is not going there. I hope that's right and you'll get into it, because that will cover one aspect of what I'm going to ask. If he responds positively that it's not part of it, that's good.

The other part, of course, is that there are still employees that are not under the day-labour arrangement -- I think a lesser number -- who would possibly still not have the opportunity of three months of a year on the Highways project to be able to have employment under this HCL model, and therefore they will go back to the other job they had prior to being on HCL.

I would agree with the minister, who said a moment ago that here they have a chance under this model to invest in a pension plan and here they have a fairly high labour rate paid to them. That's very good for the employees. But I'm only looking at, not those other -- and they are pluses, I will admit, for the length of time they're working. . . .

Unfortunately, not all of the jobs on a highway construction project are long-term. Most of them are very short-term, for the particular section of the highway that their employer has managed to win a contract for. Even though the employer might be working on a project for six months, there are various aspects of that employer's job that involve different employees for different parts of it. Therefore the length of employment for any given employee may not be the full length of time that the contractor is working on that project.

I have concerns that there are employees who will not. Rather than have it go immediately into various pension plans, why not have that money held in trust, shall we say, for the length of time that the employee is working, until they have achieved that vested time where they can get it from a given union pension plan -- one of these multi-employer plans? Why not have it held in trust? Therefore it could go either to a plan of the employee's choice, if he doesn't manage to get that magic 350 hours, or into an RSP under that person's name. That particular employee would then be assured of receiving the benefits for which he was working and that money was going into some sort of pension that at least the employee thought it would be, and he would be able to tap into it sometime in the future.

[1155]

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your reference to the clock. We will indeed come back and answer the questions in some detail and, I hope, give the member some comfort thereby.

I would just point out one small matter -- namely, that in an HCL contract, in that plan and indeed in pension plans of the multi-employer variety, employees do not pay in. They do not make payment; rather, the employer does. The employer pays on behalf of all the workers. That's the basic structure.

In any event, we'll return to this matter and, I hope, give some comfort to the members opposite. With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:13 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

[ Page 13497 ]

Back almost a year ago, on April 21, 1998, the mayor of Kelowna wrote to the minister. This is an initiative, I should point out, that the regional health board, local government, leadership in the community, Crossroads. . . . There are a whole variety of organizations that have come in to support this initiative. It's interesting that the Kelowna city council passed a resolution. If I can read it into the record.

The mayor did write to the minister on April 21. The resolution reads like this:

"Whereas statistics show that almost all break-and-enters and family violence crimes are from people with alcohol or drug dependencies, and 25 percent of hospital admissions and in-patients can be attributed to an illness related to alcohol or drug abuse;

"And whereas the severity of the problem is magnified each year by the rapidly growing population in the central Okanagan;

"And whereas through the regional health board it has been determined that there is regional support for the establishment of a detoxification facility headquartered in Kelowna;

"Therefore be it resolved that the member municipalities of the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Association be encouraged to participate in a broadly based campaign to demonstrate political and community support throughout the service region for a regional detoxification centre in the city of Kelowna."

I wrote to the minister, because I do support, and I know there is a great need for, that service in our region. The minister did respond to my letter. Back on October 21 she did write again: "I agree that there is an increasing need for detoxification services in your region as well as the province. We certainly realize that services are lacking across the province." The closest detox for our community people is in Kamloops, and it services a huge area, so the need is much greater than the services that are being provided.

[1015]

The apartment building beside Crossroads has been rezoned. They have started major renovations, and what they are now asking the minister is. . . . They understand that there was either a verbal commitment or some form of commitment for funding to come through, and as far as today there is no new information. We're just wondering what the status of this service is as far as the ministry is concerned. How soon will Crossroads and the city of Kelowna find out if the ministry is committed to providing detox services for the central Okanagan?

Hon. L. Boone: We're very hopeful that we will have announcements coming out within a month on the adults alcohol and drug commitments.

S. Hawkins: Is Crossroads, or a Kelowna one, one of those being considered?

Hon. L. Boone: Nice try. I can't pre-announce it. We will be making those decisions and those announcements within a month.

S. Hawkins: We will look forward to that announcement, since the community has been working more than 20 years on this, and we know that there is a great need. The community has expanded. The population has increased quite a bit in the last ten years even. The problem has quite an impact on the hospital and certainly other services in the region. It is something, as I pointed out, that the local government, community groups, community leaders and regional health board all have set as a priority. So we look forward to the minister's announcement.

I believe that my colleague from Okanagan East has a question as well.

J. Weisbeck: It was my understanding that the regional health board has already set aside funds for this detox centre. So I don't understand why the decision to determine whether or not this centre will be opening is taking so long. Obviously the funds are in place.

[1020]

S. Hawkins: I wrote a letter to the minister; I believe it was April 28. She did respond to me by letter on May 11. In the letter that the minister sent to me, it did say that she would have the information to me in a couple of weeks. I know that announcements get delayed. I hope that the announcement will be forthcoming within the next month, because of the major investments that are being made here and the commitments that the city and regional health board, as my colleague pointed out, are making. It does become difficult when these things get delayed. The service is direly needed; I know that the minister understands that.

If I can move on, I have some questions regarding gambling addiction, and I think that falls within the minister's purview. I'm just wondering if the minister can tell us how many FTEs the ministry has working on gambling addiction issues in the province and where these FTEs are located.

Hon. L. Boone: Eight full-time-equivalent specialist positions have been distributed across the regions to focus on youth, aboriginal and multicultural clients. Two provincial consultants have also been placed at agency level to provide provincewide advice on problem gambling services for women and seniors.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister be more specific on where those FTEs are located in the province?

[ Page 13498 ]

S. Hawkins: I look forward to getting that information from the minister. Can the minister tell me how many gambling addiction centres B.C. has?

[1025]

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me if there are beds available for gambling addicts and, if there are, how many beds are allotted to deal exclusively with gambling addiction?

Hon. L. Boone: There are no beds available. This is all done on an out-patient basis.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister also tell me what the statistics are for gambling addiction in the province and how many British Columbians received gambling addiction services from her ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year 1,500 received services from the ministry.

S. Hawkins: Does the minister collect statistics? What are the statistics generally for this province, then, that they are relying on, with the expansion in gambling that the province has undertaken?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what statistics you're looking for, so if you would like to be more specific. . . .

S. Hawkins: Studies have been done. It does show that in the gambling population, so many -- a certain percentage -- will have to receive treatment or will go into the realm of gamblers that get addicted and need treatment. So when the minister is doing her budget and looking at services that need to be provided, I'm wondering what statistics she's relying on. Does she have numbers that she uses to decide how much money she's going to put aside to treat so many people? What kind of statistics is the ministry using to decide that?

Hon. L. Boone: Again, I'm not quite sure what the statistics are that the member is looking for, because this 1-888 number has only been in existence for. . . . I think it was started last year. So we don't have statistics in terms of increases in the number of calls, etc. We have no wait-lists. I can tell you that the ratio of adults who have never gambled has dropped from 1 in 3 to 1 in 7. You know, I'm not sure if those are the type of statistics you're looking for. Pathological gambling is found less often among people over 65 and in households with annual incomes over $100,000.

I'm not quite sure what it is that you are looking for in terms of statistics, but we've only had the 1-888 number and the counselling, etc., in operation for a year, so it's a little hard for us to get statistics in terms of increasing numbers of calls or any of those things.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me how many people use the 1-888 number? How many calls have they tagged?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, 1,500.

S. Hawkins: The minister told me that 1,500 people received gambling addiction services. Is she telling me every call is a service that was received? Is that what she is telling me?

[1030]

S. Hawkins: I'm interested in how the minister develops her budget for gambling addiction. I'm interested in how the minister develops her budget for gambling addicts. On what basis does she decide that so much money should be allocated? Is it just a number that somebody in the ministry pulls out of their head, or do they use statistics?

With so many people gambling, there's going to be so many that might need help, so we need to allocate so much. Because we've looked at other provinces, at what they do. . . . You know, they provide it through their Health ministry or whatever. What is the budget for gambling addiction in this province? How does the minister come up with that figure?

Hon. L. Boone: The original budget -- which is the same budget we have this year -- was $2 million. That was worked out in conjunction with lotteries -- based on the gambling that was taking place at the time and working with our regions and regional allocations -- based on the information that they had on the numbers that were coming to them.

We're re-evaluating that this year to determine if there's been any increase in gambling, but so far the $2 million has met our need. We have no wait lists. We have not had a tremendous amount of people calling for our services, saying that they need them. So we will be determining that -- as I said, re-evaluating it -- based on increases in gaming.

S. Hawkins: The number the minister gave me -- 1,500 people that received addiction services. . . . Has that increased or decreased from previous years? Does the minister have statistics -- say, from the last two or three years -- to show us if that's been an increasing or decreasing number?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, this was the first year that we've had the services.

S. Hawkins: Okay, we'll track that next year.

Does this ministry view gambling as a separate form of addiction? Does it require different methods than drug and alcohol addiction, or is it being treated the same as other addictions?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it is different.

S. Hawkins: What different levels of services are available to addicts and their families?

[ Page 13499 ]

[1035]

S. Hawkins: Yes, we would be interested in having a briefing on that. I'm just wondering if the minister can give me an overview of what kinds of services, then, those care providers provide to addicts. Is it mostly counselling, or are there any other kinds of services that are provided?

Hon. L. Boone: It's counselling services.

S. Hawkins: Does the ministry support a family-based approach to treating gambling addiction?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we provide counselling to the family as well.

S. Hawkins: I did not understand that that was the service provided. I understood that it only funded individual treatment -- that that's what the ministry funds. So if that's different from what I understand, could the minister clarify that?

Hon. L. Boone: We provide counselling to the affected, who are those individuals surrounding the addict.

S. Hawkins: The minister did say that there are no treatment facilities in the province. That is all done by consultants or the FTEs that were provided. Do these consultants have to meet any kinds of requirements before they can treat addicts? What kinds of criteria are these consultants tested under?

Hon. L. Boone: They have to go through a training program and are evaluated before they are able to provide the services.

S. Hawkins: Who provides the training program?

Hon. L. Boone: It is a contracted agency. We can get the name of that agency for you.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. I'll look forward to that.

On an annual basis, does the government pay for British Columbians to be treated outside the province for gambling addiction and treatment?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we do the counselling. We have found that the services we are providing here, through the 1-888 number and the regional counselling services, have adequately met our needs.

S. Hawkins: My understanding is that there is absolutely no British Columbian that is referred outside the province for treatment. If that's different, I'll get an answer from the minister.

How will the ministry determine if gambling addiction prevention and treatment services are working?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be evaluating it to see if there are repeat clients. As I said, we're evaluating it to see if there's any increase. I just want to qualify what we've said. To the best of our knowledge, there haven't been individuals referred outside the province. There may be people that go on their own, but to the best of our knowledge, we haven't referred people outside.

S. Hawkins: Is there an evaluation process that the minister has set up to show that what they're doing is actually going to help people? If the minister has that evaluation process, can she tell me how often they're evaluating and what kinds of outcome measurements they're looking for?

[1040]

S. Hawkins: There are other jurisdictions that obviously have the expertise, because they have had the casinos and have had the expansion longer than we have here. So what jurisdictions is the minister consulting with to see what they're doing to help addicts, what kind of money they spend, what kind of services and programs they provide and what kind of evaluation processes they're going through? Is the ministry looking at other jurisdictions to get that information?

Hon. L. Boone: We designed our program on the federal-provincial-territorial working group's, working with them. We used other research information from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. So we've worked closely with other jurisdictions. It's important that we note that we have one of the lowest amounts of gambling in the country. Certainly there are other jurisdictions that have a much higher level of gambling and a much larger problem than we have, so we've got a lot to learn from them.

S. Hawkins: I was interested before, when I was asking earlier, how the minister came up with the $2 million number. I was asking about statistics or reports, or where she was looking to get that money, and she said that came from B.C. Lotteries. If you are looking at other jurisdictions and trying to learn from them, where do we compare in how many gamblers they have and we have, and the addiction problems? Where do we compare with the spending? If you're looking at them and looking at the budget we provide across Canada -- let's just use Canada as an example -- where do we stand with the amount of money we provide for gambling addiction services?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't have that information here. I'd have to get that information for you.

[ Page 13500 ]

[1045]

S. Hawkins: With respect to advertising, the minister is quite concerned -- has a great degree of concern, I'm sure -- that the government's gaming policies don't lead to higher numbers of addicts in the province. I'm wondering what advertising standards her ministry has established to ensure that the promotion of gambling doesn't lead to higher addiction rates. Does the ministry get involved in that, and do they have standards at all?

Hon. L. Boone: We're involved in the prevention and the counselling. We do not get involved in what they're allowed to advertise. It would be the ministry responsible for the gaming activities which would determine that through regulation or laws or whatever. You'd have to ask him about that.

S. Hawkins: I will. Does the minister feel that advertising targeted at the group that gambles. . . ? There are people that are vulnerable. Is the minister not concerned, or does she feel that it's not an issue for her ministry to tackle?

Hon. L. Boone: We're always concerned about people who have addictions. We will be working very closely with the minister responsible on some of these issues. Our responsibility is in terms of the addictions and providing supports, etc. But it is not our responsibility to regulate that industry.

S. Hawkins: I find that interesting. I hope the minister feels that her ministry has some responsibility for checks and balances. If she's dealing with the addiction part. . . . I don't think that it's in a box on its own, with what's going on with the rest of the gaming policies. I would hope that the ministry would have some input to ensure that responsible promotion of gaming was going on and that her ministry wasn't just responsible for handling more and more of the addicts because another ministry felt that it was necessary to expand advertising or expand gaming or whatever. I'm hoping the ministers talk to each other.

How does the ministry interact with the Gaming Commission and the Lottery Corporation in order to ensure that gambling addiction is minimized?

Hon. L. Boone: We do have a close working relationship with the Lottery Corporation and the Gaming Commission. They helped us design the program.

In answer to what the member said previously, I indicated to you that I would and I do consult with the minister, but it is his responsibility to regulate. It is not our responsibility, but we will certainly work very closely with him to try and minimize any of the effects of gaming policies.

[1050]

Hon. L. Boone: It's kind of a strange question. Like all governments, we do meetings. We do e-mails, faxes and telephone conversations. I expect we even do lunches now and then. We take every opportunity we can to communicate with them, depending what the situation may be, so that we can tell them what the effects of our programs are and share some of the statistics that we've got. If there's a concern that we have, we may let them know about it, but right now, as I said, we've only just had this program up and going for a year. Clearly, if we saw something happening, we would share that information with them.

S. Hawkins: I was not trying to make light of the kinds of communications that go back. . . . I don't think it should be fast and loose.

I was hoping, because the program's been in place for a year and because -- and I think this is very, very important -- there is great concern in communities that have felt the impact of massive expansion, that the minister would have some kind of vehicle in place. Perhaps it would be a committee of the Lottery Corporation, the Gaming Commission and her ministry that met on a regular basis and liaised and talked about the problems with what the government was doing with this policy here and how it was impacting on addictions and addiction services there. Obviously that doesn't seem to be the case.

When we talk about governments providing programs and setting policy, we also hope that the governments are looking at ways to make their programs. . . . You're dumping money into a program; we're hoping those people are accountable for what they're doing. And we're hoping there are measurements along the way so that we can see some positive outcomes. Obviously, if you're spending $2 million here, we want to make sure that the $2 million was spent wisely and that the outcome was that addicts were serviced well and treated adequately.

So those are the kinds of questions I'm asking; these are accountability questions. Having a luncheon, a meeting, an e-mail or a telephone call is fine, but what I was hoping for was an answer that said: "Yes, we have a committee. We've set some goals. We've got some objectives. We're looking for these measurements between the Gaming Commission, the Lottery Corporation and the Ministry for Children and Families, which is now responsible for spending $2 million to service gaming addicts." But that doesn't seem to be the case. Hopefully, the minister will take the comments from this member and perhaps set up a committee that does liaise between those groups.

How is the minister going to monitor gambling addiction rates in this province? She said she was planning to do it. . . . They're counting so many phone calls on the addict line. They're looking at the contracts that are let and how many people they're treating, but does the ministry have a plan for monitoring gambling addiction, and how does she plan to do this?

[1055]

[ Page 13501 ]

S. Hawkins: Now that casinos are open around the province, can the minister tell me what information casinos are required to provide regarding gambling addiction?

Hon. L. Boone: They have to advertise the addiction number, but they don't have to provide any statistics to us. They have, of course, no idea at all as to the number of people that are addicted.

S. Hawkins: Does the minister feel that that's adequate, and does she have any concerns that it's not enough -- that the casinos aren't doing enough for gambling addiction?

Hon. L. Boone: Not at this point in time.

S. Hawkins: Has the ministry considered introducing a self-exclusion policy that allows gambling addicts to ban themselves from gaming establishments? Has that ever come up?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we currently don't have that, but we are evaluating the program, and that may be one of the things that is considered.

S. Hawkins: Are there any plans that the ministry has to conduct any analysis for gambling addiction in discrete groups, such as youth, first nations, the Asian community or any others?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister elaborate on those, please?

[1100]

S. Hawkins: Has the ministry decided how they're going to conduct those studies? Is it going to be by interviews? Is it going to be by polling? Or is it just in the plans to do something?

Hon. L. Boone: We're still developing that.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister will commit to letting this member know how those plans are developing and what kind of studies are being conducted, once the ministry has decided and has embarked down that course.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I will.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. Getting back to casinos for just one moment, has the ministry established any policies for ensuring that casinos limit gambling addictions, other than just having them post the 1-888 number? The minister tells me that they're thinking of policies like the self-exclusion policies. Is there anything else that the ministry is looking at to help casinos deal with that problem?

Hon. L. Boone: That's one of the reasons why we have added new resources: to look into policy development to determine what we can. . . . At this particular time, we don't have anything definitive that I can give to you. As I said, it's only been up and running for a year. We've now added new positions to look at, to evaluate and to determine if there are other areas that we should be doing.

S. Hawkins: Are those new positions over and above the eight service positions and the two contract positions? If they are over and above, can the minister just outline quickly those new positions -- how many they are and how much they're planning to spend on them?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. Three new positions have been developed and have been added to the policy division to determine what we should be doing in the future if our program is working, to do interministerial work -- all of those various things that the member's been talking about.

S. Hawkins: One final question: when the proposals were being assessed by her cabinet and the minister responsible, did the minister offer any suggestions on how to evaluate casino proposals to ensure that gambling addiction is limited?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we were not involved in the casino proposals at all.

B. McKinnon: I would like to ask the minister some questions that some constituents have given to me, in the drug and alcohol area. The first question is. . . .

"Addicts in recovery funded by social assistance are expected to receive the care needed in recovery houses for $14.50 per day. The actual cost to provide adequate housing, counselling and nutritional requirements is approximately $45 a day. If any of these factors is missing at the recovery level, the addict's chance for recovery and reintegration into the community is jeopardized. Why doesn't the government consider abstinence-based recovery a viable option for recovery dollars?" -- whatever that means?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, abstinence is a viable option. So I'm not quite sure. . . . The answer to that question is: yes, abstinence is a viable option.

[1105]

"Methadone is necessary for some clientele but not for all clientele and should not be administered where abstinene clients also reside, since they are two separate and distinct methods of treatment. Recovery dollars should be made available to facilitate recovery at every level. The workers on the street, safe injection sites, and detox beds for men AND women should be readily available, first-stage recovery houses with available counsellors to deal with the initial issues present at the onset of recovery. . . ."

[ Page 13502 ]

B. McKinnon: I hope that the ministry will get back to me as soon as possible on the questions I gave you about drugs and alcohol, so I can pass the answers on to the person who gave them to me.

Before I go on to youth justice and probation and all that, I have a couple of questions from constituents, again, on special needs children that I promised I would pass on to the ministry. She may have been asked some of these before; I haven't kept track of all the questions.

I understand that the ministry is doing transition planning for students with special needs who will be leaving secondary school and moving on to adult programs. I have heard that students must have a certain amount of independence, such as taking the bus on their own, in order to attend college programs, or else they would be sitting at home with nothing to do. The ministry's answer is: "We have no money." Could the minister please explain to me what exactly the ministry is doing for these older special needs children?

Hon. L. Boone: I certainly recognize that the transition from schools to adult programs is a very difficult one. It's one that we're working on with families and communities, to try to assist them. It's true that we do not have all the resources that are required to assist individuals to make that transition. That is strictly a resource problem. We have put, as of last year, an extra $35 million into the budget. That is one of the reasons why we have asked our partners out there that provide services for us to look within their own budgets, to find some efficiencies so that we can in fact transfer some of those dollars over and provide services to those who are on wait-lists, etc. That's what we're doing. We're working with families. We're working with communities to try and find ways and means that we can assist those families with a very difficult task, once their children come out of school to move into adulthood, whether it be college or what have you. But it is a resource problem that we have, hon. member.

B. McKinnon: Parents have been lobbying since the time their children were born to get their share of available services. They've had to lobby to get their children infant development services and to get into a local preschool, elementary school and secondary school. Parents of special needs children have fought for every hour of teaching assistance their child receives. It goes on and on.

[1120]

Special education teachers write to me, telling me how upsetting it is to watch the stress that these families suffer constantly in their lives and to watch their students blossom in terms of skills learned in secondary school. These years of hard work on the part of the students will be lost if special needs students spend the next year or two sitting at home. These students are amazing in what they can accomplish when given the support they need. They want to contribute to society in a meaningful way. These teachers would like to know if the minister is taking steps to correct the situation.

These children were born in British Columbia and have lived all their lives in British Columbia. The government knows that they are coming up to be 19 years old and that the services need to be available for them, but they are not there for them. The special needs teachers who are working so hard with these students would like to know if there is anything this government is doing on their behalf, because it's really a dreadful situation that the province has brought these special needs children to.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't want to underestimate the stress that is put on families, and I certainly recognize that. But I also don't think you can say that we haven't done anything. Since 1991 to this year, we've increased the budget to the community living sector to $144 million. In the last two years alone, we've put $35 million into this budget. We do support parents, and we do know that parents are under tremendous stress. One of the problems that we as a society have, though, is that we are now able to keep children alive longer -- and that's good. Kids that would have died when they were born 25 years ago are now living, and all of us recognize that. But that is now putting tremendous stress on our systems, as we try to provide services for those families as they go through. . . .

That's why, as I said, we are looking to try and find some efficiencies within the sector so that we can provide services to those who require it right now and who are on wait-lists. I'm hopeful that we are going to be able to work with the entire community living sector to try and make sure that we've got services that we can move across to those that are coming in and turning 19 as well as to those parents who are aging and have those adults at home and need some support now or need to find placements for them. Those are the two real pressure points: those who are turning 19 and those who are at home as adults. We recognize that, and we're doing our best to try and find some dollars within the systems we've got. But clearly increases of $35 million every year are very difficult for governments to sustain.

R. Coleman: I want to advise the minister that I'm going to read into the record a briefing package, basically, on a case. Then when I'm done that, I want to ask some questions relative to investigative techniques, communication, witnesses and examinations done by government. I won't bring the questions back to be personal, relative to this case, but I think it gives me the example that I wish to talk about. It also centres around the phenomenon or the diagnosis of what we call Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I would just like to spend some time on this particular case.

[1125]

Hon. L. Boone: Point of order.

[1130]

[ Page 13503 ]

The Chair: The member will take his seat during the point of order.

Hon. L. Boone: While I'm listening to this, I am concerned that there is very personal medical information about this child being read into the public record here. I would ask the member to cease reading this information into the record.

The Chair: I'm sure that the member will take into consideration the privacy of the individuals and also the freedom-of-information provisions. I would ask the member to please consider those aspects.

R. Coleman: Maybe I could ask for some guidance from the Chair. I do have permission from the mother. I do have a release form from them in my office on this information. The child is presently in the care of the government. I could do it without mentioning the child's name, I'm sure, and complete this, if that's what the Chair would like. I could do it without mentioning the child's name and just say "an individual," if that's what the Chair would prefer. I do believe that in order to get answers to the questions, I have to tell the story. I can reduce the story somewhat if that's necessary.

The Chair: Minister, on a point of order?

Hon. L. Boone: This is a child that is in protection of the court. The government is the guardian of this child at the current time, not the parent. This is also information that is currently before the court.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, it says it is. The information that I have is that it's before the court -- that this is being appealed. I would ask the member. . . .

R. Coleman: No, it's not; I checked yesterday.

Hon. L. Boone: Unfortunately, you may have been able to do that, hon. member -- read that into the record without identifying the child. But you've already done so, and it is there in the public record. So to say that you could read this in without mentioning the child at this point in time is really moot.

The Chair: I would again ask the member to be cognizant of the privacy issues that we are dealing with here this morning and also ask the member to keep the comments relevant to the debate, to vote 21. Also, it has not been usual practice in the past to read lengthy documents into the record during debate. I would ask the member to consider that and to please keep that in mind.

[1135]

The Chair: Does the member wish to put that motion forward?

R. Coleman: Yes.

The Chair: The question is to the motion of striking the name from the record.

Motion approved.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I have the history of a child that has a long history of medical problems and was taken into custody at Children's Hospital for something called Munchausen syndrome by proxy. The information that is provided to the ministry and to the courts is provided on the basis of some areas that I'd like to question relative to evidence. I must say that I find it quite incredible -- even if there was such a difficulty with a parent with Munchausen -- that a parent would not be allowed to see a child at all or to have some kind of supervised visit with the child by agreement, under these circumstances.

The mother involved here was examined by a number of experts in Canada, relative to Munchausen, at a cost to the taxpayer. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me how much money we are spending on psychiatric assessments for Munchausen syndrome by proxy through the ministry on an annual basis.

Hon. L. Boone: Children's Hospital advises us that they've only seen about five in the past 18 years. The psych assessment cost is between $10,000 and $20,000.

R. Coleman: Is the minister aware of Dr. Fisher, one of the top Munchausen experts in Canada?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not.

R. Coleman: Maybe the minister could consult with her people as to whether the ministry has ever received a report from Dr. Fisher -- which I understand cost somewhere in the area of $10,000 to the taxpayer -- that found that no red flags on an individual indicated a psychiatric disorder. Nor did he find any evidence of Munchausen in an individual who had had a child apprehended for Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

[1140]

R. Coleman: I've struck the names from the record, and I am prepared to take the summary I was reading from the record, if that's the minister's wish. I want to know. . . . When the director receives a psychiatric report from a doctor who's supposed to be an expert in a particular field and who identifies the problem or no problem, what accountability does the director have relative to accepting that report -- when it has been commissioned by government and expensed to the taxpayer and when the person is supposed to be an expert in the field and they find that there are no red flags indicating the psychiatric disorder of Munchausen? I'm wondering what responsibility the director has in taking that report on balance to make the decision on apprehension.

Hon. L. Boone: I am concerned, hon. Chair, that the member is violating the rights of this child. He may have struck the name from the record; however, this child is clearly identifiable. It has been in the media. Because of the rarity of

[ Page 13504 ]

R. Coleman: Probably the best solution, because the minister is concerned about a particular file which I am no longer referring to. . . . I do believe I am allowed to ask questions on behalf of a constituent that has had some psychiatric examinations, if I have that release. So what I would like to do before I proceed is move that the record of the summary that I read -- not just the name, but the record of the summary that I started to read into the record -- be struck from the record.

Motion approved.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair. I apologize if my reading was out of line, but I do want to deal with some things that flagged Munchausen syndrome by proxy and how the director of care makes the decisions on the apprehension of a child. I would like to know: if a psychiatric examination is done by an expert in the field and that psychiatric examination is provided to the director of care, what weight does the director of care put on that psychiatric assessment in making a decision that Munchausen syndrome by proxy exists? And what weight does the director of care put on that in making the decision to apprehend a child?

The Chair: Hon. minister, noting the time.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll read into the record the process that the director may follow on these. A very careful and thorough investigation of these difficult and complex cases involving a multidisciplinary approach is required. The director takes into consideration all of those individuals that have been in contact. A specialized pediatric evaluation is essential. A psychiatric evaluation or consultation is recommended. A second expert medical opinion is generally required. Development of a detailed, documented medical history and careful monitoring of in-hospital care. . . . Existing child protection and investigation standards and risk assessments procedures must be followed. The impact of the parental behaviour on the child can vary from mild to life-threatening, and an assessment of the child's immediate safety is required and then any necessary protective interventions implemented. Any decision regarding removal as a protective intervention must be based on careful assessment of the child's condition, the risk of harm and all available evidence including medical assessments and opinions.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada