2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 3
[ Page 16153 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. H. Lali: Joining us in the gallery today are some respected photojournalists and journalists, some from India and also some from here in Canada. They are Jarnail Singh from India, who's also an artist; Kanwaljit Singh from India; Sukhminder Singh Cheema; Nirinder Sidhu; Jaiteg Singh Anant; Kuldeep Malhi; Lakhbir Singh, a businessman from the United Kingdom; Dr. Darshan Singh; and Mahesh Inder Singh. Will the House please make my guests welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: I have three very special guests in the gallery today. My wife Judy, the love of my life, is up there along with our son William, who is 131/2 or thereabouts, and also our other son Adam, who is 16 today. Actually, Adam got up this morning and wrote his driving test, and he passed. I'm sure we could find a nice Jaguar or something like that out in the parking lot that he could repark for someone. Welcome the Doyle family to Victoria.
B. McKinnon: I'd like to introduce to the House my sister-in-law Jean Chizeck, who lives in Victoria and is once again visiting us to watch question period. Would the House please make her welcome.
V. Roddick: I would like to introduce Caroline Durston-Smith from Bristol, England. She is a schoolteacher for specific learning difficulties and is here visiting the Cridge Centre for the Family in Victoria and friends in North Saanich. Will the House please make her welcome.
[1410]
DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE
L. Reid: On December 15, 1999, British Columbians saw two little girls taken from the home of Bert and Anna Draayers, the only parents these girls had known their entire lives. In fact, they arrived at that home when they were babies. A Children's Commission tribunal has now concluded that the girls' rights had been breached, that the ministry was wrong to remove them from the Draayers' home and that they should be returned to the home immediately. Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us today when these two little girls are going home?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the hon. member for her question. At this stage there is a due process in place that is part of what the act says must happen.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Hon. members, it's not appropriate. What is appropriate is that the political side of things stay right out of this process, that the director of child protection has the legal authority to respond to the tribunal's recommendations. He has said he will do so by June 12, which is next Monday, and we will find out at that time how that works.
If, at the end of the day, it is indeed in the best interests of the children to be returned to the family, then so be it. It will happen. But until that time, we need to finish up this process.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.
L. Reid: This minister and her ministry have caused these two little girls six months of anguish -- absolutely six months of anguish. They were taken from their home. Cast your memories back, members. They were taken from their home ten days before Christmas -- ten days before Christmas. The Children and Families minister of the day said: "This is the right decision. Staying with the Draayers is not in the best interest of the children."
The Children's Commission tribunal now says unequivocally that the best interests of the children were not met -- they were not met -- when the girls were taken from the Draayers' home. Now that the Children's Commission tribunal has concluded that the government was wrong to take these girls from their home, will the minister admit that her ministry has failed these girls and tell us today who has been dispatched to bring those girls home?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for the question. The concern for the girls will always be uppermost in all our minds, I know. There is a process in place. The act was passed not very long ago. Hon. members opposite were part of that debate. They know that that's part of what the act says. The act in fact says that the director of child protection could have a whole month to deal with this. In fact, he has said that in the interests of the situation, he will do it in a week. So he will do it in a week. Then we will find out, and we'll work from there, from that point.
B. McKinnon: To add insult to injury, instead of doing the right thing and returning these children to their home months ago, the government filed a complaint against the Draayers' physician, because he said that the ministry did not properly consider this matter. Instead of doing the right thing, the government filed a complaint against BCTV for having the nerve to show the public what was happening. Now the Children's Commission tribunal says that the ministry failed these children. Will the minister tell us why her ministry spent more time trying to silence the critics than it did looking after the needs of these children?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: At this time, I'm not going to get into the details of any of the history of all of this. At this time, the process is in place, and we will proceed with the process, which is that the director of child protection will review those recommendations, and he will report out on June 12.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale has a supplemental question.
B. McKinnon: When these two girls were taken, the government assured us that the girls were consulted. However, the Children's Commission tribunal says that there was no meaningful consultation with the children, nor was the decision made in the best interests of the children. Does the minister accept the findings of the tribunal when it says that the children weren't consulted, even though the government has been telling us the exact opposite?
[ Page 16154 ]
[1415]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerns me about all of this -- and I know it concerns many others -- is that this is about two little girls. At this stage, it's now become a terrible political football, and that is not appropriate. These two little girls are the subject of a lot of controversy and a lot of public attention, which I'm sure has not been welcomed by them or their families. At this point in time, the director of child protection is reviewing the recommendations made by the tribunal and will report on June 12.
C. Clark: This is about two little girls, and this minister has the authority to stand up today and fix the mistake that her ministry made and fix the problem that she caused in their lives. She has been ordered by the Children's Commission tribunal to reverse this decision, and instead she wants to take a week to scramble around and try to justify the decision that she made. Why, when she's been ordered to do this by the Children's Commission, is she still digging in her heels, going to take another week, instead of doing the right thing and telling those girls that they can go home?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm sure the member has read the legislation. She was no doubt part of the discussions and the debate that took place around that and would know full well what the role of the minister is in all of this and what the role of the director of child protection is in all of this. Child protection has the authority, in this case, to respond to those recommendations, and that is what he will do. And the time will come. It is not -- it is not, I repeat, and the member knows this -- the minister's role to intervene, and this minister will not intervene until the process is complete.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.
C. Clark: This minister has a responsibility. She has a responsibility to all the children that she was duty bound to protect when she was appointed to become Minister for Children and Families by this government. She is abdicating that responsibility by refusing to intervene and by refusing to tell those children that they can go home to the Draayers.
If she will not stand up in this House and say that she was wrong, or if she will not stand up in this House and even apologize to those children and to that family for taking them away ten days before Christmas, will she at least find the courage -- dig down deep and find the backbone -- to stand up in this House and tell those children today that they are going to get to go home to the only family that they've ever known?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: There's no question that this is a distressing situation; there's no question about that. And what is part of the distress of it all is what is happening here on the floor today. We have some very serious questions that need to be answered and will be in due course. We put the legislation in place; it's there to protect children. And that's what we are doing. We just continue this piece of the process, and I say: patience. Patience. In a week, June 12, the director of child protection will produce his responses to that report of the tribunal.
PHYSICIAN AND NURSE SHORTAGE
IN NORTHERN AND RURAL AREAS
P. Nettleton: This government seems to be bouncing from crisis to crisis. On Friday, Prince George Regional Hospital declared a state of emergency as the number of nurses dropped below safe minimum levels. This is not the first time this has happened at Prince George hospital. In fact, just over a week earlier the hospital declared a state of emergency for one shift. Why does this problem continue to get worse? And Minister of Health, don't tell me you're going to have another meeting to address this problem.
[1420]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I won't tell you, then.
What I can tell the hon. member is that we're very aware of the issue and the situation in Prince George and that we are working with the health authority to address it. We have been working with them over the past several weeks to try to identify some solutions. In terms of the nursing shortage in northern British Columbia and rural parts of the province, it is something that occurs right across the country.
What we are trying to do is deal with it on a three-pronged approach. One is to look at specific recruitment measures, which we are currently undertaking; two, to try to address some of the issues around practising in northern and rural communities in terms of making it a more attractive place to work; three, to try and ensure that we have the training spaces in place to deal with and to attract nurses here in British Columbia -- 400 new spaces, for example, that are coming on stream this September.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca has a supplemental question.
P. Nettleton: This minister is the latest in a string of ministers, most of whom are from the lower mainland, who have paid lip service to health care delivery in northern and rural British Columbia while it's continued to deteriorate.
For months we have known that Prince George is short 25 specialists -- listen to this -- ten family physicians and 75 nurses. About two weeks ago we heard that Prince George is going to lose another three general practitioners, and that means thousands of families will be without a family doctor.
This crisis wouldn't last ten seconds in the lower mainland. In Prince George and the Prince George region, this Health minister and his NDP colleagues have allowed this crisis to build for over ten years. When are you going to do something about it, minister?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to point out to the hon. member that his party's position across the way is to have a Health critic who's also from the lower mainland. So what's your point on that?
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue, hon. Speaker, is attracting and retaining physicians in rural and northern areas of British Columbia. It's a problem that we face right across this country. We have undertaken a number of initiatives to try and deal with the problem. The first is to recognize, through the nego-
[ Page 16155 ]
tiations with the BCMA in terms of around a master agreement
The second has been to come up with a rural and northern agreement to recognize some of the unique conditions that exist in the rural and northern parts of British Columbia and find specific ways of dealing with the issue through that approach. That is something that's been done in partnership, with the physicians and the government both working together.
Third, we're trying to recognize that there needs to be a coordinated approach by provinces right across the country in terms of seeing how we can train more physicians here in British Columbia specifically with a northern approach, so that when people go into the schools, they come in with the idea of practising in northern areas. We want to work with the federal government to ensure that we can get more physicians into the country so that we can meet some of the challenges we're facing at the current time.
Finally, hon. Speaker, what we're trying to do is recognize that there are unique conditions in northern British Columbia, and we're working to do that in a cooperative manner.
HIRING OF CONSULTANT
TO SELL FAST FERRIES
G. Plant: On Friday the government announced that it had retained a consultant to attempt to sell the fast ferries but that they won't tell the taxpayers of British Columbia how much the consultant will be paid. The fee terms will be kept secret, and the amount of money eventually paid will be kept secret. All this secrecy apparently even got the Premier temporarily concerned.
So my question for the Minister responsible for B.C. Ferries is this: after nine years of failing the people of British Columbia with endless secrecy, why don't you try something new for a change and agree today that the terms of the deal with the consultant for the sale of the fast cats will in fact be made public immediately?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me begin in reverse order. First of all, I would be happy to provide a full briefing for the members of the opposition with PricewaterhouseCoopers, where they can ask all of the questions of the contractor. We can make that available as soon as you're ready to come and listen.
[1425]
Secondly, the process by which PricewaterhouseCoopers was chosen was a fair, open tendering process. The Ministry of Finance was involved. It's a performance-based contract, so the cost of the contract is dependent upon the sale. The corporation is more than willing to comply with all of the rules around freedom of information and protection of privacy right now with the members of the opposition. But it is a commercial contract, and it's performance-based.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. In this chamber, Committee B, we will continue debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
[1430]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 36: ministry operations, $8,125,203,000 (continued).
C. Hansen: It's been some time since we left off on these debates, I guess two and a half weeks ago, it would be, since we last dealt with these issues. To refresh the minister's memory, we left off in the middle of regional programs, about to deal with areas of public and preventive health.
If I can start out by giving a table of contents of the issues that I hope that we can address this afternoon, then I see us moving through some of these things fairly quickly. The first issue, which is something I had advised the minister of earlier, is that I did want to go back to one issue involving Pharmacare, to get an update on what had happened in terms of the process for approvals of olanzapine, in particular, and its progress through the therapeutics initiative. From there I want to move on to public and preventive health. I want to deal with a few issues on B.C. Ambulance Service continuing care. There are some capital issues that are outstanding, including equipment issues. We will go on to the Medical Services Plan legislation and Health Professions Council. There are compensation issues, a few minor things under information systems and then communications. We will see how quickly we can move through those today.
If I can start out with the one issue going back to our previous discussion on mental health programs and Pharmacare issues, could the minister give us an update on what has transpired with regard to olanzapine and the accessibility of it to people who are suffering from mental health issues in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I told the member the last time we talked about this particular issue, I'm taking this very seriously. I'm looking at it with a way to seeing how the medications that are used within the system can be made more accessible. At this point I can't give a definitive answer on when a decision will be made, other than to say that it's one I'm attaching a very high priority to.
C. Hansen: Specifically, it's my understanding that there is some data, some information, some very specific outcomes-based research that is before the therapeutics initiative. It's been there for a long, long time. The concern is that this process has been stalled. I gather from the minister's response that there really has not been progress in the last two and a half weeks that he can report on.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct; I don't have any substantive progress to report, other than to say that I am attaching importance to this. I would like to see it dealt with
[ Page 16156 ]
expeditiously. The fact that there's new information is something that I want the committee to deal with as quickly as possible.
C. Hansen: I think the concern is
But let me just say that certainly the minister will have the full support and cooperation of the opposition in moving forward on some of those issues. As my colleague the member for Okanagan-Vernon has very ably set out earlier in these estimates, these are issues that on the one hand can dramatically change people's lives. On the other hand, which is the more secondary issue, there are some real cost savings to the health care system in ensuring that people have access to proper medications as early as possible after they are diagnosed as facing those mental health challenges. So he will certainly have our cooperation, and I urge the minister to make it a priority.
I would like to move on to public and preventive health. Specifically, in a more general sense, I want to get into some of the specific issues involving tobacco strategy and immunization.
Generally, there is a model that has proven to be quite successful with regard to preventive medicine or preventive care, patient information and education. That is the model that we see in terms of the HIV centre, which is a direct referral from a physician to a body that can actually give good information and education to individuals who are diagnosed as being HIV-positive, in terms of how to care for themselves, how to prevent their illness from becoming more serious and what to see as the signs of that.
[1435]
I'm wondering if the minister could give us some sense of whether or not he sees that model as one that would be replicated with other diseases and illnesses -- chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes, arthritis, and the list goes on, of other chronic conditions -- where individuals could benefit by a direct referral at the primary care level to the self-help organizations that exist in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say the answer to that is yes. I can give the member a couple of examples. In fact, he was with me at one of them recently, at the Arthritis Centre, where there is an area now devoted to information that's available to the people both in physical book literature form within the particular site at the Arthritis Centre and also available on the Web. I also was at St. Paul's Hospital about six weeks ago, opening up a wellness centre there that focused on issues around cardiac health, what to do after you've had your operation and how you can get the latest information there. It's very much that principle of self-help, of being able to find out what the latest information is and being able to access it through different modes, whether it's paper-based literature or technology-based through the Internet.
So the answer is yes. What I would want to see is to see them start to link up so that they're not just sitting isolated from each other, but that there's an opportunity to share the information.
C. Hansen: As I have met with individuals around British Columbia who have linked up with some of these various not-for-profit organizations, I have made it a habit to ask them how they first got connected to one of these organizations. In the case of somebody with rheumatoid arthritis, how was it that they linked up the Arthritis Society? In terms of individuals with Parkinson's disease, when did they hook up with the B.C. Parkinson's Disease Association? You can basically go through the list of chronic conditions that are being diagnosed.
What I have found in the kind of survey of individuals I have done is that the response typically is that they wound up reading something about it, or they heard about it from a friend. It was usually months after they had been diagnosed with the condition, and it was almost by accident that they realized there was a resource out there.
I think the thing that is significant about the HIV centre is that the doctors, the physicians, are actually making a direct referral. Once a person is diagnosed as being HIV-positive, the physicians at the primary care level are taking a leadership role in actually recommending to their patients that they seek the advice and support that can come from a centre such as the HIV centre. I don't see that happening in other areas. And yet I think from the point of view of our health care system in British Columbia, we could benefit enormously from that kind of a direct connection.
My understanding is that the reason it works in terms of HIV diagnoses is that there is a limited number of primary care physicians who are really seeing HIV patients and assisting them through that process. The connection between those physicians and the centre is much more easy to get rolling.
But if you look at the case of diabetes, for example, there are
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member's point is very well taken; it's one that I am quite interested in. I would agree with him that there are, I think, some tremendous opportunities. He's right: the issue around HIV and AIDS is that you do have a limited number of physicians who treat and see AIDS patients on a regular basis, and so it becomes a matter of course. I don't see any reason why we couldn't extend a similar practice to physicians around the province in dealing with other diseases and illnesses, particularly as we're seeing the development now of a number of centres where patients can go and get information.
[1440]
I think what we need to do is look at how we might do that. I think one of the ways certainly is possible; it's to work in conjunction with the BCMA or the College of Physicians in terms of trying to encourage, when someone is diagnosed -- let's say whether it's with diabetes or arthritis -- that part of that is to refer them to, in the case of arthritis, the Arthritis Centre and the resources that they have. But also I think what we need to do is to encourage that model in terms of other illnesses around the province, and I'm quite interested in trying to make something like that happen.
C. Hansen: In the case of diabetes, we've actually seen things going in the opposite direction. I've had stories relayed to me from smaller communities in British Columbia that are
[ Page 16157 ]
losing access to their diabetic clinics as an education vehicle. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether or not that is a trend that is expected to continue. Is there a consolidation of those types of services? Can these communities expect to see diabetic education brought back up to the standard that it's been in years gone by?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's certainly not my intent to see resources available in terms of self-help and education diminish. One of the issues that we're raising at the discussions with the federal government is: how do we expand primary care, and how do we look at primary care reform?
Clearly in a host of areas, this being one of them, education is crucial. While I recognize that in the case of some illnesses there is quite often a critical mass that's required to support a particular centre, in the case of illnesses and conditions such as diabetes it's widespread throughout the province. So what we want to see is that there are community resources available. That's something I can tell the member I am trying to deal with, to ensure that those continue to stay in place and in fact are enhanced as opposed to being reduced.
C. Hansen: I am told that in some areas of the province, the wait-list to access an initial diabetes education program can be as long as five months, with additional wait-lists of several weeks to months for further education that is necessary for effective self-care. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us, based on his previous answer, if I can just take it one step farther: does he see these wait-lists being addressed in a meaningful way? Are there specific actions that are being taken to try to bring these wait-lists down and to make sure that those kinds of education programs are available?
Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the things that's happening is that we have a meeting this coming Thursday on most of the major chronic diseases to look at issues such as this, as to how we deal with education and how we make sure that patients are getting information. So that is in fact taking place.
One of the other initiatives we also have to do, looking at it in terms of education and the information that's available, is to make better use of technology. Particularly in rural and northern areas, as we're seeing the dramatic increase in the use of home computers, for example, people are able to access the information that's available at these centres through the Web. This is a method which is going to increase in popularity and allow us to deal with some of the pressures in a practical sense. So we are aware of it in the ministry, and we are taking steps to try and deal with it.
[1445]
C. Hansen: I certainly agree with the minister that Internet information is going to be incredibly valuable, but what's going to be important is the ability to identify good information. And that's where a primary care physician is going to be able to play such an important role and where these not-for-profit organizations will be able to play such a vital role.
I have one more question regarding diabetes. It's not directly relevant to public and preventive care in the context of education that we've been discussing, but I will ask the minister at this time because we're on that subject. There are new clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by the Canadian Diabetes Association. I'm wondering if the minister could advise in terms of what steps have been taken to implement those guidelines in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We in fact have a diabetes working group within the ministry that is dealing with that particular issue as we speak.
C. Hansen: Is there a time line in terms of when we might expect those guidelines to be either rolled out and adopted or amended, or at least some direct feedback?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have a specific time line for the hon. member, but I can tell him that the provincial group is working to deal with the issues on the provincial perspective. Plus, I am meeting with the Diabetes Association in the very near future, and I expect that this will be one of the key issues that we will be discussing.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to tobacco strategy. In the performance plan that was circulated, a key program objective is to reduce tobacco use and in particular to protect young people from tobacco. It then lists five points under performance measures. One of my questions in this area is
Hon. M. Farnworth: About four years ago there was a baseline study undertaken in the province on the usage of tobacco in British Columbia, in particular with a lot of focus on young people and children and tobacco use. It was a very comprehensive study that gives us data right across the province from health authorities throughout the province. So we have a very good base of data from which to work.
Five years later, which is next year, the province and Health Canada will be going back and doing another baseline study to see what impact our programs have had since that time. The goal set at that time was to see a reduction in the number of children and young people who were using tobacco. That work will take place next year in a partnership between the province and the federal government. Though no specific target was set -- let's say 10 or 20 percent -- certainly the focus of the program was geared to reducing the use of tobacco in young people.
C. Hansen: One of the concerns is that some of the studies that have been done in recent years show that in the four years this tobacco strategy has been underway we have in fact seen an increase in the prevalence of smoking among teenagers, and in particular teenage girls. I'm wondering if the ministry has taken that into consideration and whether or not that is leading to any kind of revamping of the tobacco strategy.
[1450]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I also am concerned about the indications we've heard from reports that are saying there is an increased prevalence particularly amongst teenage women in terms of taking up tobacco. That's why next year's baseline study is crucial in determining what is taking place.
There has been a focus on women, in terms of the program, over the last couple of years. I can tell the member that last year the federal government did a review as a precursor to next year's baseline study; that showed that of all the
[ Page 16158 ]
provinces right across the country, British Columbia has the lowest participation rate of women, young women and teenage women accessing or using tobacco products. That, however, does not give me cause for complete satisfaction, because what I want to -- the goal that I think we all want -- is to see that this trend line is going down, not up.
[P. Nettleton in the chair.]
C. Hansen: I think the minister is right in looking at the
I would like to ask the minister if consideration has been given within the ministry to the issue of smoking pits on school grounds, and I'm wondering how that plays in terms of the tobacco strategy.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, it's nice to see you in the chair.
What I can tell the member is that we have a K-to-12 tobacco strategy, "tobaccofacts," that's in the schools right across the province. The issue is decided on a school district by school district basis, and it's in particular schools. I think we've seen some terrific examples of what happens when the strategy has been put in place with schools that adopt a strict non-smoking policy.
Stelly's School here in Victoria, for example, has seen the use of tobacco reduced, from 28 percent of the students using tobacco products down to 7 percent. There are some very good examples. It is certainly the ministry's hope and encouragement that we want to see schools right across province not encourage the use of smoking pits on school property.
C. Hansen: I guess my concern is that the presence of smoking pits in a lot of schools is seen as one of the great hypocrisies of government generally. There is certainly the sense that it encourages tobacco use. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us, in view of what he just informed the House, what specific action is being taken by the ministry to provide some leadership in this area.
[1455]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think there's a number of things the ministry can do and in fact should be doing and will be doing. One of them is to sit down with the Ministry of Education to review our strategy and to ensure that we're being as comprehensive as we can.
One of the areas where I think we're certainly willing to review -- because, quite frankly, I do agree with the hon. member that it is hypocritical if some school districts are doing it and some aren't, and we have regulations, for example, that prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants -- is dealing with the issue of smoking pits in schools or school districts in the province. I know that in my own school district of Coquitlam, they're outlawed throughout the district. If we need to expand that right across the province, I am certainly happy to sit down with the Minister of Education and discuss doing just that.
C. Hansen: One of the success stories about the tobacco strategy in the last few years is the amount of money that some lawyers are making in terms of various legal cases that are before the courts. I am wondering if the minister could tell us the value of the legal fees that have gone towards the various tobacco-related court cases.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't mean to duck the question, but it probably would be better directed to the Attorney General.
C. Hansen: Well, just let me get some clarification on that, because the question is: who is the actual client in this case? Is the client the Ministry of Health through the Attorney General, or is the client actually the Attorney General?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Why I make the comment about the Attorney General is that I'm not a lawyer; he is. They handle the legal cases for the province.
In terms of which ministry is pursuing cases, it would be the Ministry of Health. Having said that, it would also be incumbent upon me to also add that in terms of when we are involved in a case, it would not be the policy of the ministry to disclose what the legal fees are, in part because you're giving away an unnecessary advantage to your opponent -- in this case, the tobacco companies. However, that having been said, once cases are finished, then that's a different question.
C. Hansen: Will the minister representing the Ministry of Health as the client in this case undertake to ensure that information is made public once those cases are resolved?
Hon. M. Farnworth: At the end of the cases, when they are resolved, I have no trouble in releasing the figures that are involved in the protection of the public's health.
C. Hansen: If I can move on to immunization, there was reference made in the throne speech this year that immunization was a big issue for the ministry. Certainly we saw the success of Alberta the last flu season, when, because of the immunization program they put in place, they managed to significantly reduce the number of individuals who were coming to emergency wards in their hospitals.
[1500]
Just to refer to the annual report that the minister tabled two weeks ago, there is a reference in here to immunization of seniors. It says: "An estimated 58 percent of British Columbians age 65 and older had an influenza shot during the 1998-99 flu season -- far below the proposed target of 90 percent." It goes on to then refer to health care workers: "To protect health care workers -- and to safeguard the vulnerable people they care for -- it is vitally important that health staff be immunized. In 1998-99 the immunization rate for staff of care facilities was only 32 percent, up from 28 percent the previous year, but still far below the 90 percent target."
I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what actions are being taken to get those immunization rates up and how he sees the immunization program this year differing from last year's program.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The provincial health officer is putting together a strategy to deal with the issue of how we increase the rate of immunization. Part of that is to look at it in
[ Page 16159 ]
terms of long-term care and continuing care and also to work with the staff so that we get the rate raised from 32 percent -- which is, I agree, far too low -- to something significantly higher.
C. Hansen: I guess I have some concerns that the minister can't give more specifics in that regard, given that we are at June and that, really, to roll out an effective immunization program as they have done in years gone by in Alberta and in Saskatchewan
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that in terms of time lines our program is scheduled to be up and running at the beginning of September and that it will be an advance on previous programs. There's another area of significant difference this year. We're not just targeting the traditional groups associated with influenza -- you know, the elderly, those over 65, and people with a chronic illness or disabilities -- and dealing with issues around staff, but are also recognizing that we are taking the warnings around an influenza pandemic seriously. That is also part of the strategy. So it will be up and running at the beginning of September.
C. Hansen: I think one of the other things that was a big surprise out of those statistics is the very low percentage of health care workers that availed themselves of the opportunity for free flu shots. I believe this was also the case in Alberta -- that they set targets of, I believe, 90 percent in Alberta as well. While they did come very close to that target for residents of long term care facilities, they fell remarkably short, as we did in British Columbia, of encouraging health care workers to get those flu shots.
I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what specific actions are being taken to encourage those health care workers to get flu shots. I think it's an area that if anybody must appreciate the importance of it, it would be somebody working in health care facilities. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what kind of a program will be put in place in that regard.
[1505]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises a good point. You know, if someone offered me a free flu shot, I'd take it, because quite frankly, having the flu for two weeks isn't much fun. If you can prevent it, I'd take the prevention every time.
That having been said, we are working and looking at ways in terms of what other provinces have done. We recognize the issue around, for example, Alberta and the challenge that they had. There's a number of ways that we're approaching it. One is through the provincial health officer, looking at the different models that are used across the country. Some are more successful than others. The model in Ontario has been quite successful and may in fact be an option for British Columbia. But we are taking it very seriously, and trying to significantly increase the goal from 32 percent is one of the targets that we've set for ourselves.
C. Hansen: Again, I guess my concern is that here we are at June, and if we're still studying the way it's done in other models, we're not going to be in a very effective position to roll the program out for this particular year.
I want to move on to the issue of substance abuse, which I know doesn't fall directly under this ministry. I was trying to think of exactly the right place to insert it in these discussions, and I felt that this was probably the appropriate spot. I'm wondering if the minister has had a chance to familiarize himself with the recent report of the Kaiser Youth Foundation with regard to substance abuse prevention and addictions, where they were calling for an integrated commission that would really cut across ministry lines.
One of the issues that we have today in terms of addictions is the fact that there are so many different ministries that impact on it. Certainly part of the solution to that is to make sure that the Ministry of Health is front and centre in whatever programs may be developed. I'm wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to review the proposal for an independent substance abuse prevention and addictions commission as put forward by the Kaiser Youth Foundation and whether or not he sees the Ministry of Health playing a significant role in moving that proposal forward.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am familiar with the report and the recommendations. I can tell the member that my ministry is working with Children and Families, the Attorney General's ministry and Education in dealing with it. In fact, I can tell the member that I met, I think it was, on Thursday of last week on that very issue.
C. Hansen: Thank you. I'm sure it's welcome news to a lot of people that in fact it is moving forward and not collecting dust somewhere.
There is one other area under public and preventive health that I was planning to raise when we got into continuing care. That's the issue of the community care facilities. I'm surprised to see that it's actually on the ministry's organization chart located under this particular branch. I can deal with this either here or when we get into continuing care.
I specifically wanted to ask about the Community Care Facility Act. There are many people who believe that it is a piece of legislation that has been long in need of overhaul, redrafting and rewriting. I know there has been some work done on that. I also appreciate that in estimates we're not supposed to be asking about legislation or pending legislation, but I did want to take the opportunity to ask the minister to comment on that. As I say, I could either raise it now or raise it when we get under continuing care.
[1510]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it's fair to say -- and I agree with the member in recognizing the rules that govern this place -- that anything that is governed by either legislation or policy that is 30 years old certainly needs to be reviewed. It's my expectation, or it's certainly my hope, that we can do that in a timely fashion. I recognize his concerns, and I would just say that we are dealing with them.
J. van Dongen: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 16160 ]
J. van Dongen: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature a large number of grades 4, 5 and 6 students from Margaret Stenersen Elementary School. With them are a number of parents and teachers Ms. Debbie Roberts and Ms. Pam Byers. I'd like to ask the House to please make them welcome today.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to the Ambulance Service, if I can. I know a lot of these issues have been canvassed in the input from my colleagues when we were dealing with various constituency issues. There are a few remaining issues. I wanted to pick up on an issue that was raised by the member for Peace River South with regard to the ambulance invoice from Alkan Air for a British Columbian who was travelling in the Yukon. On the last day that we were dealing with Health estimates, which was two weeks or so ago now, the minister advised that member that that particular ambulance charge was going to be covered by the ministry -- the portion that wasn't being directly covered by the Yukon Territory.
But I wanted to go back to a letter of May 8 that was sent to that member. It was sent by the acting executive director of the B.C. Ambulance Service. In that letter it says: "Unfortunately the B.C. Ministry of Health has no legislated authority to pay the ambulance invoice from Alkan Air or negotiate with the carrier as to the billing practice or specific amount involved."
I wasn't in the House at the time when that member raised that with the minister, but I did go back and read the Hansard, and there was no reference to this seeming change in policy. On one hand, it is indicated that there is no legislative authority, and then the minister comes back a couple of weeks later and says: "We've changed it; we're going to cover it."
I'm wondering under what legislative authority the minister is in fact able to cover that. I'm glad he did; I'm not disputing the fact that he covered those expenses. I think that was entirely appropriate and entirely necessary. But my question is on the apparent discrepancy between the minister's actions and what was contained in this letter.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this particular instance, I think what's key to remember is that it was not the Ambulance Service that paid the bill. It was the Ministry of Health that paid the bill. So in that sense the policy is still in place. But in this case it was reviewed around a particular circumstance -- the bill. And it was the Ministry of Health that paid the bill. That's where the authority comes from.
Having said that, I think this is also indicative of what the discussion was during the last part of estimates. The member for Peace River South was identifying, I think, one of the weaknesses in the current Canada Health Act, in that it doesn't recognize the challenges faced around transportation and ambulance services. And this is one of those areas that I would like to see changed.
[1515]
C. Hansen: I have an ambulance invoice that was sent out to a family in Harrison Hot Springs; their infant child had to be transported to Children's Hospital on an emergency basis. They actually received an invoice for $2,796, and it was only when they raised it and they questioned it that that particular invoice was reversed. The charges were waived under the circumstances. But I'm wondering if the minister could explain. Why is it that British Columbians receive invoices for ambulance charges, whether it's air ambulance or ground ambulance, and then after they raise it or become the squeaky wheel, they can in fact get those charges reduced or eliminated?
Hon. M. Farnworth: What happens is that the Ambulance Service does the transportation. And from the crew log, that's forwarded to the Ministry of Health. We send out the bill based on the information that's in those logs. It doesn't take into account, though, the extenuating circumstances that may surround a particular visit. Therefore we have the ability to review the situation, which we do, and if necessary, make adjustments, which we also do as well.
C. Hansen: My question is: how is that review done? How does the minister or the ministry review an ambulance bill, and who is entitled to have those ambulance charges waived?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a remissions committee within the Ministry of Health that's operating under guidelines, and they review invoices on that basis. They're the ones who make the decision.
C. Hansen: First of all, is the review by that remissions committee only started or commenced when there in fact is a complaint that comes forward from the individual? And secondly, what are the guidelines? What are the circumstances under which they are permitted to waive an invoice?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The committee kicks in when people raise a concern, and then it's looked at.
C. Hansen: But on what basis is it looked at? Is it, basically, as some people have said, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and if you raise enough fuss, then you get your ambulance fee waived? Or is there some kind of a means test that is done?
Quite frankly, I find that one of the greatest areas of two-tiered medicine we have in British Columbia is the access that individuals from outside the lower mainland have to necessary medical care. Often so much of that necessary medical care is ambulance transportation, and we wind up sending up some very large bills for ambulance charges to people outside of the lower mainland who perhaps have to access the air ambulance system.
My concern is that the ability to have this waived, first of all, is dependent on some kind of a complaint process. Those who tend to not complain to government are the ones that are paying the bills, and those who complain are the ones that get their bills waived. In addition, it's something that doesn't seem to have any particular guidelines attached to it. I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate.
[1520]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's because we're discussing individual cases, and sometimes that can be a
[ Page 16161 ]
your ambulance charge, whether it's air or road ambulance, is $54 for the first 40 kilometres plus 50 cents per kilometre after that to a maximum total charge of $274. That's regardless of where you are in the province, and that's regardless of whether it's by air or by road. That would be a standard ambulance bill in British Columbia -- the maximum.
Having said that, in terms of if you're not covered by MSP -- in which case the ones that we talked about, in the case of Peace River South, are for people outside of the province -- there's the opportunity to review them through the circumstances surrounding the particular case. It happens very few times -- you know, occasionally. I said before that I'm trying to find ways of dealing with that.
Within British Columbia, the remissions committee can look at fees in terms of a number of criteria. They involve income assistance, they involve whether you're on premium assistance, they involve the type of work -- for example, fire or police personnel, in terms of things that happen while they're on their job -- and whether the service rendered to a person is incommensurate with the fee as prescribed. Those are some of the criteria which the committee operates under. I've also outlined for the member what the actual fees are within the province of British Columbia for people who are covered by MSP.
[1525]
C. Hansen: Many of the cases that I hear about are people who have been charged the full amount and, in some cases, are charged it several times for different trips that they've had to face. And even though it is up to the maximum and it is not the real cost, there are still some true hardships there, which I understand would come before this committee.
I would like to get some data on this, and if the minister doesn't have this information with him today, I would certainly appreciate receiving it at a later date. In terms of the total charge-out by the B.C. Ambulance Service, how much of that would be waived by this remissions committee that he's talking about, and how much of those ambulance charges would be covered by other providers, such as WCB or employers? If the minister has that information or has access to it, I would appreciate receiving it in due course.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We'll get that information for the hon. member.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to a specific case. I received a phone call from an individual in Vancouver whose wife had been involved in a motor vehicle accident. The bottom line, in terms of what they were
The concern is the opportunity that there is for a citizen to file a formal complaint and have a particular circumstance such as this reviewed. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what kind of opportunity there is for an individual to file that kind of a complaint or a request for an investigation with regard to the care that is given to somebody who is attended by ambulance personnel.
In saying this, I don't want to denigrate the reputation of the Ambulance Service at all. Certainly I think the ambulance attendants in British Columbia have a very high reputation, and we are well served in this province. But when there are problems that come up, I think it is only appropriate to protect the reputation of the B.C. Ambulance Service -- that there be some kind of a formal process so that the individual can see that a proper review is done.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact there are a couple of ways that an individual who may have a complaint can access a complaint process. One is through the licensing branch that licenses the ambulance paramedics. The second is through the regional authority or the provincial authority. If a complaint is received by either of those two authorities, it is investigated and looked into.
C. Hansen: From what the minister just said, I gather that those bodies have an obligation to proceed with an investigation. Could the minister tell us if they also have an obligation to report back? Is it an internal investigation? What nature does that kind of process take? What obligation is there to give reassurance back to the individual involved that an adequate review was done?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, in fact it is the policy to get back to the complainant and explain what happened in the review and what the findings were.
[1530]
C. Hansen: I've got one more question with regard to Ambulance Service, and then I want to move on to continuing care. In the performance plan -- I always have to check the title of this; I always question whether I remember the title properly -- there is "Enhance quality of patient care by expanding local access to paramedic training programs." This is an area that I have had brought to my attention by a few individuals in different parts of British Columbia.
The concern is that the access to training within the B.C. Ambulance Service is something that is very regimented. The perception, at least, is that it is based more on seniority than it is on the willingness and opportunity to get on with training and to build a career path. This often comes from young individuals who are starting out their careers with the B.C. Ambulance Service. They are feeling that there is a long process and a delay before they can get access to some of the higher levels of training. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us how he sees this expansion of paramedic training programs unfolding and whether or not the access is as open as one might hope it would be.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't want to duck the question, but we are in negotiations right now around the new contract. As in a lot of organizations, issues around training as well as salary and other working conditions are often up for discussion. At this point I would rather reserve comments on some of those issues until a later date. I am happy to sit down and discuss with the member some of the issues around training. But at this particular time, I'd rather wait until negotiations have been resolved before I address some of the specific natures of the member's question.
[ Page 16162 ]
C. Hansen: I found it interesting, hon. Chair, that he starts out by saying, "I don't want to duck the question," and that's exactly what he did. But I appreciate the sensitivities there, and I will accept that response.
I want to move on to continuing care. The continuing-care review, which came out last fall, was made public last fall. In fact, the original expectation for this report was 12 months prior to that. It was originally slated for completion in the fall of 1998. There were some real concerns raised within the continuing-care community with regard to the direction and the degree to which that community had been consulted in developing the report. As a result, the deadline for completing the report was extended by six months to March 1999.
My understanding is that the report was put in the hands of the then Minister of Health in either late March or early April 1999 and then did not get released to the public until the fall of 1999. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us why this particular report sat on the corner of the minister's desk for so many months before it was made public.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, the report was being finalized during the period the member is referring to.
[1535]
C. Hansen: From that, I gather, the report was amended, from between April 1999 and the time it was finally released.
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it wasn't amended. There was some fine-tuning that took place, but basically it was being put into a format for publication.
C. Hansen: I think the delay in terms of releasing that report was very unfortunate, because there are some very good points that are made in here in setting out the problem and challenges that we have in continuing care in British Columbia. A lot of these are issues that we have to get on with addressing. If the delay of six months while it was fine-tuned
I just want to go through and review some of the issues that were raised in this report, just to set the stage for the concerns we have. They talk about the challenges in terms of continuing care as being things such as the inflexible philosophy and inflexible approach. Rather than accommodating individual needs, it has a focus on illness instead of wellness. The barriers to empowering clients
"Insufficient support for caregivers." It says: "The system doesn't sufficiently recognize the contribution of families and friends who are caregivers. Respite services, support programs and education activities are inadequate to protect caregivers from exhaustion and burnout." That whole area of family members and friends as caregivers is one area that I think is not given the attention it deserves in our society.
They talk about the lack of transitional beds, where we have too many patients who are in acute care hospital beds while they're waiting for some form of long-term or community care. And currently in British Columbia this transitional level of care, falling between extended care and in-patient hospital care, is simply not available.
They talk about insufficient education and training for service providers, no standardized training program or set of skill requirements for home support workers. The result is that performance levels cannot be guaranteed.
"Difficulty in determining and responding to client needs." It refers to the cumbersome process to change care levels once clients have been assigned. They get slotted into a particular niche in terms of continuing care, and the family have great difficulty in getting reassessment done or re-evaluations of what their needs are.
One of the other issues is that the perception is there of growing wait-lists for community care residential programs and that they are administered on a first-come, first-served basis, which often forces clients to go into a residential care facility earlier than they might actually need to, for fear of losing their place on the wait-list that exists. That is something I have had many letters on, as I'm sure many MLAs in this House have had, of family members or individuals who have been torn with that decision to take a residential facility when it comes available, even though they may not feel they are ready for it or in need of it at that point.
In terms of acts and regulations, it's talking about three different acts and sets of regulations to govern continuing care, extended care and private hospitals -- that there is an inconsistency of rules and regulations that slows down efforts of health authorities to build a coordinated system.
There is a lot of concern about the role of the health authorities. It talks about the confusion among health authorities and the roles between the community health councils and the communities' health service societies -- that neither has a clear responsibility for planning or delivery of health services. The duplication and gaps in service, particularly in home support, are the result.
In terms of issues regarding the funding formulas for facilities, it points out, for example, that extended care facilities provide for the cost of medication and equipment, but these costs are not covered by intermediate care facilities. Significant financial hardship can result for intermediate care clients. Again, it comes back to
I found the report very enlightening in setting out some of these challenges. One of the big concerns is: what are we going to do about it? When will we see an implementation plan? When will we see some direction from the minister as to how these challenges are going to be dealt with?
[1540]
The Chair: I'd like to ask leave of the committee to make an introduction, please.
Leave granted.
The Chair: It's my privilege to welcome a group of bright students from the village of Tachie, all the way here from some distance away, roughly two hours northwest of Fort St. James. I asked them today what the big news was in the village of Tachie, and they said they have a new health centre.
[ Page 16163 ]
I guess it's appropriate that you're here today during the Health estimates. Please join me in welcoming this group of students.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It sure didn't take you long to take advantage of the mike when you got the chance; that's pretty good.
I'd like to respond to the points the member raises. I think he raises a number of the key findings in the report. That's why the report was done. The system's been in place for 20 years. We know there is going to be a huge demand and increase in the need around community care and continuing-care services in British Columbia over the coming decades. The question is: what do we have to do? What can we expect in terms of where are some of the key issues that need to be addressed? Those are identified in the report.
The member asks about a framework; that will be in place. And a plan of how we move forward -- that will be in place by the fall of this year. From the provincial perspective, we are starting to take action, and you'll see that outlined this fall.
Second, this is one of the key areas of discussion with the federal government in terms of the funding formula with the provinces, because this is an issue not just faced here in B.C. The question is: how do we deal with it? One of my particular concerns, for example, that I'd like to put out at this particular time is that if we're looking at a federal funding contribution, for example, to deal with issues around continuing care, long-term care, then there is recognition for provinces such as B.C., which will probably see a net increase in seniors coming from other parts of Canada to retire here in B.C. and then also take advantage of the services that we have here. I would like to see something like that addressed in any funding formula.
I think what this report does is outline as a foundation the key areas, the key challenges that we're facing in our continuing-care system. The challenge for the province is to move forward in a framework. That we're doing; that'll be ready by the fall. The second is to recognize that this issue is a major one and that we also take it, in terms of discussions, as part of the national debate that's also taking place on these particular concerns.
C. Hansen: One of the officials in the Ministry of Health noted that we need at least 6,000 long term care beds over the next five years to meet the needs of the elderly. It noted -- and this is a quote from the associate deputy minister of regional programs -- that we have a shortage of 3,700 beds right now. It also goes on to say that the Health ministry has warned the government that it needs to begin a massive building program, starting with 1,200 beds next year -- and I assume that to mean this current fiscal year -- at a cost of $140 million. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us where we're at in terms of meeting that need for residential beds in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member's absolutely correct. If we do nothing, that will be the shortfall, and that will be the requirement in the next five years. However, what we also need to do is recognize that yes, we need more continuing-care beds. And if we innovate, if we use new ideas, if we look at what's happening in different parts of the country, we can have an impact on that number. We can manage that number a lot better than we have been doing.
[1545]
There are a number of programs, for example, in different parts of the province that are dealing with the issue through innovative ways. The Simon Fraser CareLinks program, for example, has seen the demand or the need for their beds cut in half by instituting a number of different ways of approaching the problem, and it's been very successful. The challenge for us is to expand these initiatives provincewide. That was part of the recent innovation forum, but it also goes further than that. Home care figures very strongly into the numbers that you need, as does home support.
So there's a range of options in dealing with the challenge facing us, but clearly the option that presents the greatest challenge for the government is the one of doing nothing. If we do nothing other than stand still, then yes, those figures would in fact be correct. But we recognize that that's not an option, so we're working to innovate and to find better ways of doing it. Health authorities are in fact doing just that.
C. Hansen: I appreciate that it's not a case of this government doing nothing in this area, but I think we have to question how much above that level we're at. In the budget that came down, in the budget reports, it notes that this year's budget provides for the opening of 194 new continuing-care beds in this current fiscal year. I'm wondering if the minister feels that that is adequate in dealing with a situation where the ministry itself has warned the government that it needs a massive building program starting with 1,200 beds this year. In fact, we're only at a fraction of that; we're at about 15 percent in terms of what has been provided for in this year's budget. I'm wondering if the minister is satisfied that the 192 new beds provided for in this budget are a significant improvement over doing nothing.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I'll make a number of points. First off, in terms of the strategy for implementation, that's part of the framework. That will be released in the fall and shows how we're going to get to where we need to be over the next three to four years. Is it enough? Well, it's never enough. I would always say that, yes, I want more in terms of being able to meet some of the needs. Clearly that's the challenge this ministry would face.
That having been said, I don't think it's as simple as just saying that there are 191 beds, because in reality what is happening
At the same time we also have to be more innovative than we have been in the past. We have to look at better ways of delivering the services required. In that sense, I am pleased with the initiative being taken by many of the health authorities in that area and, in particular, with the success that they are having. In fact, my sense that this is the right direction is also confirmed by what's happening in other provinces, where they're taking similar measures to meet similar pressures that we face here in B.C.
C. Hansen: In fact, in some parts of the province the number of beds available is decreasing. I've got stats from the capital health region when they note that the number of long term beds in the capital health region has actually dropped to 3,050 from 3,470 in 1990. There are currently 1,200 people
[ Page 16164 ]
waiting for beds in the capital health region, compared to 350 that were on the wait-list in 1991. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us: since 1995, how many new beds have been added to continuing care provincewide?
[1550]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll get the number for the member.
C. Hansen: Thank you. One estimate, in terms of the number of beds that have been added since 1995, is 500 additional beds over the course of five years. That's a pretty sad comment when you realize the terrific need that is there for these beds in British Columbia and the shortage, as I noted earlier, of 3,700 beds. That's the number used by the ministry, and we haven't even come close. I guess I have some very real concerns, given the magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the shortage that is there and the impact that that is having on our acute care facilities.
You talk to every single hospital CEO in British Columbia, and they will tell that one of their major problems is the number of patients tying up acute care beds who should be in some alternate level of care. That goes from health region to health region to health region around this province.
Yet if you look back over the last five years and the series of Health ministers that we've had, there really has not been the leadership to address that issue. I have a real concern when the minister stands up here today and tells us that we have to wait until this fall before we're going to see an action plan in terms of dealing with this in any kind of a meaningful way. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us, or at least tell those people who are on wait-lists in British Columbia, why we should have to wait until this fall before we can see some meaningful direction and leadership taken to address this shortage.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member's concern, and I think there are some key points that need to be made. One, the system has been built outside the Canada Health Act over the last 20 years. We recognize as a government that in fact it's going to be an area of health care delivery that's expanding in this province significantly over the coming years. We recognize the challenges that are facing hospitals in terms of acute care beds being used by people who should be in other, more appropriate forms of care. In fact, that's been one of the key areas of focus over the last couple of years.
I've said in the estimates debate so far that that tends to be one of the key areas that I want to focus on during the coming year within the ministry. That's why the continuing-care report was done. It has been reviewed; there is an implementation plan being put in place. I think it is important that the plan be thorough so that when it's released, we're ready to move on it.
There has been considerable work done in terms of bringing new beds on, perhaps not as many as people would like or as quickly as some people would like. But the fact is that it is happening. You also have to couple this initiative with other areas of government policy, which have an impact on the ability of people to stay in their homes. One is around social housing, for example, and the fact that there have been social housing units that help people in more appropriate forms of accommodation.
Two, there has been the recognition that there are other areas that need to be developed as well, not just long term care and continuing care, but home care and home support. There is a key issue in terms of federal government participation. That's why the provinces have recognized that this is one of the main areas of focus. We want to see the federal government restore funding to the provinces in terms of providing the types of services that are required so that, whether it's home care or home support, people who can stay at home do stay at home. Then when they're required to go to continuing care and long term care, which is available, and then finally acute care.
There is action being taken; there is a concerted effort by government to address this particular issue. We know that it's going to be part of the health care reforms that are taking place right now and that are going to take place over the next few years. It's also important to recognize that it's not just a question of expending money and building new beds, but it's also recognizing that the system itself has to change and that we have to be more innovative.
[1555]
I've given the member some examples of areas in the province that are doing just that and have seen the requirement or the demand for beds in some cases cut in half. I think that's crucial. That work needs to take place, and in fact it is taking place and is having good success. The challenge for the province and for health authorities is to take that work that's being done through health authorities such as Simon Fraser and to take the initiatives and the methods that they're doing provincewide. That's what we're trying to do.
C. Hansen: When the ministry -- I was going to use the words "sat on the report for six months," and I won't use that -- did not release the continuing-care review for the period of that six months, there were a lot of individuals who expected that the reason was that they would be releasing it with an implementation plan. This government probably would have been forgiven for that delay in releasing the report if in fact it had come out with an action plan as to what to do about some of the challenges that were raised in that report.
But we didn't see that. The perception is certainly there that the ministry, this government, released that report and only now has started to work on what to do about some of the real problems that are outlined. It's a real disappointment to people that they're going to have to wait until the fall of this year before they see that kind of leadership being provided from the government.
I want to move on specifically to the area of the multilevel-care standards. It's now been about ten years since those standards have been in place. I think most people recognize that building new construction to a multilevel-care standard is indeed desirable. But what we also see is a significant stock of available units in British Columbia at a level of intermediate care that do not meet a multilevel-care standard. They are beds in this province that are not open today because of the fact that they do not meet multilevel-care standards. I wonder if there is any consideration being given by the ministry to some flexibility in the application of those multilevel-care standards to allow some of this stock of residential units to be opened and made available, even though they don't meet the multilevel-care standards that have been set out.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am open to it, and I think it's a good idea. That's why I would say it will be part of the implementation strategy in the fall.
[ Page 16165 ]
C. Hansen: Again, this heightens my concern if so many of these decisions are put off. Obviously there is a need for a comprehensive strategy and a comprehensive approach. I don't take that away from the minister. But I also believe that there are some things that can be done and done quite quickly.
In the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena there is a fabulous facility called Blenheim Lodge, and Blenheim Lodge has an entire wing that is sitting empty. I believe, if my memory serves me right, it's 62 beds or 62 units that are built to an intermediate care standard, which could be open in a very short period of time to serve people who need that kind of care. It's not at a multilevel-care standard.
It strikes me that with just a little bit of flexibility in how we implement this, we can actually meet a real need that exists today in terms of the wait-lists that are out there if we show some flexibility in the short term and not have to wait until this overall comprehensive review is released in the fall. I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to consider some kind of flexibility in the interim.
[1600]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have an industry advisory committee that works with the ministry in looking at issues such as this. As I said, we do have an overall strategy, and the key dates around that are in the fall of this year. Certainly if there's an opportunity for flexibility, I'm more than happy to take a look at it and to consider proposals that cross my desk.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to the issue of the disconnect that seems to exist between operating budgets for continuing-care facilities and the capital and construction side of them. I was debating whether to raise this under continuing care or under the discussion on capital projects, but I think this is probably the appropriate time.
There was certainly the case that came to light earlier with regard to Fischer Place in 100 Mile House, where what appeared obvious to me was that the construction was completed and, as I understand it, ready for occupancy in February -- although I know that the minister has said on several occasions that there were still some construction issues outstanding. But my understanding is that it was actually ready for occupancy and that the only reason they couldn't was because the operating budget wasn't put in place in a timely fashion to allow for that facility to be utilized, when the construction was at a stage where it could be occupied.
We have another instance that has come to my attention. That involves Bulkley Lodge in Smithers. There was funding approved for the construction and expansion of Bulkley Lodge in 1997. Construction was completed in the fall of 1999, increasing the number of beds from 50 to 75. There were no operating funds available for that facility when the construction was completed, and the operating funds were received at the beginning of April. There was a public announcement made to that effect on April 12. But in spite of receiving the new operating funds, the community was informed that no new beds would be opened, nor would any date be given for that to occur.
There are now apparently fewer people in the lodge than there were before. Before the construction started, there were 50 beds, and now there are only 45 residents in there -- as of a month ago. I'm wondering if the minister could explain how we can wind up with this lack of planning and the lack of connection between the construction side and the operating side. It strikes me as being a real shame if we have facilities that are available that are in great demand with wait-lists that are there, and once those facilities are in fact completed or expanded, we can't arrange for the operating dollars to be in place in a timely fashion to ensure that those facilities could be utilized.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that he raises some valid points. As much as possible, we like to see the integration of operating and capital. What has happened in the past, though, is that sometimes there has been delay in terms of construction, which has impacted on operating. There have been other projects that have also been under construction. Sometimes they have come on earlier, and so operating is used to get them opening. That creates some challenges in the system as projects can be out of sync, if you like, with regards to operating capital.
One of the recommendations in the Deloitte report was to address that. For the first time this year, I think you are going to see a much greater integration between operating and capital than you have seen in the past. We have identified that as a key area of concern, one which we wish to address and are in fact doing so.
[1605]
C. Hansen: I wanted to raise a couple of issues that have been raised by operators of long term care facilities in the province, three in particular. It's the differences in funding between multilevel care, public extended care and intermediate care, where they all have their own funding structures. What those operators would certainly like to see is more standardized global funding made available.
Secondly, the funding of capital cost is an area of great concern, where they do not feel that funding reflects the need to keep facilities upgraded on a regular basis.
Thirdly, wage and benefit costs are not funded in terms of the funding formulas that are available. Those are costs that, because those facilities are forced to be part of the HEABC negotiations, are imposed upon them and really are totally beyond their control. Yet the funding that flows from the ministry through the health authorities does not reflect some of those costs. I am wondering if the minister could comment on some of those concerns.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the continuing care and the collective agreement, that is fully funded. In terms of Pricare people, we are meeting with them to look at some of the issues that they have raised with us around funding. So those concerns are being recognized, and we're meeting to discuss them.
C. Hansen: But do I take it from the minister's comments that it is a policy of the ministry to fund 100 percent of the compensation issues that flow from the collective agreements that are negotiated by the HEABC?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.
C. Hansen: Actually, with the minister's indulgence, it may be an appropriate time now to deal with some of the compensation issues that flow from that. We'll come back to home support.
[ Page 16166 ]
There are certainly a lot of concerns under the area of compensation, but I think a lot of them have been dealt with in other contexts. So I'll deal with the few remaining issues, which we should be able to dispense with quite quickly.
First of all, I'm wondering if the minister could give us the status and the titles, if that's appropriate, of the various accords that have been negotiated involving compensation issues. We've heard of the big health accords that flowed in 1992 or '93 and then again in '96. But since then, we've seen several different approaches to different types of agreements in health care that have all been called accords. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us: what defines an accord in terms of compensation on health-related issues? Is there a policy to expand the number of accords, or whether or not we're going to continue to pursue big-picture ones, or whether or not we will see more of some of the isolated accords dealing with specific sectors?
[1610]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll try and get the specific particular accords for the hon. member. It may in fact be a question of directing it to Finance, which does the negotiating, as opposed to Health. What I can tell you is that as they relate to Health in general, they cover non-wage items associated with collective bargaining as an opportunity of dealing with some of the issues outside the non-wage sector. So they may in fact be useful in terms of dealing with issues in the future. But that is something that would be part of the collective bargaining process.
C. Hansen: I would like to ask the minister what the relationship is between the ministry and the chief
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the best way to describe him is that he was the government's chief negotiator. We as a ministry would provide him with advice on issues as they related to the Ministry of Health.
C. Hansen: I guess my concern flows from what became obvious to me a year ago and in the year preceding -- that some of these accords were in fact being negotiated, which had a very major impact on the Ministry of Health and the delivery of health care in British Columbia. Yet it was obvious to me at the time that the ministry really was not in the loop when it came to some of those particular accords. I'm wondering if the minister can reassure me that that is not the case anymore -- that the ministry is involved in an integral way in any accord negotiations that take place and involve the delivery of health care in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I can tell the member that the deputy minister is always involved in accord negotiations and will continue to be involved if any are in fact taking place.
C. Hansen: I wanted to move on to the issue of severance payments. There is a provision in some of the collective agreements that has caused a few people concern. The example that I have before me is actually the nurses' agreement -- the agreement with the B.C. Nurses Union -- although it's my understanding that a similar clause exists in other areas.
As we discussed earlier in the Health estimates, we in British Columbia are facing a shortage of various trained health care professionals. Yet we have in these agreements the provision of severance payments that are paid out when somebody voluntarily leaves their profession, leaves their job. At a time when we are trying to do everything we can to encourage nurses, for example, to stay in the profession, it seems to me that these severance provisions run directly contrary to that interest. We're actually rewarding health care professionals who quit their jobs and perhaps move to the United States or seek some other form of employment. I'm wondering if the minister shares my view that this may be counterproductive when it comes to ensuring that as many health care professionals -- in particular, nurses -- are encouraged to stay in their profession in British Columbia.
[1615]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, I think it's probably fair to characterize it as a retirement allowance as opposed to a severance package. I understand where the member's coming from. I would also say that there's a flip side to it, in that it's equally valid to say that it is of benefit to people and attracts them into the system as being something that, if you're working in British Columbia, is a benefit that you can accrue and is in fact something that attracts people to come into the system.
C. Hansen: I think that's a bit of a stretch for the minister. Certainly working conditions and salary
Certainly I have heard comments made that severance allowances upon voluntary retirement are something that are common. It's not common in society generally; it may be increasingly common in the public sector. It is actually referred to in the collective agreement as a severance allowance. And it says: "A regular employee leaving the employ of the employer shall be entitled to receive severance allowance." And then it goes on to say that one of the categories to be eligible is "employees with ten years of service who voluntarily leave the employer's
The point I'm making is that I believe we should be doing everything possible to ensure that nurses and other health professionals are properly remunerated and that their working conditions are such that they will be encouraged to stay in the profession. It strikes me that retirement allowances such as that may run counterproductive to what's in the interest of good health care in British Columbia.
If I can just continue on that area. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us whether or not the health authorities and other employers that would be employing individuals who may be eligible for these severance allowances are in fact funded for their liabilities that they may have to pay out.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We cover the costs associated with these allowances at the current time.
C. Hansen: I guess the concern is that there is an unfunded liability that exists. Is the minister saying that when
[ Page 16167 ]
there is an actual pay-out to an individual who is leaving their employment, the ministry will cover those off on a one-on-one basis? The employer, whether it be a health authority or perhaps a not-for-profit organization or another employer, has to apply to the ministry to cover that liability that would result from a severance allowance being paid.
[1620]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's not done on a one-on-one basis, because it's hard to predict in any one year how many people would take advantage of the particular provision. However, the cost is budgeted for within the global grant and is covered in the funding that the health authority receives.
C. Hansen: One last issue under the area of compensation, and that's the issue around wage parity. We have just had the settlement with the HEU on wage parity issues, and that certainly had a very huge price tag attached to it as a result of the Kelleher recommendations. I'm wondering.
One of the concerns that has come up subsequent to that is that there is another whole round of wage parity issues that could be triggered because of benchmarking, where you have one profession that is benchmarked against another profession. As soon as one gets adjusted, it then has a ripple effect through all the other professions that have benchmarked against that. I'm wondering if the ministry has had an opportunity since the settlement with the HEU to look at what the future ramifications may be in terms of wage parity and what the costs may be to the health system in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess my answer in the short context would be that it is part of future bargaining which hasn't taken place yet and which would be done through PSEC. But certainly we as a ministry would be working with PSEC to look at the implications of what it is that they are negotiating or potentially bargaining -- what the impact would be upon us as a ministry.
C. Hansen: That's all I have on compensation issues, so we can move back to home support, just to continue our discussion on continuing care.
In January the Victoria Times Colonist asked each of the candidates for the leadership of the minister's party to set out their policy as pertained to health care in British Columbia. The member that was successful in becoming the leader of the party and is now our Premier made an interesting commitment in that article, and I will just quote it. It says: "We can start by providing more home support services, more long term care facilities and training more nurses here in British Columbia, and I'm committed to do that."
We have discussed the training of more nurses, and I know there are some initiatives that will start to unfold this fall. Earlier today we have discussed the issue of long term care facilities. As I indicated earlier, I have my concerns that we will have to wait till the fall to see the nature of that particular plan.
But to come back to the third one -- that is, the provision of more home support services in British Columbia -- what we have seen community by community around the province is in fact a reduction in the number of individuals who benefit from home support programs, particularly at the lower levels of need. I know the acuity has been rising. But those who are dependent on minimal levels of home support have certainly seen those withdrawn around the province. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what action he's taking to fulfil a commitment that was made by his leader to provide for more home support services.
[1625]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of the following points. First, in terms of the money that was annualized this year and that came in late last year -- the $26 million that was available to health authorities -- that is available for either continuing-care beds, long term care beds or home support. It's up to the health authority to make that decision.
The second point is in terms of the more long-term strategy that we're working on. I've said a number of times in the estimates debate, in terms of where this fits with continuing care and long-term care and the provision of services required in the coming year, that I see this as very much in that priority. It's been very much a focus of our discussions with the federal government in terms of their commitment to putting more money in. This is one of those areas that I see resources being devoted to.
In fact, my preference probably would be to see some of the targeted funds going into this particular area so that we can start to develop the home support and home care programs to a greater extent than they have been, right now. This has one of the best potentials in terms of ensuring that people can stay in their own homes longer than otherwise might be expected. It will allow them a measure of independence and allow a greater degree of freedom, either by not having to go into an acute care bed or by going into the appropriate level of care at the appropriate time.
So it is an area that we attach a great deal of importance to. There are some steps that have been taken. It is part of the overall strategy and the direction that we need to go in, in terms of the discussion around health in the province.
C. Hansen: In the continuing-care review there was a reference made that I quoted from briefly, regarding the lack of clarity with regard to the role of the CHCs and the CHSSs in terms of delivering home support. I'm wondering if the minister is going to address that issue before the fall. Or is this an issue where we will have to wait until the strategy is unveiled in the fall with regard to clarifying the responsibility for the delivery of home support in the communities that are served by CHCs and CHSSs?
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Certainly it is tied in with the overall strategy, but I am also looking at ways in which I can advance particular ways of addressing home support before then. But I think the bulk of the work on the initiative around that is tied in with the continuing care. You'll see a lot more work made public this fall.
C. Hansen: I had the opportunity to meet with an organization in Victoria here known as the Family Caregivers Network. I was very impressed with the dedication and the work that they do in terms of supporting family caregivers. As I mentioned earlier and was referenced in the committee, in the continuing-care review it is estimated that 90 percent of the care that is given for seniors in our communities comes from
[ Page 16168 ]
family caregivers -- family and friends. The Family Caregivers Network, it strikes me, provides a very useful role in providing assistance and information, education, training and advocacy on behalf of family caregivers.
I'm wondering if the minister sees that particular organization as a model that could be replicated around the province to really help support family caregivers around the province to have the assistance, the backup and the education they need to meet some of these challenges that they're facing.
[1630]
Hon. M. Farnworth: You're absolutely right. The one here in the CRD is an excellent model, and it is one that I wouldn't have any problem in seeing adopted around the province. Certainly that approach, that sort of model, is one that I attach a high degree of importance to. Trying to see something like that in different parts of the province is very much a priority for the ministry.
C. Hansen: I wanted to ask the minister about the CSIL program that is in place. It's a program that works quite well for some people in the province who are facing home care challenges. For those individuals that it works for, it's a tremendous program.
I often hear complaints from individuals who have looked at the program and feel that it doesn't work for them, not because of what the program provides, but more because of the work that has to be undertaken in order to qualify for it. It's the structuring of a committee basically to help administer the program on behalf of each individual that's in that program. It strikes me that this is a program that could be of benefit to a lot more people in the province. It could be very cost-effective for government, provided that it is streamlined in terms of how it is administered. I'm wondering if the ministry has given any consideration to looking at the CSIL program and whether or not it might be made easier to manage by those who would like to qualify for it.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises one of the key points around whatever program you have or that is designed. It's always designed for a specific group of people or a specific target, and it is often very successful at delivering the results that we expect. But at the same time, quite often it can't reach everybody, or there are people who find that it doesn't work for them, for one reason or another.
We have had recommendations from people who've been in it on how we can change the program or how we can improve it. Those recommendations are currently under review. It's my expectation that at some point in the next while we'll be able to act on some of those recommendations. So we are aware of some of the issues, and we are trying to deal with them.
C. Hansen: Could the minister give us some expectation as to what time line we're looking at? When does he expect this review to be completed and recommendations to be made?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There isn't a definitive time line that says it must be done by, let's say, September 1, in part because what's taking place is that it's not a ministry-imposed series of changes. What we're trying to do is review the recommendations that we've received, see how they can be changed and modified, what the effect of the implementation would be and also, equally importantly, to ensure that before those changes are put in place, we go back and talk to the community and ensure that they're being done in a way that is consistent with how they see the recommendations being implemented and consistent with how they see the changes being made.
[1635]
C. Hansen: I want to move on to issues of capital. I want to start specifically with equipment-related issues first and then move on to some of the capital projects. I don't have a lot in this area, because, again, they are areas that have been well canvassed by my colleagues when we were talking about constituency issues.
I am told that the replacement cost of all hospital equipment in British Columbia is about $1 billion -- the total value if we had to replace it all at one time. It is expected that equipment depreciates and becomes obsolete in about a ten-year cycle, so that in any one year we would need about $100 million in order to maintain the integrity of the equipment on a regular basis. This is a particular concern, because over the past five years the total provincial equipment funding has averaged only $15 million a year. I think somebody estimated that at that rate it would take us something like 75 or 80 years in order to cover our equipment needs in British Columbia.
What we're seeing from facility to facility around British Columbia is that equipment is deteriorating. It's wearing out; it is breaking. It is taking an enormous amount of staff time in some cases to keep obsolete equipment going. We have patients in British Columbia who are clearly not getting a standard of care they deserve, if there was equipment being put in place that was really at a standard that is expected in industrialized countries today.
The implication of not funding equipment replacement in British Columbia is quite serious, when you think about it. The first and probably the most important one is the issue of patient safety and whether or not equipment is going to be there when it's needed in order to ensure that patients are being cared for in the manner they should expect.
The second is an inability to deliver care as per existing standards in Canada. I have a document that I'm going to refer to shortly from the diagnostic accreditation program, where there are some very real issues raised.
The third is the inability to retract and retain qualified staff. I hear anecdotal stories of facilities that have tried to attract specialists from other parts of the world to come to British Columbia. They show an interest, only to realize that we have some real obsolete equipment that they would have to be using, equipment that they haven't had to use in their practices in other parts of the world in recent years.
The fourth area of impact is the adverse impact that it has on our teaching programs. If we're going to train health care professionals in British Columbia, we should be training them on the state-of-the-art equipment that they should be expected to use in the years to come, rather than equipment that was really designed for the 1970s or the 1980s.
I'm wondering if the minister could explain to the House how he plans to meet some of these equipment challenges. I'm a little bit concerned at the answer that I might hear. I expect the minister to stand up and say: "We're talking to the feds." With so many of these issues, we have to find ways of solving
[ Page 16169 ]
some of these challenges in British Columbia with the resources we have available, rather than hoping that somehow there's going to be some manna from heaven that's going to fall from Ottawa and bail the minister and this government out of some of these problems that they're facing.
[1640]
Hon. M. Farnworth: My answer will contain a number of components. I'll start with some of the basic ones. The fact is that new facilities in the province are funded with new equipment, the latest equipment. There's been a considerable amount of that taking place over the last number of years. So if you are opening a new facility, the equipment will be in there.
The second point I'd like to make is that, yes, in terms of equipment replacement you do need to make a significant investment. The member's correct in the amount that he has said. But there are some areas where equipment is provided for through foundations, in particular with individual hospitals; it's one area in which equipment is addressed. It is nowhere near enough but is in fact taking place and does meet a small portion of the need.
Second, in the last couple of years there has been a significant investment in hospital equipment through the infusion, even though it's one time, of over $100 million to deal with Y2K, which helped to deal with maintenance and the computer components around much of the equipment in B.C. hospitals. It did have a significant effect upon the state of the equipment in the province. That has taken place, and that has had an impact as well.
The third point that I'd like to make -- and this comes to the member's original comment -- is that, yes, there is the discussion with the federal government, as with all the problems, because the problems around equipment aren't unique just to B.C. The question is: what is the standard of equipment that we should have in the province? In fact, it's something that should be right across the country, and it's very much a part of the discussion.
So one of the initiatives that British Columbia has advanced is the need for an equipment fund; it has met with considerable positive response from the federal government. I don't think it's a question of waiting for manna from heaven, because it's not that. The fact is that the federal government has committed to the provinces. There is significant money available and coming into health care, and this goes some way to restoring the partnership with the provinces. The question is: how is it going to be spent? I think it's appropriate that some of it go to equipment; that's one of the areas that we're pushing. That will also have an impact.
So there are things -- the member's right -- we are doing here within the province that are currently taking place. But it's also important to recognize that there are external factors outside the province that will have an impact on our ability to provide equipment, and they are just as important for discussion as well. It's one of those issues where we need to recognize, as in the maintenance of facilities, that there are long-term costs associated with equipment. They can in fact have a dramatic
The advances and the changes in technology put one of the key pressures on hospitals that is hard to predict in terms of the equipment that's required. For example, ten years ago MRIs were not standard equipment throughout most hospitals in Canada; a decade later they are. They are an important diagnostic tool. That's the challenge with technology, but it is something that we're working on within B.C. and from outside B.C. as well.
C. Hansen: I mentioned earlier the diagnostic accreditation program, and I just wanted to quote from a letter that was sent to the former minister and was copied to me. It came from Dr. David Zacks, who is chair of the medical imaging division of that program. It's quite alarming when you look at it in terms of the threat that this may have to the delivery of quality health care in British Columbia. If I can just quote some of these things:
When the minister is outlining some of the various initiatives that he hopes will result in more dollars for equipment, I'm wondering how he can address what appears to me, from this letter, to be a very short-term and very immediate concern about necessary diagnostic equipment being declared unsuitable for use in British Columbia."It is becoming increasingly difficult for the diagnostic accreditation program to accept the quality and accuracy of much of this aging equipment, which has outlived its useful or expected life span. Inevitably, with declining budgets and aging, outdated equipment, medical standards will inevitably fall. The diagnostic accreditation program is extremely concerned about the current situation of not replacing decaying equipment.
"Without doubt, we can and already do see the lowering of acceptable standards of practice. Unless there is a rapid reversal to the insufficient equipment funding and replacement process, the diagnostic accreditation program will soon have little alternative than to declare such obsolete equipment as diagnostically unacceptable."
[1645]
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I would do is
C. Hansen: There's another very specific issue raised in this letter that I wanted to ask the minister's response to. It says:
I'm wondering if the minister could respond to that and indicate whether or not that particular purchasing policy is being reviewed."The Ministry of Health's plan to bulk-purchase has created considerable unhappiness with individual users, who cannot obtain equipment to meet their needs in a one-size-fits-all model. It has also precipitated the withdrawal of some suppliers from B.C., which unfortunately eliminates competition between vendors and results in a loss of competitive bidding. Individual health authorities are having to bear the additional costs that this poorly-thought-out process has realized."
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the point I'll make is that, yes, I understand that sometimes people have concerns, and
[ Page 16170 ]
they're entitled to their opinion. But our experience in terms of bulk purchasing in this province and in fact right across other provinces is that bulk purchasing has saved a considerable amount of money, that it has not driven suppliers out of the province and that it has in fact given us a better ability to negotiate better deals. My sense of it, just based on instinct, was that bulk purchasing allows you to save a considerable amount of money. I mean, that's one of the key elements of doing business by volume, particularly in supplies and equipment that you're using a great deal of.
So if there are specific concerns, I'm more than happy to look into them. But from the province's experience to date it has been very effective. We have saved a considerable amount of money, and it hasn't resulted in suppliers leaving the province.
[1650]
S. Hawkins: This is not a new issue; I don't know how many times I stand up in this House and say that for each issue that comes up. But this is something, I believe, that has been raised in the House for at least the last four years that I've been here: the issue of us being technology-poor. Equipment for hospitals is especially a concern that's been raised by members on this side of the House for years; it's interesting that the minister stands up and says the government recognizes that. We've had a new minister almost every year. I don't know if this has slipped by other ministers.
I hope this minister does pick up this football and run with it this time, because I don't think patients across the province and especially in rural areas can afford to wait much longer. Perhaps it's an issue that should have been picked up, and leadership from B.C. should have been focusing on this in the past few years. I'm glad it has taken a federal stage now, because I know this is a problem that is unique not only in B.C., but across the country.
What I want the minister to know is
I'm sure the minister has heard that as well. I won't dredge on and on about that. It is about choices, and I guess that in the last few years, on some of the issues we've been raising, the government could have made choices. I don't think they've made the right choices; my constituents don't think they've made the right choices.
I want to ask specifically about the MRI in Kelowna, because the minister did -- and rightly -- state that MRI is not new technology; it's boilerplate now. I trained years ago as a nurse, and we were using that technology years ago. So 15 or 20 years later, it is almost standard in hospitals today, and regional facilities especially should probably have one. Kelowna General Hospital has an MRI that it shares. It's a travelling MRI that travels between Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George. Kelowna gets it for two weeks; Kamloops gets it for a week, as does Prince George.
I think the case has been made to the minister and to the ministry that circumstances at Kelowna General Hospital have changed. We do complex and more aggressive programs there. It is an extra-regional facility. We do programs like angiography. We have a full-scale ICU there. We do all kinds of complicated orthopedic surgery there. In addition -- and the minister knows this as well -- two years ago we added a cancer centre. So there are the complications of adding a cancer centre that services a huge region, the southern interior.
I want to know from the minister: what is the status of getting a fixed MRI unit at Kelowna General Hospital? I know the case has been made by the regional health board. Is it something that's not being planned for a few years? Is it something that's on hold, or is it something that the ministry is moving ahead with? The constituents want to know, the region wants to know, and I'm putting the question to the minister. I would like his comments on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand that the member's comments
I can tell the member that in the case of Kelowna, they are at the top of the list -- I think either number one or number two. So we recognize that the addition of the cancer centre -- what's happening in terms of population growth in Kelowna
Having said that, this is an issue that is of importance to different parts of the province and, as the member correctly stated, is something right across the country, because the level of MRI technology in Canada is considerably less than it is in many other jurisdictions. That's why I've said, in terms of capital, that one of the areas I think we need to focus on -- not just in B.C. but in the country -- is technology and equipment.
[1655]
B.C., with the federal government, has spearheaded the initiative to get a technology and equipment fund in place. We've taken the lead on that. We are spearheading that; that's a B.C. initiative. I've been very pleased with the response that I've received so far from the federal government. If it means that we cost-share less -- let's just say, for the sake of argument, 50-50 -- then we cannot only do one in Kelowna or one in Surrey, if we are doing two in a particular year, but then we could probably do one on the Island and one in another part of the province. That will allow us to do more and at the same time raise the standard.
So yes, I am committed to increasing the level of equipment and technology in the province. Two, I've got a plan that will allow us to do that, and we're working on it, and I'm encouraged by the response. And three -- most importantly, I guess, from the point of view of the member asking the question -- is that Kelowna is very much at the top of the list.
S. Hawkins: I'm glad the minister recognizes
[ Page 16171 ]
really hoping this time it's not empty words. I don't know where we're going to get the money from. I hope there is some movement on the federal stage to work with the province, although I know the province hasn't really had that good of a relationship with the federal government. Let's hope they improve under this minister. Let's really hope they do.
I just want to put on the record as well that for those two weeks when the MRI isn't in Kelowna -- and I know the minister understands that -- patients either wait or are sent to other centres. They're sent down to the lower mainland, or they're airlifted out if it's an emergency. None of those are ideal situations, and it's not just in Kelowna; it's in other parts of the area that we service. So if we did have
If there was a plan, and I hope there is a plan because I don't think
If health care is a priority, then this is certainly an area that needs attention, and certainly there are other facilities in the province that are asking the same questions -- and rightly so -- on behalf of patients. MRI is just one, and it's not that it's quicker or faster or whatever; it's safer and it's non-invasive. It makes sense to provide that kind of technology for our patients, especially if they're acutely or critically ill. We don't want to complicate their case any further.
So I will leave it at that, and I wait to see what the minister's
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's why I said that I've got a plan and that we're working on it. I'm pleased with the progress that's being made. Also, I know the member's concerned about the "best before" date and the number of Health ministers. That's why, when I took the job, I signed it on the condition of a five-year no-cut, no-recall contract. So I'll be around for a while yet.
Interjection.
S. Hawkins: I just can't resist, because I think his "best before" date will be extinguished as soon as the election's called. So I await that date too. Perhaps he can fill us in on that as soon as possible too.
C. Hansen: I think the voters may have an overwrite in that contract, as I understand it.
I want to move on to other capital issues aside from equipment. Specifically, the minister on several occasions in recent months has referred to this new innovation of a three-year capital plan and the request from the health authorities for a three-year outlook on capital planning. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us what's different from years gone by. My understanding is that health authorities have always had to put in multi-year requisitions for what they perceive to be their capital priorities. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what's new about this initiative this particular year.
[1700]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the key difference is that you're tying your capital to your health services plan, which wasn't the case before. The second is as opposed to where it was previously: what are you going to build, and what's the cash flow? Now it's: what are you going to build this year, what are you building next year, and what are you building the year after that? What's the cash flow required for each of those years? And then it's tying them into the health services plan.
C. Hansen: Is the minister saying that one of the difficulties we've had in years gone by in making some of these projects happen in a timely fashion has been cash flow?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, because in fact the problem hasn't been cash flow; it's been a lack of cash flow in the past, which was related to the details of the specific problems coming in soon enough that you could actually plan the full requirement of cash flow that you required. Those are some of the key elements that were outlined in the Deloitte and Touche report, and those are the issues that have been addressed so that we will not see that happen in future years.
C. Hansen: As the minister knows, I've been quite cynical when it comes to the capital budgets and the ability to meet those budgets over the past couple of years. I think we've had that discussion at length in previous days about the inability to actually realize a capital budget and to get projects specifically through Treasury Board.
I wanted to ask about this year's capital projects. There is a report, the index of which was appended to the performance plan for this year, and sections of that report have been made available to me. I understand that there is a section that is not available to me because it is still before Treasury Board. My question is: of all of the projects that are listed in this report as being underway as of March 31, 2000
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they have.
[1705]
C. Hansen: In terms of the projects underway, there are nine pages of projects around the province. The total value of the project is $864 million. I appreciate the fact that that spans several fiscal years, so a portion of that would be in this fiscal year. We're now two months into this fiscal year. Is the minister confident that all of these projects will in fact continue on schedule as is set out in this particular listing of projects?
Hon. M. Farnworth: At this particular point in time, yes, I am.
C. Hansen: Thank you. I find that reassuring, because I know that there were some real problems with getting projects
[ Page 16172 ]
moving in years gone by. I gather from the minister's response that some of those issues have in fact been addressed, and we're able to proceed in a timely way.
I wanted to raise one specific issue regarding one particular community that asked me to bring up their particular project, and that's the project in Houston. There has been a great concern in Houston in the last couple of years about the availability of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week accessibility to health care in Houston. It's a community that has a population of, I guess, 4,235 people; it's probably the only community of that size in British Columbia that does not have access to 24-hour-a-day care.
In the capital plan, not under the projects to be underway this year but rather under projects that are going to be announced or have been announced, is the health centre upgrade in Houston, at a total value of $224,000. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us (1) when that project would proceed, and (2) whether or not that will result in the community of Houston getting the 24-hour-a-day care that they so desperately seek.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it has been announced, so funding and that -- that's fine. In terms of what the level of care is, whether it's seven-by-24-hour, I will get the information for the member and get back to him as quickly as I can.
C. Hansen: I was interested in the minister's comment that the funding is fine, because this is not a project that is underway in this year. Or does the minister anticipate that in fact it might proceed during this current fiscal year?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's actually almost a split cash flow; half will flow this year, and half will flow next year.
C. Hansen: In other words, the residents of Houston will actually see shovels in the ground and construction commence in the current fiscal year, but it won't be completed until the following year. I will take the minister up on his offer to get back to me with regard to whether or not that will result in 24-hour-a-day care in that community.
If I can move on from capital at this point to MSP issues, there has been a lot of reference by the minister and others to alternate payment programs. With the frequency that it comes up, it strikes me that the ministry and the minister have made this a fairly high priority. That of course has raised a lot of concerns in some quarters that the alternate payment program may in fact be brought in as an obligation on communities and imposed on either professionals or communities that don't desire it. I'm wondering if the minister could set out what his policy is with regard to the expansion of alternate payment provisions in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's something that I think we need to approach on the basis that it's not a one-size-fits-all policy, that it's something that can be applied in particular situations or particular areas depending upon the need of the community, the size of the community and the type and number of physicians who are currently practising in that particular location. It is one option that is available to the province, and it has been done and pursued on a negotiated basis as opposed to imposing it. In a sense it's part of a package. It is an option that we have, and it is useful in meeting particular communities' needs or particular areas of the province. It is on that basis that it's implemented.
[1710]
C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us how many physicians in British Columbia are currently operating under alternate payments and whether or not the ministry has a specific target in terms of how many practitioners they would like to see under that program?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of a specific target, no. There isn't a specific target in terms of the number of physicians on alternate payment plans. However, there are approximately 2,000 physicians who receive some or all of their income through alternate payment plan funded methods.
C. Hansen: I wanted to ask the minister about out-of-province coverage for treatment for British Columbians. We often get letters from individuals who have sought approval from the ministry for treatment outside of British Columbia. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what the policy of the ministry is, as to whether or not out-of-province coverage would be approved for a particular patient.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The policy is that it has to be recommended by a physician and a specialist, and that it is a procedure that is not currently done here in British Columbia. Also, it can't be experimental. If it meets those conditions, then we will in fact cover it.
C. Hansen: One of the concerns that often comes up is a treatment that is and can be provided in British Columbia but cannot be provided in a timely fashion. I'm wondering if there is a policy in the ministry as to at what point they will approve out-of-province coverage for treatment when it cannot be provided in a timely manner within the province.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The circumstances would have to be fairly unique for that to happen. In fact, it very rarely happens in the province. But if something like that were to, where there was a considerable risk, then it would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
C. Hansen: In 1995 there was a considerable number of patients that went out of province for treatment, I believe, both in terms of cardiac care and in terms of radiography. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what policy was in place that allowed for that program and whether or not that policy is still in place today.
[1715]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The '95 period -- in fact, I think we discussed this earlier in estimates -- was around radiotherapy and cancer treatment. In fact, we have not been sending patients to the States since '95, since that contract expired, in part because the new cancer facilities came on stream and we were able to meet the demand. We continue to work with the cancer centre in managing that demand. It's not the case anymore that the practice takes place.
The other one, around cardiac, for example, was back in 1989, and that ended in '91. Those were the last times that we doing that on what you would say was a contract or a regular basis.
Finally, if we're looking at a procedure that can't be provided in B.C., we will look at
[ Page 16173 ]
we'll find a way of getting it done within Canada, for example. But again, it's done on a case-by-case basis, and there are so few of them that it's the best way to approach it.
C. Hansen: My concern is that in the case of emergency requirement for treatment, we don't have a system in place that can facilitate a timely approval where it may be necessary to move somebody out of province for treatment. There was actually a case in December of two individuals who were requiring renal dialysis with critical care in an ICU. There were no beds available at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, and in the case of at least one of those patients, the physician sought permission to send the patient to Bellingham for this urgently needed renal dialysis. I guess the concern was the time that it took for that decision to be made -- that there is not really a process to facilitate that kind of an emergency decision to be made.
These two patients were actually transported to Kelowna to be put on dialysis there in their intensive care ward. Regrettably, one of those individuals passed away in Kelowna. Nobody is suggesting that the delay resulted in his demise, but I don't think anybody can give reassurance to the family that it was not a factor as well. My concern is that when it comes to approving for a patient to be moved down to Bellingham in that kind of an emergency situation, we don't have a process in place that would allow for decisions to be made in a timely manner. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact we do have the ability, and we do approvals on a very timely basis. If it's an emergency, it can be done that same day. Quite often what we try and do in a number of cases is key things up with the physician ahead of time, so that the appropriate arrangements can be made. The ministry does do it, and we do have a process in place to deal with situations like that.
[1720]
C. Hansen: I want to move on to some of the issues surrounding the processing of premiums and premium reduction applications and that type of thing. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are up to date on new applications. When new applications come in, they are processed extremely quickly. We still have a backlog. As I have told my ministry staff, it is unacceptable that we have that backlog, and we want it resolved. I also think that we need to find some innovative ways of looking at how we process MSP applications. For example, I'd like to know why you can't do it on line. We can do on-line banking and should be able to do on-line MSP processing. That's one of the things we are looking at, for example: how we can improve the system. I share your concern and am trying to do everything I can to make sure that it is rectified.
C. Hansen: I've had a couple of cases brought to my attention in recent months. One is a case of a woman in Salmon Arm who had applied for a premium reduction. In the delay that it took to process her application, her regular premium that was due actually went into collections. She has a concern that that may in fact affect her credit rating. She was told by ministry staff that she should not be concerned about the fact that the application hadn't been processed. She was told that she should ignore the collection notices that were coming in and that it would get processed in due course.
I had another case where an individual who was a student had to go on her own plan instead of being dependent on her parents' plan. She had sent a cheque in, and in the time that it took the ministry to process the cheque, it became stale-dated. It went beyond the six months.
I think that when the minister says that some of the times in processing this paperwork are unacceptably long, he was talking about many months in some cases. I know that it is a great concern to individuals, whether they're facing letters from collection agencies that they don't deserve to be receiving or whether it's individuals who are told by their doctors that they can't process a Medical Services Plan payment because of the fact that they haven't been registered with that program. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us
Hon. M. Farnworth: By the end of summer it is anticipated that the turnaround on that particular type of application will be three weeks and that the regular premium, your new premium, will be about a week.
In terms of the specifics, I can look into the one on the cancelled cheque. But for the first one you raised, I am aware of that situation, and I can assure the woman who wrote the letter that that will not affect her credit rating. In fact, I think steps have been taken to ensure that that does not happen.
[1725]
As I said, I think -- and I just formatted a record -- that this is the type of thing that people find the most frustrating about dealing with government. So much of what government does, of what policy does, is worthwhile and is positive and leads to long-term changes that people welcome and want to see happen. Unfortunately, the impression too often of what happens with government is when people access the system directly and when they're doing something as simple as enrolling in an MSP plan or making changes to that plan, what you experience are frustrating delays for no apparent reason. Then that causes them to question: "Well, what's the rest of government like?" And I fully understand the frustration around that.
That's why I think we have to make significant improvements in the processing time of MSP applications. And that's also the type of thing where, in terms of provision of government services, we should be looking at up-to-date ways of dealing with these things.
Sure, there are the traditional methods around mail-in and having it processed in the traditional way. But why can't you do your MSP premium on line? Why can't we have, for example, a debit system to pay your MSP premium? You can now pay your ICBC premium monthly, debited out of your
[ Page 16174 ]
account. Why can't you do that with your MSP premium? These are the types of things I'd like to see if we can resolve, and hopefully, we can have a better system.
C. Hansen: I wanted to ask the minister about CareCard fraud in British Columbia and the abuse of CareCards and health numbers in the province. There was a study that was done in Ontario sometime in the last few years; I don't know exactly what year. But certainly, what they estimated was that the value of fraud that existed in the use of personal health numbers was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I haven't seen that exact report, but aspects of it were conveyed to me.
In British Columbia, when a CareCard is stolen, I understand that there is an investigation launched in terms of how that CareCard number may be used once it is reported stolen. But I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what has been done by the ministry to look at the abuse of CareCards -- not just those that are stolen but those that are in fact loaned to other people to use. There are estimates that this is a very, very significant amount of money that could be involved in the misuse of CareCard numbers in the province, and I'm wondering if the ministry has looked at this issue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have an extensive program in place that recognizes the importance of this particular issue. We have an investigation unit, which has eight investigators who work around this issue on a full-time basis.
Amongst the things we do are to send out verification letters to patients on a random basis. It works out to, I think, about 6,250 letters per month to verify that services that were charged to the card or done in the patient's name were in fact done. The unit also deals with issues. For example, if you lose your CareCard and you phone into the ministry, then they deal with that as well. So we have procedures in place to deal with the issue, and we take it very seriously.
C. Hansen: I did want to ask specifically about the verification audits that are done. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us how many verification letters in fact go out on a random basis to patients in the province. Is the purpose of those verification audits to look at the misuse of the CareCards? Or is it to look at the billing practices of doctors, per se?
[1730]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is in fact a combination of both, because quite often one will lead you to the other and vice versa.
C. Hansen: I wanted to move to some issues regarding the supplementary benefits program. Specifically, the governance of supplementary health care practitioners is the responsibility of the special committees pursuant to section 26 of the Medical Practitioners Act.
I am told that these special committees have not met since October of 1997 and that there is a tripartite committee. There is only one remaining active member. Furthermore, the order-in-council appointing them has lapsed for the other eight members.
This means that the governance of over 3,790 health care practitioners is left up to the chair of the special committee, who is no longer with the Ministry of Health, and one government representative. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us how long that particular
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have been informed that a review is completed, and it will be discussed with me shortly.
C. Hansen: Where does the minister anticipate this going from here? Is it something that will go to each of the colleges involved? If the minister could give us some sense of how this may go forward from here.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once I have seen the review and discussed it with my staff, then what I'd like to do is bring in the liaison committee so that we can discuss that within the affected parties and then go forward from there.
C. Hansen: I take it from that that there is an undertaking by the minister to engage in a meaningful consultation process with those professional groups that are involved.
I want to move on to the issue of the $10 user fee for optometry services that was
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess it's an interesting chain of events as to how that happened, because in fact it was a mistake. Letters went out that should not have. As someone in the media said: "Well, are you sure it was a mistake?" I said that, first off, the minister has to approve it or has to take it to cabinet. I was away for the cabinet meeting to take it there, so it never even got dealt with. Somebody decided, oh, they'd send the letter anyway, and it went out. The effect, though, was that no decision had been made, and the question around the $10 had not been decided upon.
But what has in fact taken place since then has been discussion with the affected parties -- with the association, with the optometrists. That has been underway, and I expect the report dealing with the issue on my desk in the very near future, probably within the next few days.
[1735]
C. Hansen: Thank you, and we'll move on to information systems.
I guess the good news, not only for the minister but for the ministry staff who are watching this in the committee rooms, is that we are just about done. Certainly I expect that unless the minister comes out with some outlandish answer to a question in the next few minutes, I am confident that we'll be able to wrap these up before the dinner break.
Moving on to information systems. I wanted to refer specifically to the information resource management plan that came out on January 30, 1998. It is a plan that is now two and a half years old, and it is a five-year plan. So we are halfway into this particular plan that was set out at that time.
[ Page 16175 ]
It talks about the success factors and sets out four items as critical success factors for health information management. It includes the ability to (1) establish a common vision and cooperation among all B.C. health system stakeholders, (2) ensure the privacy and confidentiality of health information systems, (3) reallocate the necessary resources to achieve the vision, and (4) base information management activities on the adoption and use of standards.
I see that in this last two and a half years, we have made some progress on the issue of privacy and confidentiality, which I know, in terms of where that hits on the radar screen, rises and settles depending on issues that are out there. But I think, generally, thanks to some of the work that was done by David Flaherty in British Columbia, that we have made some progress on that. I think, rightly so, that as a society we continue to challenge what is appropriate in that area. So I do see that some progress is made on point No. 2.
But I'm wondering if the minister can outline for me the other three areas, where I don't see it as obvious that we have made significant progress -- that is, in coming out with the common vision, allocating the necessary resources and basing information management on the adoption and use of standards. I'm wondering if the minister could outline for us a progress report, two and a half years into this five-year plan.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll deal with the four components, not necessarily in numerical order but in the order in which I think they tend to relate to each other.
I think the overriding issue in all information technology which needs to be addressed and where there has been considerable work on, as the member points out, is around privacy. If you don't have a good base in privacy, it doesn't matter what the vision is. It doesn't matter what resources you devote; it doesn't matter what systems you implement. I think there has to be a solid underpinning in the public, that there is confidence that the information contained in information technology systems and the information we can ask for, that their privacy concerns are recognized. There has been a lot of work done on that. There needs to be, I think, a lot more work done in terms of the advances that are likely to be made and that are possible in terms of the information technology systems in general. That's key.
In terms of the vision of where we want to be, I think we have come a long way -- not where we need to be -- but certainly in terms of the health authorities recognizing the importance of information technology and in the recognition that it is not just isolated to that particular health authority. Information technology has to be integrated throughout the province. It has to be integrated eventually into physicians' offices and clinics and health centres right across the province so that institutions can talk to other institutions and we don't have information silos. That's crucial.
One of the advantages of that is that we can save on duplication and on resources, which can then be reallocated elsewhere. I think in general, that has been understood now, and I think there is a recognition that that's the direction we need to move into if we want to achieve greater efficiencies within the system. Technology now allows us to do that. That, again, ties into the issues around privacy of information.
[1740]
I also think that in terms of where it needs to go, we can take it one step further. That is that it should be accessible at some point from within provinces, so that each province can talk to other provinces through the same information technology. There's a provincial and a national role there.
Three, in terms of resources, the resources issue is something that is under active consideration at the provincial and federal levels as a recognition that this is one of the key areas in which we can make advances in assuring that the money we have in the system right now is being used more efficiently. There have been provincial resources that have been in place to date -- not enough. However, I expect you will start to see that change once we develop the agreements with the federal government.
Finally, in terms of standards, there has been considerable work done around this area already. There remains some substantial work still to do. But I think, again, that ties into dealing with some of the privacy concerns. As you resolve those concerns, you are able to do more in terms of what can be accomplished. But just for the information of the members, some of the issues that have been resolved in terms of standards are things such as personal health numbers, transmission control protocols, Internet protocols, security and privacy guidelines for health and information systems, data standards, telecommunications standards, health registry, international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. The Pharmaceutical Association claim standards have been done around there.
There are a number of areas which are currently being worked on -- for example, community health information systems, lab testing standards, continuing-care data standards. Pilot testing is taking place in the capital region. So we have made some significant work, but I think this is one of those issues that is a long-term project, an extremely important one. There will be a lot of attention focused on it in terms of resources and in terms of development around some of the key areas involved in implementing information technology, and I think that that's important.
But I also think that the key to making it succeed -- that needs reinforcing, and I'll come back to it -- is fundamental. The success of information technology and the advancing of information technology in our health care system to where it needs to be is addressing the privacy issues and the concerns around privacy. If we do that, then I think we will have a system that will really work, not just in B.C. but right across the country.
C. Hansen: The first point that I mentioned in the list of four was to establish a common vision and cooperation among all B.C. health system stakeholders. The minister talked about the desirability, in fact necessity, of provinces to be able to communicate using the same information technologies. But we don't even have that ability within certain health regions, never mind across the province today.
I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what we should expect when it comes to the establishment of a common vision with regard to information management. Does the minister see a policy document or announcements coming forward that will really set out for health care practitioners in British Columbia what the shape of these information systems will be in the years to come?
That's one of the real problems: it is seen to be disjointed in British Columbia. In fact, the only real initiative that we see that is actually impacting on patient care or on the ability to
[ Page 16176 ]
deliver health services is the PharmaNet system. We also see the development of the PathNet system. We also see the development of the document processing system that's being developed by the Workers Compensation Board. In my view, these are peripheral to what should be the central direction for information systems for health care in British Columbia.
I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what he sees as the deliverable to the public when he makes the commitment that there will be the establishment of a common vision and cooperation among B.C. health system stakeholders.
[1745]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We're currently working on updating and revising our information resource management plan, which deals with information technology. The member is right. When I said "talking to provinces," that is very much the vision of where we want to be. Part of that, within the province itself, is health authorities being able to talk to health authorities and institutions within each health authority being able to talk to each other, which is not the case right now. That to me is unacceptable.
That's the goal that we're working towards: the vision of a completely integrated system that allows you to have greater patient access and the ability of physicians to talk to an institution or a number of institutions within that health authority and within different health authorities. So there is a linkage within health authorities and between health authorities, and between the province and health authorities, so that information gets to where it needs to be when it needs to be there. And you have a comprehensive system. That's what is being worked on in terms of updating the information management papers we have right now.
My discussions with the health authorities to date have encouraged me that that's where they want to go too. They are recognizing that the need for information technology is crucial in order for them to better do their jobs in terms of delivery of service, but also in ensuring that the resources that they have are allocated in as an efficient a manner as possible.
Yes, there's work being done on it. Yes, it's an ongoing project, and it's one that I attach a high degree of importance to.
C. Hansen: I have a couple of brief issues regarding health professions. Specifically, a year ago in Health estimates one of the issues that was very topical of the time was the renegotiation of the pharmacy participation agreement. There was an undertaking at that time that the ministry would give consideration, at least, to giving the Pharmacists Association a negotiating status. They had some real issues involving the Competition Act. They were subject to the Competition Act and therefore were not able to negotiate collectively with the ministry in terms of issues surrounding the pharmacy participation agreement. Other bodies such as the doctors have that through the BCMA, but pharmacists did not have it.
I made the point at the time that I thought it was desirable for British Columbia to ensure that pharmacists did have that kind of negotiating power. I'm wondering if the minister could report as to whether there has been any progress made on that issue in the last year.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the issue in terms of the desirability of having a negotiating association for the pharmacists, and we'd be quite happy to see something happen. We were working with them on that. However, there were a number of problems that came up, not the least of which were from within the membership of the Pharmacists Association itself, which caused some problems. Basically the ministry's position is that we would like to get into that type of arrangement. However, I think that the support within the association as the recognized -- I guess authority; I don't know if bargaining agent is quite the right term -- authority to carry on discussions with the ministry needs to be strengthened before we could enter into an arrangement in the manner which they envision.
[1750]
C. Hansen: The final issue I've got under legislation and health professions is the issue surrounding the emergency contraception program. I know that a lot of people were quite enthusiastic when they heard the announcements in that area. I know there was a lot of work done with pharmacists around the province being trained to help launch that program. Now I understand that it has been stalled, and that is possibly because of the wording of legislation or other issues involving health professions. I'm wondering if the minister can update us on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I am aware of the issue, and it's something that I would like to see resolved sooner rather than later. What we're trying to do is work with the College of Pharmacists and the College of Physicians and Surgeons to try and resolve some of the hurdles that have gotten in the way of this very worthwhile initiative.
C. Hansen: There were a few other minor issues, but they probably don't warrant embarking on them at this time. I would just like to thank the ministry staff for their assistance and cooperation during this process. With that, we can allow the vote to proceed.
The Chair: Shall vote 36 pass?
Interjection.
The Chair: Minister -- sorry.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the member for the cooperative fashion in which we have managed to ensure best use of staff time and to get through the estimates in a way that I think makes logical sense. I'm very pleased with that.
The Chair: Sorry, minister; I was in a bit of a rush there.
Vote 36 approved.
Vote 37: vital statistics, $6,992,000 -- approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 16177 ]
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:40 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6:40 p.m.
[1840]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
(second reading)
This legislative session the government, under the leadership of the new Premier, has introduced a series of measures to make government more open, more accountable and more transparent. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is one of the key elements of this initiative.
This bill will place our province at the forefront of openness and transparency in Canada. It will help us modernize government for the twenty-first century. This act, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, will change how budgets are made in British Columbia. Budgets will become more open and more inclusive. It will change how budgets are presented. They will be more clear and more transparent. It will change the way government plans for the future, ushering in a new era of planning and reporting, both by ministries of the Crown and by Crown corporations.
I want to talk about each of those points in a little bit of detail at second reading -- first, the budget process and how this act opens it up to the people of the province. Starting this year, in year 2000, and every year thereafter the government will undertake prebudget consultations with the people of the province. Those consultations will be undertaken not by the Ministry of Finance travelling the province or by some informal process but by an all-party committee of the Legislature that will make a report of its findings before the end of the calendar year -- before December 31 of each year. For the first time in our province's history, it will be the law to seek input from British Columbians on their provincial government's budget.
Not only are we revolutionizing the way budgets are put together, we are also changing the way that budgets are presented. With this bill the government will be required by law to present the budget on a summary accounts basis. That means one bottom line that includes all revenue and all ministry spending and all Crown corporations as well.
This budget that we've debated this year in the Legislature, Budget 2000, is presented on this basis even in advance of Bill 2 becoming law. Bill 2 will also require that the budget include all the underlying material, economic and fiscal assumptions on which the budget has been prepared. It will be the secretary to Treasury Board, not elected representatives, who will attest to those assumptions, to their completeness and to their inclusiveness.
The economic forecast for the provincial economy, which is produced by the Economic Forecast Council of private and academic forecasters, must also be disclosed in the budget documents. Finally, the bill ensures that the estimates contain the reconciliation of the amount of deficit with the increase in debt, as well as a schedule that shows gross revenue and expenses before any netting out has occurred.
The third area that I think is also important is the approach to planning. Bill 2 is more than a modern approach to budget-making and budget presentation. It is also about government planning and reporting. It will no longer be business as usual for government ministries and Crown corporations in British Columbia. With this bill all ministries, all Crown corporations and the government as a whole will be required by law to table performance plans for the coming year. For ministries and Crown corporations and agencies, performance plans must be made public by April 30 of each year, and for the government as a whole, a strategic plan must be tabled each year no later than budget day.
[1845]
The key requirement of these plans is that they lay out expected results. Budgets, of necessity, focus on inputs -- how many dollars, how many personnel. Performance plans require the focus on results. The bill then requires a public reporting of those results. They will spell out for all British Columbians exactly what was undertaken and what was achieved. The report on the government's overall strategic plan must be made public no later than the date for public accounts, and the reports on ministry and Crown corporations' and agencies' results must be made public no later than June 30. In short, performance plans will be required by law at the outset of each year, and performance reports are required at the completion of that year.
Another topic that this bill addresses in great detail is reporting. The bill requires that the three key financial documents of government must be made public in a timely manner. First, the budget and Estimates must be tabled early enough in March that budget debate can be completed prior to the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. The quarterly reports generally must be made public within two months of the end of the quarter. Finally, Public Accounts, the third major reporting document, must be made public by the end of August -- August 31.
This bill also ushers in stringent new accountability requirements for major capital projects, projects in which taxpayers have a commitment of $50 million or more. Disclosures on four items must be made within one month of a commitment to a major capital project being made. Those four items are: the objectives of the project, its costs, its benefits and the risks associated with those costs and those benefits. The bill also requires in future years an annual reporting, as part of the budget, of current and total costs to the taxpayer in respect of applicable capital projects.
Bill 2 also requires some additional measures that will be taken by government to further the accountability and transparency of British Columbia's government. First, all documents required under this act must be understandable to the user. That is, it must be written in plain language. Second, the information in a plan, whether financial or non-financial, must be comparable with the results in related reports. And the plans and reports must be as comparable as practicable across the various organizations within the summary government reporting entity -- all ministries and all Crown corporations.
[ Page 16178 ]
On one other additional matter, the Enns report recommended -- and I should say in passing that much of the work in this bill flows from the work of Doug Enns and his panel -- that the use of special warrants, while still legal, be very much discouraged. This bill accomplishes that objective. The bill requires that there be a fiscal update made public whenever warrants seeking an appropriation beyond those that have been approved by this Legislature in a supply bill are sought.
The Enns report recommended that this update occur whenever warrants exceeded a threshold, and the report sets a threshold of 2 percent above voted appropriations. This bill has made a different choice and requires an update regardless of the amount of additional expenditure. Essentially, there is no minimum threshold. The bill also requires that ministers seeking special warrants make public information about the warrant, including when the minister first became aware of the need for the warrant.
And finally, a final accountability measure: the bill requires that there be annual report cards presented to the Legislature by the government and by the auditor general on the implementation of the Enns recommendations and that a panel be appointed at the end of this decade to review the budget process again.
[1850]
In conclusion, I want to commend the work of Mr. Enns and the panel that he chaired. When they issued their report last September, I committed the government very publicly to acting not on one or two, but on all of the recommendations that he brought forward. I think Mr. Enns and his panel have served the people of the province well in their recommendations for improving our budget processes. Bill 2 is the demonstration of our government's commitment to move forward in the direction that Mr. Enns has advised us we should be moving.
In keeping with the Enns report's recommendations, most requirements of this bill come into force immediately. However, certain requirements, notably the strategic plan, performance plans and the related reports, are not going to be legally required until next fiscal year. However, as members of the Legislature have seen, in many cases we're not waiting for the bill to become law; we are already acting.
Last fall I conducted prebudget consultations and initiated a consultation document for the first time in the province's history. I tabled a budget based on summary accounts, and ministries and Crown corporations have tabled performance plans for the upcoming year. They have formed part of the basis for estimates debate in this session of the Legislature.
The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act will place British Columbia at the forefront of open government. The people of British Columbia expect and deserve nothing less. I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 2.
I. Chong: I am pleased, as well, to rise this evening to begin the debate on Bill 2, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I would like to commence by noting the title given this bill: Budget Transparency and Accountability, which if stated more simply, should just read truth in budgeting.
What is also worth noting is that for the past five years, the Leader of the Official Opposition has tabled a private member's bill dealing with just that issue every year. It was intituled the Truth in Budgeting Act. The first question that comes to mind is: why, then, is this bill so long in coming? Did the NDP suddenly realize that now it was time to tell the truth about its books? Or did the NDP get caught and have no choice but to proceed in this manner? It doesn't really matter. It's just significant enough that this NDP administration realizes that truth in budgeting is indeed the right thing to do, and I'm just glad that the official opposition continued every year to press this very important measure.
On that note, I would like to elaborate. The purpose of truth-in-budgeting legislation is to ensure that financial reporting policies of the government are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. Generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, as the acronym goes, are policies that adhere to and are practised by all professional accounting organizations. They are principles recognized as the authority upon which financial data and financial information should be disclosed and ultimately relied upon by third parties. So it is extremely important to include generally accepted accounting principles when introducing any form of truth-in-budgeting legislation.
Also contained within legislation of this nature should be an intention that it will result in transparent, comprehensive, understandable and truthful reporting of the financial affairs of the government. Otherwise, it would be a farce and just more of the same smoke-and-mirrors accounting that British Columbians have seen and have had more than enough of.
[1855]
If Bill 2 accomplishes these objectives -- that is, reporting policies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and also transparency that encompasses comprehensiveness and truthfulness -- then I will be more than ecstatic to stand up and support it. But, hon. Speaker, regrettably that is not the case as you read Bill 2. No, it is not the case; and sadly, it could have been.
I and members on this side of the House believe, though, that Bill 2 is in fact the right step and the right direction for us to be headed in; British Columbians expect no less, as the minister concluded. And just because this NDP government is unable to get it right doesn't mean that we on this side of the House aren't willing to help correct the errors that exist in Bill 2 -- because there are errors that exist in Bill 2. In fact, we intend to identify all those sections that are flawed, and we intend to offer amendments that will ensure that we truly have a Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
In its present form Bill 2 does not offer budget transparency or accountability in full -- in part, perhaps, but not in full. And so I will be watching the minister and his NDP members to see whether they have the courage to allow our amendments to pass, or whether they will just try to defend their actions and defend this flawed piece of legislation and reject our very valuable and appropriate amendments. And if in fact the Minister of Finance and his colleagues do not accept our amendments, which are only intended to strengthen the legislation, then in the end I suppose I will not be able to support Bill 2.
Hon. Speaker, you would then have to question why it is that the NDP couldn't support our amendments, because the minister will see that they are justified and they do have merit. And so I do look forward to the Minister of Finance's reaction and to whatever reasons he will present when that time arises.
[ Page 16179 ]
But in principle, though, hon. Speaker, I do want to say that Bill 2 is supportable. It needs to be amended; it needs to be fixed up so that it will work for all British Columbians and there will be some credibility. We intend to assist in that manner and to allow Bill 2 to pass. But it will not be able to pass in its flawed state.
I am, though, disappointed that it has taken this government those five years to hear us on this side of the House. It has taken five years of debate to shame this government into doing the right thing for British Columbians. You have to wonder what the past five years would have been like if the NDP had only listened to members on this side of the House, even before I was here, and in particular if they had listened to the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey.
Well, I suppose it means that we would not have had presented to us the notorious 1996 fudge-it budget, as it has come to be known. It means that the 1996 budget would have had to reveal that there was no surplus from the previous year, nor would there be one for the upcoming year. It means that this government would probably not have been re-elected to govern. It means that we wouldn't have had to commission a special panel, which was chaired by a Mr. Doug Enns, who we all believe has done a very commendable job. It means that we wouldn't have had to commission that special panel to look into the government financial reporting. It means that the B.C. fast ferries fiasco could have been avoided. Imagine that, hon. Speaker. If truth-in-budgeting or budget transparency and accountability legislation was in place five years ago, we could have saved British Columbians $463 million just like that.
An Hon. Member: Just being truthful with us.
I. Chong: Just being truthful, as my hon. colleague has stated.
Instead, in the past five years we have allowed British Columbia to be the laughingstock of the country, due to our poor economic environment and also due to our province being labelled as having lied about its budget. That's what everybody else is saying, and it's unfortunate, because now we have the distinction of that title, and we have to spend the next five or ten years to change that around. It won't be easy. But, hopefully, this legislation, if properly corrected and amended, will start to change that reputation around.
[1900]
So if this government is serious about changing that image, as we on this side of the House certainly are, then I expect them to listen seriously to our amendments and let them pass.
We have to take a look back, sometimes, into the past to see how legislation comes forward into the future and why, in particular, we are at this stage and at this point that we are today. In order to do so, we do have to go back to 1995. We have to go back to a time when the NDP caucus was briefed by Ministry of Finance officials as to the state of the economy and as to what would happen to our budget. The Minister of Finance, in his opening remarks, alluded to a new Premier with a new cabinet and therefore a new piece of legislation to herald in this new political environment.
But it's not so new. If you take a look back at 1995, at that time there were 50 NDP caucus members; 27 of them are still in government now. Of those 27, 15 are in this Premier's cabinet. So it's not a new Premier, and it's not even a new cabinet. We have the people that were there in 1995 that should have known better, and they're still here now.
I'm not referring to everybody, just those 15 members from 1995 who are here now; that's a good number, I would say. That's over half of the cabinet. Even this Premier cannot run away from what has happened in these past five years, and he cannot distance himself from what happened five years ago. This Premier and those 15 cabinet ministers sat in on all those briefings with Treasury Board and sat in on all those briefings with Finance officials or else could have availed themselves to speak to those Finance ministry officials. Instead they chose to ignore it, put their hands around their ears and didn't want to listen to what was happening, and hands before their eyes so that they wouldn't have see what was before them, and hands in front of their mouths so that they wouldn't have to speak about it. It reminds me of three little animals.
It's really important that we look at what happened in 1995. In February of 1995 the Treasury Board warned of fiscal problems, and a Treasury Board memo which referred to emerging fiscal problems was circulated. At that time how many of those cabinet ministers here now were at that briefing with those Treasury Board officials? A good number, hon. Speaker.
That memo that Treasury Board issued, which I'm sure is a confidential memo only going to cabinet ministers, indicated that the problem was going to be substantial and that there would be a large deficit. However, at that time the NDP chose not to mention that and in fact chose to find "revenue optimism." I have to ask what that means. As a professional accountant, I've never heard the term revenue optimism. Somehow this terminology was pulled out of the air and incorporated into some sort of justification for the then Minister of Finance to present, I suppose, to cabinet.
When the Minister of Finance spoke of the Economic Forecast Council as being necessary, I would agree with him that it is necessary. They provide independent and academic information, and they reach out to the third parties to find out what the forecasters are saying and what needs to be incorporated into budget documents. I would not dispute that. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly.
[1905]
That's necessary because this government, this administration, refused to listen to what I believe are some professional, non-partisan public servants who were already providing that same kind of information, perhaps not in as much detail. But surely we have professional accounting public service people that we can rely on for information. The difference is that this NDP administration dismissed it, so now they have to bring in an Economic Forecast Council to prove to all the rest of us and to all British Columbians that they won't dismiss it. If they had only listened five years ago, it wouldn't be necessary to have this council, perhaps.
We can rely on our professional public servants who, I believe, want to do the right thing and to do a good job. But it's pretty difficult, when you slide that piece of paper in front of your Finance minister and in front of the Premier, and they want to dismiss it and say, "We're looking for revenue optimism instead," which doesn't exist. I'd like to hear what the Economic Forecast Council has to say about revenue optimism.
[ Page 16180 ]
That was in February of '95. Let's move it down another six or seven months to September. Not like the previous meeting, where only the Finance minister and members of cabinet, perhaps, were briefed on what was happening, the entire caucus at that time was warned of a billion-dollar deficit in September of 1995 -- the entire caucus, now. We're not just talking about 15 of those members of cabinet. We're talking about the other 12 who are still here today who were part of that administration. They were also briefed about a potential billion-dollar deficit for 1996-97. This is prior to Mike Harcourt stepping down and prior to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway making a bid for the leadership. Everybody then knew what was happening. But no, again that was dismissed.
Then the Forests ministry, in November of 1995, provided an additional warning of low revenues. The Forests minister at that time, lo and behold, was the member for Saanich South who, after the election of 1996, became the Finance minister. Suddenly there's a lapse of memory; suddenly he forgot he told himself that there was going to be a shortfall of revenue.
We move into 1996, where this new Premier -- again a so-called new Premier -- forges ahead and allows the cabinet and the Finance minister to present a budget which they believe, or should have believed, was inaccurate and in fact would project a deficit. They moved ahead and showed revenue optimism, projecting a surplus.
Now we have a situation where private citizens are taking this matter before the courts, again costing money to the system. That ended up costing all of us, as British Columbians, our reputation. As an elected person, I know that perhaps wasn't the intention, but it certainly is now the fact.
When the Finance ministry can ignore the professional public service and ignore memos from Treasury Board, you wonder just what else it would be ignoring, which causes me to wonder how much of Bill 2 was put together and how much of it was removed before we got to Bill 2. That is why we have some items which are clearly missing.
In 1996 after the election, the then Premier asked for wriggle room. That was on May 29, 1996, one day after the election. In the following month, in June, when we had a new Finance minister, the member for Saanich South, he then received a one-hour oral briefing on the revised forecast but again chose not to disclose that to this House, perhaps wondering if there would be some new data that would suddenly emerge or new revenue optimism that would suddenly appear. But that didn't happen.
[1910]
So on June 26, 1996, the then Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich South, delivers a budget claiming that there is a surplus and stating that the previous year there was still an estimated surplus, even though his briefing notes advised him that they would not have any surplus, that in fact there would be a deficit. Two days after that, on June 28, 1996, we see an article in the newspaper by a Times Colonist reporter who reveals that in fact the previous budget was in the red. So I think we have a serious problem here. The serious problem stems from that side of the House not understanding its obligation for financial accountability.
That then resulted in a whole chain of events, as we now know has happened. We've had to deal with the auditor general's report. We've had to deal with the public accounts. We've had to deal with this Enns panel review on the budget. And we've had to deal with, each and every year, asking this government to bring in truth-in-budgeting legislation to restore the credibility that this province so dearly needs.
It's important to note that the auditor general did the best job he possibly could in looking into this matter. That took quite some time. Imagine what we could have done with the resources allocated to the auditor general if we had allocated it to do other audits throughout the government system -- if we didn't have to do an audit more or less on ourselves. That is what is truly outrageous. We find that the auditor general endorses the fact that there was information that was available that there was information that should have been relied upon and that the 1996 fudge-it budget should not have occurred, if only the political intervention did not happen.
I'm looking forward to hearing other members on the other side of the House stand up and defend why they feel this piece of legislation is so relevant now when they didn't feel it was so relevant five years ago. I would like to understand why it has taken five years for them to understand the importance of having sound accountability practices and financial reporting that could be relied upon. I'm wondering what it is that has suddenly turned this crowd -- the members on that side of the House -- around. It's certainly not a new Premier, because he was there in 1995.
When the Minister of Finance indicates that this new piece of legislation puts British Columbia at the forefront of all other provinces, I wouldn't disagree with him. In fact, he's probably right. But other provinces perhaps didn't have to legislate themselves in this stringent a manner because they kept practices that ensured there was some truth in their budgeting. Perhaps it's not as comprehensive as what we're going to do, but at least they accomplished some of that truth in budgeting.
I remember, prior to my election that I used to sit back and watch the Finance minister tabling budgets and then go through it, usually the following week, basically looking for all the smoke-and-mirrors accounting practices that were going on. And there were, even though members on that side of the House don't want to believe it. Part of it was because there was not full financial accounting disclosure, which is why it is necessary for the budget and for the financial statements to present it on a summary account basis.
I will commend this government for agreeing to do that, but they had to be shamed into that. As I understand it, when I was sitting on the Public Accounts Committee, there was a year where the records of the government in fact were reporting on a summary financial accounting basis. But somewhere along the line that got turned back, because members -- perhaps on that side of the House -- didn't want to see it in that fashion. That is why the auditor general, who attended at the Public Accounts Committee, tried to insist that we move forward in having our government financial records report include the full accounting entity.
[1915]
I saw members on the other side of the House shaking their heads as if that didn't happen. But it did happen. If you check back in the Hansard s of '96 and '97, you'll see comments made by the auditor general, who said that for more full disclosure and to move ahead of all the other provinces we should be reporting the full accounting of all these entities, including the schools, universities, colleges and the hospitals. You will see comments made by members on that other side
[ Page 16181 ]
of the House who sat on Public Accounts who did not feel that the auditor general had the authority to place an opinion on the financial statements to question that approach. I'm glad to see we're finally moving in that direction, because at least four years ago, I'm very much aware that that was the direction we were headed until members on that side of the House stopped it at Public Accounts.
I also want to briefly make comments as well to what the Minister of Finance indicated about the budget reporting -- that it should be early enough in March, so that we can begin budget deliberations prior to the end of the full fiscal year. But he misses on a point. Bill 2 requires the tabling of the budget by March 15, and I say that's not good enough. It should be moved up sooner. It should be presented sooner so that we will have an opportunity to ensure that there are the full debates of the budget.
But not just that, hon. Speaker. The piece of legislation in Bill 2 doesn't give a fixed date as to when that should be. It just says on or before, which means we could go right to the very end. For the four years that I've been here, I have seen that we always end up in this precinct, in these chambers, debating interim supply, either the very last day of the month or just two days before the end of the month.
This government has a propensity to put everything to the very latest date possible, to the deadline. If they're going to do that, if they believe they can do this on or before March 15, I'd like to see that deadline date moved up a little bit sooner so that we can ensure we don't always go to March 15. I believe that's the propensity of this government.
Also in Bill 2 what we have missing is commentary about the special warrant. It speaks of special warrants, but you know, it does not ban outright the use of special warrants. You have to ask again why that is. It would not be a problem for this new Premier with his new vision to call us together to debate special warrants, without having to pass special warrants if there is a spending problem. Bring in the budget, and let's talk about it. But no, this government has a propensity to use special warrants, so therefore it chooses not to ban them. That's a shame as well.
Most significantly, what is flawed in this piece of legislation, for which we will be offering some amendments, has to do with the generally accepted accounting principles, as I referred to earlier, which is referred to as GAAP. In particular, this bill requires the results of operations and changes in financial position of the government reporting entity in accordance with stated accounting policies, which are to be provided, I suppose, by Treasury Board.
But it is generally accepted accounting principles that should be followed. If we are to have truth-in-budgeting legislation, if we are to have budget transparency and budget accountability, then you should be using measures and principle which in fact will provide that accountability. If you provide your own set of rules, then how are you going to necessarily be accountable? Perhaps you're accountable just to your caucus; perhaps you're accountable just to your cabinet. But you're certainly not being accountable to all British Columbians, and you're certainly not being accountable to all the recognized professional accounting bodies that exist.
[1920]
We do believe that generally accepted accounting principles for government accounting policies should be used. There are such policies that are established by the Public Sector Accounting Board and also by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Every professional body, every professional accountant that issues a financial statement has to adhere to those rules, as I stated earlier. Why is it that this government cannot do the same? Is there something that they're holding back, hon. Speaker? Are we going to have an amendment a year from now that changes this, another budget transparency and accountability act, a miscellaneous statutes change?
What we need is to fix this piece of legislation now so that it will have the full force and thrust of the spirit of accountability. We must therefore ensure that all British Columbians are never again misled as to what they can expect from the financial accounting of this government.
If this government would accept those amendments that we intend to introduce, we will wholeheartedly support Bill 2. If they do not, it shows once again that the only thing right about this legislation is the title. What is contained within it is not going to provide the transparency or the accountability that British Columbians have demanded. They will see the results of that when they have the courage to call an election.
K. Krueger: Like my colleague for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I rise to speak to second reading of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, an act that is long overdue. As my colleague has mentioned, the Leader of the Official Opposition has for years tabled an act intituled Truth in Budgeting Act and presented a very heartfelt case that the people in British Columbia are entitled to budgets that are truthful, that oblige the government to present its books the way B.C. businesses are required by law to present their books and that tell the truth about things like revenues and planned expenditures and net worth of the operation.
I think of this NDP bill as the deathbed repentance bill -- a government on its last legs, a government in its lame-duck year, a government that everyone knows is on the downward slide to oblivion -- presented by a disgraced political party that managed to wangle its way into office in 1996 by presenting a false set of so-called facts, false evidence to the electorate. The thing about deathbed repentances, as you know, hon. Speaker, is that unless they're genuine, they're absolutely a waste of time. A real deathbed repentance, of course, is someone who realizes at the end of his days that he has had a misspent life and that he is heading for major problems in the great hereafter. He needs to do something about that in order not to find himself in a place that he doesn't want to be for eternity.
Interjection.
K. Krueger: The Minister of Energy and Mines seems to be particularly touched by this analogy, and I can understand why. As the godfather of expanded gambling and the Deputy Premier when much of the economic depredation to British Columbia occurred over the last five years, he's a man who's sensitive to this.
A deathbed repentance is absolutely useless if it isn't heartfelt, if it isn't genuine. I come from ranching country, and I know an old cowboy who voiced an opinion one time while he was in his cups that he knew exactly how he wanted to die. He was a person who had no intention of any sort of deathbed repentance. He said he wanted to die in bed with his boots on, shot by a jealous husband with rightful cause. That's the opposite of a deathbed repentance, but at least it was genuine.
[ Page 16182 ]
[1925]
Here we have a Finance minister and an NDP government presenting this act that purports to intend to change the ways of what has been a tremendously dishonest government. Why, one asks oneself, are they doing this? Why is this government bothering? It's limping toward the cliff; it's well on its way out of office. Is this a way to try and make amends to the public for all that has passed -- the entire sorry decade of the 1990s, when this once-proud province was reduced from being the best-performing economy in Canada to the worst-performing, from an example in North America as to how to be vibrant, how to be progressive, how to be in the vanguard of good things and from that, sliding into being an island of despair in a sea of prosperity?
Everywhere else in North America north of Chiapas, Mexico, the provinces and the states are all booming. Everybody else is doing well. There is not only zero unemployment in a lot of areas, there is negative unemployment in a lot of areas. Here in B.C. young people have to migrate across the borders with their families to get a start in life, to get a career going. As they migrate away, our population of school children is declining. As it declines, school districts are finding themselves on hard times, because their budgets, of course, are set by the number of pupils they enrol. As enrolment declines, their budgets decline. They're stuck with fancy deals that this government has made with trade unions and they're stuck with expensive infrastructure that has been built and has to be maintained. They can't make ends meet.
In the very fundamental key area of provincial spending responsibility, education, this government is falling desperately short. In the area of health care, which this government would hold to be a sacred trust -- and this opposition agrees that it is a sacred trust -- we see huge wait-lists never before seen in British Columbia. We see people who need to be in continuing-care facilities that can't get into them. We see an absolute shemozzle; we see a mess.
A lot of it relates to whether or not there is confidence not only on the part of British Columbians that they have an honest government, a competent government and a government that will do the right thing but confidence on the part of investors who consider British Columbia and everywhere else in the world as a potential site location for their investments. They consider whether or not they want to locate here, bring their money here, create jobs here. Of course, it's old news that they turn away, and they have been turning away for a long time.
It's way past time that we had truth in budgeting in British Columbia, just as the Leader of the Official Opposition has pleaded for and presented legislation for these many years. It's way past time. It's a step in the right direction. For that reason, even though this is a very flawed bill, the official opposition will be supporting the bill, because we endorse the direction that the bill purports to move.
However, if this government is at all sincere in its deathbed repentance, if it genuinely recognizes the error of its ways and wants to correct those ways and move in the right direction, then this government must pay close attention to the amendments this opposition will be presenting during the course of this debate, because this is a very flawed piece of legislation. We certainly can accept, after a decade of experience, that almost anything this government cares to present will be flawed -- generally desperately flawed. However sincere good intentions might be from this government, we're not going to get good legislation on the first run. The government had better demonstrate sincerity by being willing to accept the amendments that the opposition will be putting forward.
[1930]
There are problems with this bill, a lot of problems. It either leaves undone or perhaps, more cynically, deliberately undermines the very improvements the government says it seeks to make. For example, it fails to ban the use of special warrants. It fails to set out a specific date by which a budget must be presented. It does not require the government to be bound by generally accepted accounting principles -- rather, once again, leaving the question of how budgets will be assessed open to Treasury Board's decisions, interpretations and potentially political expedience along the way. Once again, this NDP government, if this act is enacted as presented, will be maintaining its autonomy to essentially cook the books -- present more fudge-it budgets, as it were.
This government is reserving for itself regulatory powers to create significant loopholes through which they could drive fast cat ferries, heaven forbid, or vehicles of equivalent size. Once again the government is not wanting to bind itself up, not wanting to deliver something from which it cannot exact wriggle room -- something that it can be held to, something by which it can be accountable.
Speaking of accountability, once again the government fails to offer itself up for any potential consequences or repercussions if it fails to deliver on its balanced budget. The Offence Act does not apply. Consequences are, once again, being avoided by the legislative draftspeople who prepared this act for us to debate, this Bill 2, this so-called budget transparency and accountability act -- avoiding accountability.
The minister said, when he stood up, that he thinks this is an act to place British Columbia at the forefront of open government. Well, let's be honest about where British Columbia is. British Columbia is not at the forefront of anything positive with regard to government approaches in North America. Economically, educationally, in delivery of health care, in every which way we measure, British Columbia is sucking wind. It is not doing well at all. We've had a decade of disaster, a decade that will live in infamy, because we have gone from success to abject failure. We've gone from a position of honour to a position of disrepute. We've gone from a position of respect to a position, sadly, of being a laughingstock in Canada and, indeed, around North America.
Frankly, we all know -- everybody in this House knows -- that nothing will change for British Columbia economically until we have an election. My colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head wound up her speech by calling for that election. It's absolutely essential that we get to that wonderful day as quickly as we possibly can, because we know that nothing will turn around for the fortunes of British Columbia, the people of B.C., until that election is held. We won't stop being an island of failure in a sea of success.
In fact, when we see the Bank of Canada increasing interest rates, we see concern throughout North America that the economy of North America -- of the United States and Canada -- is too hot, and we see efforts being made to cool the economy down. We recognize that we are in danger of having missed a whole economic cycle due to the incompetence and dishonesty and terrible behaviour of this govern-
[ Page 16183 ]
ment, and that's drastic. If interest rates are increased dramatically, if we experience the sort of government responses to a hot economy that we saw at the beginning of the 1980s, this province is really in for a bath.
Already, hon. Speaker, as you know, we've seen this government double the debt of British Columbia. One hundred and twenty-five years of previous governments in B.C. accumulated a certain level of debt. This government, in one short abject decade, has doubled that debt and is now paying almost $3 billion a year in interest, by its own accounting, with interest rates the lowest they've ever been in my lifetime. What a pathetic performance.
[1935]
Fundamentally, when it comes down to where this government went off the rails, certainly mistakes were made in the first term of this government, 1991-96. It was a disaster to make the member for Vancouver-Kingsway the Finance minister. Mistakes were made; there was a lot of incompetence. Those back-to-back, phony so-called balanced budgets the year before the 1996 election and the year of the election were a terrible turning point into the abyss on the part of this government. We look back at some of the material that's come to light since, some of the evidence that has had to be presented in the various hearings and inquiries that have gone on.
We see them on September 7, 1995. This NDP caucus -- a few people who aren't here anymore but many who were -- was briefed by the Finance ministry on the state of the economy and on new potential revenue sources and the so-called need to find $1.15 billion in order to avert a deficit in 1996 and '97. Well, there were 50 NDP caucus members at the time, and of the 50 that could have been present, 27 are still in government, still in the NDP caucus, and 15 of them are currently in the cabinet of this so-called new Premier.
Hon. Speaker, every time that word "new" is used by this government and every time that word "budget" is used by this government and every time the word "balanced" is used by this government, people's lips curl in this province. It is so false for this government to refer to itself as new or to pretend to be able to balance anything. It is so false, so phony, so hypocritical that it detracts from the credibility of government in general and indeed from the way that people feel about being British Columbians.
That is a rotten shame, hon. Speaker. Everybody suffers; everybody in B.C. suffers. Democracy suffers with this government's ongoing hypocrisy, limping along, dragging itself, wounded and bleeding from its self-inflicted mayhem, toward the last possible potential date for an election -- heaven forbid -- in the year 2001.
This government cannot blame its current situation, its current terrible standing in the polls, its total lack of credibility entirely on the disgraced member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The present Premier, who nobody but himself and his deputy, granted, will refer to as a new Premier
The current Premier was a member of Treasury Board from April 10, '95, to September 12, '95, and again from February 28, '96, to June 27, '96. He must have seen, and he certainly had a duty to read, the Treasury Board documents being produced, warning of so-called emerging fiscal problems and an economy that had "tanked" in the fourth quarter of 1996 and a government forecast that was "at risk." The current Premier cannot distance himself from the budget lies. He sat on Treasury Board while those lies were stated and was privy to the numerous briefings that the 1996-'97 budget was full of red ink.
There is nothing new about this Premier, nothing new about this government. It is absolutely ludicrous for this Finance minister to refer to this government and his party as being at the forefront of openness and transparency -- what a charade, hon. Speaker, having provided the slimiest, smarmiest, most dishonest and disgusting example of government in North America over the last ten years.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, if you could just watch the language a little, please.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Having provided the example that it has provided, this government ought to be ashamed of itself to presume to even use the words "budget transparency and accountability" -- and in that very act, in Bill 2, once again set out to avoid accountability and having to face its consequences.
This is the same government that we have seen enact legislation, after losing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit over gaming, that -- again in quotation marks -- "conclusively deems itself to have had the authority" to do the rotten things that it did. This is a government that has, time and again, punished whistle-blowers and critics and people who knew what they were talking about, whether we refer to the past CEO of B.C. Transit, whether we refer to the various people who have attempted to awaken this government to the error of its ways, such as the original fast ferry board that was fired because it was competent.
[1940]
Now this government wants to enact this Bill 2 and include a provision to prevent the auditor general from commenting once the minister refuses to adopt a recommendation of the budget process review panel. As this section 21 is currently worded, it significantly undermines the role of the auditor general. It's unacceptable, and while we do intend to support the legislation because it moves in a direction that we've long advocated moving, amendments are absolutely necessary to make it an honest piece of legislation. We count on you, hon. Speaker. We count on the government to be listening and to demonstrate some sincerity in considering these amendments.
The auditor general, in his report of February 1999, included this quote on page 6: "In the June tabling, Minister Petter was fully aware of the disproportionate risks on which the revenue estimates were established. He decided to retable the April budget mainly because he did not regard the June budget as a new budget. However, the June budget was in fact the first budget of a new government."
Well, there's that term again, hon. Speaker; this time it's actually the auditor general using it. I guess you could call it a new government, since it had just been elected in 1996 -- far more legitimately a new government than the one we're faced with today, which is simply a reshuffling of the proverbial deck chairs.
[ Page 16184 ]
The auditor general went on, on page 57 of that report, to say of the government's financial management plan: "Considerably modifying the debt (or financial) management plan in two out of the last three budgets since the plan's introduction in 1995 weakens the credibility of the plan and the government's commitment to it."
Of course, this government has never managed to meet any aspect of a debt reduction plan and has absolutely destroyed any credibility it might have hoped to gain, time after time after time, with its total abdication of responsibility and failure to deliver any sort of competent fiscal management.
On page 142 the auditor general goes on to say: "The estimates for 1996-97 reflected revenue that was some $450 million beyond the comfort level of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations." Isn't it exquisite how carefully the auditor general chooses his words? The budget -- the so-called financial plan, the revenue optimism -- had reached the point where even Ms. Cull couldn't really hold her nose enough to ignore the stench of the numbers that this government was using.
So if there was ever a government that had reason to feel ashamed of its performance, to want to introduce a Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, yes, it should be this government. It is this government, because this government has a sorry, sorry record to atone for. But is the repentance genuine? Well, hon. Speaker, the proof is always in the pudding. The act is deficient. The act requires amendment, and the government had better entertain the amendment.
The auditor general said, in his press conference in wrapping up on the budget-lie report that he had written: "In the April tabling, the result was overstated
The budget that was introduced by the Finance minister of this government at the time of the last election was a dishonest budget. The auditor general confirmed that it was "certainly the same" -- this is on page 170 of his report -- "as that presented
Indeed, every cabinet member opposite, every member of this sorry government, must take full responsibility for the financial calamity that has befallen British Columbia, the destruction of their party's credibility and their government's credibility and the dramatic negative effect on the lives of British Columbians, on British Columbia's economy, on the personal well-being and the lives of everybody who lives in the province of ours.
[1945]
The only way to genuinely demonstrate repentance, genuinely deal with the consequences that they've brought upon this province, is to apologize and to resign. If this government thinks that it has any credibility with people, if it believes that anybody wants to give it a second chance, let the people decide.
Interjection.
K. Krueger: The small Minister for Small Business opposite begins to heckle, desperate to maintain his salary for another two weeks or perhaps another two weeks after that. These people cling to office, having shattered any credibility they might otherwise have enjoyed with this province, with this continent, in this world -- even with their own families, I submit. People must be ashamed of the result of that caucus, that so-called New Democratic Party, that cabinet and this Premier, who would repeatedly refer to himself as the new Premier of the new government.
Hon. Speaker, I'm reluctant to vote for anything that this government presents, anything that it tables, because I am so repulsed by the record of this government and the results that this government has delivered. I am so appalled by the effects on my constituents and people I know of throughout this great province of ours. This is going to be a matter of holding my nose to some extent, to vote for this act -- less so if the amendments are accepted.
But I don't believe that this government is sincere in its deathbed repentance. I believe that this government hasn't learned a thing except that it's finally having to face up to the fact that these results are its results. It can't be blamed on the Asian flu; it can't be blamed on outside influences -- all the rabbit dodges that this government has tried over the four years since I've been elected. The chickens have all come home to roost. This government has brought home a mess to British Columbia, an absolute disaster.
So move in the right direction? Okay, we'll support your Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. We would have much rather debated the act brought in by the Leader of the Opposition, the truth-in-budgeting legislation that he has been advocating every year, year after year, since I've been in office. But this is a start. Let's see whether the government is sincere, whether or not it will support the amendments being brought forward by the opposition.
And for pity's sake, let's have an election. Enough is enough. This province deserves better; this province deserves a fresh start. If the government truly thinks it has anything to be proud of or anything to put forward, let it do so in an election campaign. Let's put an end to the pain and get on with providing honest government in British Columbia.
G. Plant: It's with an extraordinary amount of trepidation that I venture to follow the remarks of my colleague and friend from Kamloops-North Thompson. But I too wanted the opportunity to say a thing or two about Bill 2, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
The thing that I think we're supposed to do when we're presented with legislation in this chamber is ask ourselves a number of questions: is there something broken out there? Is there something in the way that government operates? Is there some problem in the economy? Is there something in society that isn't working? Is there a problem that needs fixing? Is something broken? Really, I don't think it's a wise policy for legislatures or legislators to follow, to make laws, unless there's a need for them.
[1950]
So the first question that ought to arise when we're engaged in a debate on the principle of a bill is to ask whether something is broken. This is a bill about the way in which the government prepares and conducts the budget process. What it's going to do is create a pretty highly articulated system of
[ Page 16185 ]
rules around the budget preparation process. It's going to create councils; it's going to give them the power to file reports; it's going to establish timetables. It's going to impose obligations on ministers to file reports and performance plans. It's a whole bagful of process, all dedicated to the way in which government spends our money and the process it has to follow before it gets the permission from this House to do that.
The question that I would ask, then -- whether something is broken -- I think could be answered the following way. Is something broken? Yes. What is it? It's the way we make budgets in British Columbia. What's wrong with it?
Well, the government doesn't do a very good job of telling the truth to the people of British Columbia. It doesn't do a very good job about planning for how it's going to spend money. It doesn't do a very good job of reporting to the people of British Columbia about now it's spent the money or how much money it's spent. It doesn't do a very good job of reporting to the public of British Columbia about the extent to which the programs that it's designed and imposed have or have not achieved their purposes. It doesn't do a very good job of setting out those purposes in the first place. It doesn't do a very good job of consulting with the people of British Columbia before it decides what it's going to spend money on. It doesn't do a very good job of consulting with the people of British Columbia about what it should spend money on, its public policy ideas, its expenditure programs, its plans. It doesn't do a very good job of any of that.
Well, who is it that hasn't been doing a very good job of any of that for the last nine years in British Columbia? "Who is that?" the voters of British Columbia thunderously ask, filled as they are with curiosity to know how we got to this sad and sorry state, where the process by which we create and present the budget in British Columbia is so badly flawed that it needs a law to fix it. Who is it that gave us that problem? Who is it that created this problem that needs fixing?
Why, the strangest of all answers is there for that question. It's the government of British Columbia; it's the NDP. It's the people who have been doing it for nine years. It's the people in charge of the government who have not been consulting with the people of British Columbia about how to spend their money. It's the people in charge of this government who have not told the truth to the people of British Columbia about how much money they're spending, about whether they're spending more than they were given permission to spend, about whether they're running deficits or not running deficits or doubling the debt or not doubling the debt. It's these guys over there on the other side who've done all this.
And yet after nine years, apparently some strange and marvellous thing has happened to those people on the other side. I am almost tempted to say that it was a dark night on the road to Damascus, and that 39 or 40 NDP MLAs were scrabbling along on their hands and knees in the dark, having lost their way, tripping and stumbling over the rocks as they examined what was left of their kneepads, as they scrabbled along the road hoping, searching, desperate for some kind of inspiration. Then all of a sudden a light shone, and there in front of them on the road was this piece of paper. It lay there in front of them, and it had this astonishing proposition written in bold letters: "Why don't you tell the truth to the people of British Columbia about how you spend their money?"
An Hon. Member: I wish I were in Kansas.
[1955]
G. Plant: But, as my colleague who wishes to be in Kansas would freely admit, this isn't Kansas anymore, Toto.
We're not in Kansas, Toto. We're in beautiful British Columbia where, after nine years of government by the NDP, the NDP has come to the conclusion that the one thing that British Columbia needs more than anything is a bill that will require it to tell the truth about how it misspends the public finances of British Columbia. What an astonishing revelation!
Try to think: what would the multiple-choice question be if this were: "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" How many lifelines would the NDP need to get before they got the answer to the question? The answer to the problem is: start telling the truth to the people of British Columbia about how you spend their money. Start planning how you spend their money.
These guys ran out of lifelines a long, long time ago. Unfortunately, this little bill, while it has one or two provisions in it that I have to admit constitute a step in the right direction, isn't going to do anything to change the really difficult problem this government faces, because you can't fix a culture of no accountability. You can't change nine years of practice of no accountability by passing a law unless, of course, you're serious about keeping the law.
The problem is that when you examine the track record of this government when it comes to living within the rules and the laws that it makes to govern itself, it's got a really lousy track record. Let me just give one example that occurred to me today. I was thinking about the fact that for the second or the third time, we are now going to have to re-alter the electoral boundaries that we are going to fight the next election on in British Columbia.
I was thinking back to a few years ago in the early days of the current government -- that's to say only two or three Premiers ago -- when the government was required by law to comply with a process that was established in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. That was a process that members, I'm sure, will recall. It was established in order to ensure that electoral boundaries in this province could be set up and created and revised over time by an independent commission, because we had a history in this province of gerrymandering. We had a history in this province of governments altering political boundaries to suit their political needs. If I were actually thinking about the analogy between gerrymandering and budget tampering, I think I could spend three or four minutes thinking about that analogy.
But in answer to all of that, the government introduced a bill and passed it some years ago to create an Electoral Boundaries Commission. The way the Boundaries Commission was going to work was that it was going to get appointed. The law required that the commission be appointed according to a certain timetable, and the timetable was put into place in the law.
I'm sure -- in fact, some well-meaning Attorney General or some other minister over there -- that whoever it was at the time stood up and made all kinds of high and mighty, high-sounding and wonderful statements about how this government solemnly undertakes to commit itself to following through on these procedures. In fact, we're so certain of our commitment that we're going to enshrine them in a bill. We are going to make them the law. We're going to require our-
[ Page 16186 ]
selves to follow those procedures by putting them in a law. Putting them in a law will fix it, I'm sure -- whatever the problem was that they were fixing there. What was the problem? Gerrymandering -- the problem of dishonestly manipulating some of the processes that are important to our government.
But you know, when the time came for the people on that side of the House to do the things that they had to do to appoint the Electoral Boundaries Commission, according to the law that was established and sitting there on the books, they couldn't do it. They couldn't follow their own law. They let the time limit slip.
It was one of those magical moments. I remember that the Opposition House Leader was so apprehensive about the possibility that the government might not follow the law. I think we gave them two or three opportunities to comply with the statutory timetable. We said: "Please, government, don't break your own law. You've got this requirement to appoint a commission here in the statute books. Don't lose the opportunity to pass the law." But that wasn't good enough for this government. Oh no, they had some other agenda. Who knows what it was that time? But they had some other agenda.
The other agenda was to be too busy or too distracted or too negligent to care about worrying about what the law actually said. So they allowed the deadline to pass. But I'm sure the Minister of Finance has realized that that was then.
[2000]
Interjection.
G. Plant: My colleague points out that the story would be, of course, incomplete without referring to the last chapter, which was this government realizing
That makes me think: if this government were the last, how many more times would we get a chance to vote on the budget transparency and accountability amendment act? Then there would be the budget transparency and accountability "this time we really mean it and we're so sorry we didn't do it last time" act. No doubt there will be dozens of these if this gang of people gets an opportunity, which I shudder to think about, to continue to govern British Columbians. But I digress.
I was thinking about the prospect of the Minister of Finance standing up in closing debate -- because I doubt very much that any of his other colleagues will get up during the course of this debate -- and saying: "I'm so sorry about the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, but you know, that was a problem under the old Premier. That was back when the rest of us were kind of shy, retiring folks hanging out under some rock somewhere. We were just too intimidated to actually carry out the responsibility of governing, because the member for Vancouver-Kingsway was ruling us with an iron fist. We actually didn't even begin to discover that we had any ability or integrity or responsibility or accountability until he miraculously left us, and we had a chance to change Premiers once or twice or however many times it's been over the last 12 months."
No doubt the Minister of Finance will have something to say about his government's track record when it comes to not following the laws that it establishes for itself.
Or maybe we'll hear from the Attorney General. The Attorney General is always my favourite target when it comes to this particular issue, because the Attorney General has his own statute, as do many of the ministries. The kind of accountability that this bill talks about
That's a pretty good, old-fashioned-style form of accountability. We have a form of legislation here, section 6 of the Attorney General Act, that's been on the books for years and years and years. The Attorney General has had opportunity after opportunity to demonstrate that he is mindful of the requirement to be accountable for how he runs his ministry by filing his annual report. Indeed, for almost five years and most of the life of the current parliament
I'm always particularly interested when we get a chance to examine, as my colleague said earlier, the sincerity of the Premier's newfound conviction and support for the idea of accountability. I think: well, let's go and look at the track record of the previous Attorney General when it comes to living up to the very small, very modest obligation to file an annual report -- not a performance plan, not a plan that requires any sort of forward thinking, not something that requires the Attorney General to wake up in the morning and worry about what he's going to do next week. No, the simple task on reporting of what he did last week or last year
I was saddened that last week, on May 30, I wasn't in the chamber at the moment when the hon. Attorney General asked for leave to table the 1997 annual report of the Ministry of Attorney General. You know, I'm saddened because, had he stood up when I was there, my first thought would have been: I'm not going to give you leave. What are you doing, standing up here filing a report that's three years old? What are you doing, pretending to me that you actually care about accountability in government when you're three years behind in filing annual reports?
So I opened the annual report. It's a simple document; it's pretty small, actually. It's probably even got fewer words than the last report that Elizabeth Cull did for this government. It's got a picture in it.
[2005]
Interjection.
G. Plant: Yes, it probably cost less. It took longer to do, but it cost less. It's got a picture of the former Attorney General, and it's signed. It's the annual report for 1997-98.
I don't know. Maybe a year from now we'll get the annual report for 1998-99, and it'll still have the picture of the guy that isn't the Attorney General anymore. It'll still have his signature. Heck, maybe two years from now we'll have to undertake a worldwide search to find the person who is currently the Premier, who was then the Attorney General, so we can put his signature and his picture on the front page of this thing. And where he says it's his pleasure to submit to us the annual report for the Ministry of Attorney General of the province of British Columbia for a period sometime before my grandfather was born
[ Page 16187 ]
So when this government, when this minister, when these ministers stand up and say that they've had the conversion experience, they've had the epiphany, they've seen the light on the road to Damascus, and it's time for a culture of accountability, I don't believe them. I don't believe them because they've had so many opportunities to do the smallest, easiest, most modest forms of accountability, and they've failed. And they've failed time and time again.
So that's the answer to the first question. The first question was: is something broken that needs fixing? The answer is: most definitely. And the answer is: but not by these guys.
But I'm prepared to look at Bill 2 on its merits and ask myself the question which I think is the second important question: is this the remedy? Is Bill 2 the cure for what ails us? Does Bill 2 have the promises, the content, in it that constitutes a step in the right direction towards greater transparency, greater openness and greater accountability in the budget preparation process?
I've already indicated my difficulty with taking any of these promises at face value. The government can't keep the promises that it's already made to itself on the statute books. I don't have any confidence that they're going to be able to keep any of the promises that they make here, nor do I actually think that they're at all serious about making them. But there they are, and I'm happy to have a look at them, because they might, after all, become some of the platform for the next government in British Columbia.
I guess my colleagues who have spoken before me
But there are some defects and deficiencies with this bill. This bill doesn't prevent government from continuing to use the process of special warrants. I've tried to think about that issue for a long time from the perspective of what it must be like to govern, recognizing that governing is not easy, that governing is occasionally an experience that involves dealing with the unforeseen, with responding to crises and emergencies that arise when you least expect them. I've listened to the argument that special warrants are an acceptable way of allowing government to respond to the unforeseen, of allowing government to ensure that its business can continue with minimal interruption even though it has been faced with the unexpected burden of an expenditure in a particular category.
As everyone knows, special warrants are a diversion from the parliamentary process. They're a perversion of it, actually -- that the government can't spend money unless we in this Legislature give it permission to do so. What special warrants allow is for cabinet ministers to trundle down the street to the Lieutenant-Governor and get his signature on a cabinet order and to spend the money, sometimes even without much in the way of publicity. Then, months later, when we come into this Legislature, we're asked to approve, after the fact, the spending that was authorized by special warrant.
[2010]
I've often wondered what would happen if a government needed to build a bridge and borrowed the money by special warrant to do that and then afterwards didn't get the permission to do that. Would the bridge have to be taken down? I mean, thinking about examples like that, I find, is a good way of realizing -- and forcing one to realize -- that special warrants really are an abuse of the basic processes of democratic accountability.
You know, a hundred years ago it was pretty tough to get down to this Legislature. Some people had to travel for days. And in the middle of winter that could have been a task of sometimes fear-inducing proportions. But nowadays it's not a problem. Nowadays you can get this House into session on 24 or 48 hours' notice. In fact, I think this government's already done that once. We sat on a Sunday, I think, not too long ago. It's not too difficult, even for members who are in the most remote constituencies, to come here on relatively short notice. I think that with the passage of time and with the improvements in technology and communications, there is, in fact, no legitimate reason to continue the practice of allowing government the ability to use special warrants.
If the government wants to spend money for something that it can't reasonably have foreseen, the remedy for the government is simple. Call the House into session. Call it on short notice. We can debate the matter, and if the Legislature thinks it's appropriate to give the money for that purpose, the Legislature will do so. That's pretty simple. It doesn't sound very complicated to me.
What I would have thought to have been a fairly modest, realistic, concrete step forward in enhancing budget accountability and transparency is not here in this bill. We are still going to have to live with special warrants, unless perhaps we have the opportunity to debate the issue in committee stage debate on this bill. I look forward to that opportunity.
There's also a section of this act which I think -- and I hope I'm not disgracing someone's valuably earned trademark -- can be reasonably called the Mack truck section of this bill, as in you could drive a Mack truck through this bill, thanks to this section, and that would be section 24.
Interjections.
G. Plant: The member opposite, the Minister for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, when he was a federal MP was good at demanding accountability from the federal government. He has not had the same track record here, but that's what happens, I guess.
It is the Mack truck section. I didn't realize I was inadvertently quoting from the parliamentary record of the Minister for Small Business, Tourism and Culture in another place, but I'm happy to do that. The reason I call it the Mack truck section is because section 24(2) gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations "defining a word or expression used in this Act." That's a good one. That's the up-is-down provision. That is the black-is-white provision. That's the "we define the word transparency to be opaque" section. That's the "we define the word accountability to be secrecy" section. It's a good section to have in a bill, especially if you're at all apprehensive that someone out there in the public might read your legislation and actually think you meant what you said.
[ Page 16188 ]
Then you get to respond to the questions that are asked when people say: "My goodness. You have to file all these reports on" -- I don't know -- "March 30. You haven't filed them." The government minister can wave his hand and say: "Oh no, you haven't read the regulations. We define March 30 to mean September 5." Of course, because it's this government from our friends in the land of "we can do anything we want," the regulation no doubt would be made retroactive. It would conclusively be deemed to be valid, and any attempt to challenge it in a court of law would be precluded. There's no substitute for safety when it comes to parliamentary practice.
[2015]
Then, of course, there's the second part of section 24(2) -- that is, giving cabinet the power to exempt a government organization from the application of one or more of a variety of plans. That is the "if you thought this bill applied to those people you were wrong" provision of this act. Over time, as the Crown corporations, who are so unaccustomed to actually providing meaningful accountability, trundle on their knees to Treasury Board and say, "This is so difficult, actually having to count the money that we're spending," the ministers at the cabinet table will say, "Ah, but we have the power to exempt you from the requirement to tell the people how much money you're spending," and will do so with their magic wand: the signature and the order-in-council. It's that simple. "The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act shall not apply to you." Well, that's a heck of a great way to make progress. I wonder how many government organizations could be exempted from the application of the various sections.
An Hon. Member: How many are there, though? How many are there?
An Hon. Member: Just one: just the cabinet.
G. Plant: My colleagues point out that the answer to that question is another question. How many government organizations are there? That's probably as many as could be exempted.
I'm sure I'm the last person in British Columbia who listens attentively when an NDP Minister of Finance stands up and says anything about budgets or the finances of the province. But I certainly listened when the Minister of Finance stood up and introduced Bill 2, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I put aside my relentless cynicism and skepticism for about half an hour, till I went out in the hall and read it, and I realized this wasn't much about budget transparency and accountability.
This bill is going to take a very tiny step forward, but it has all kinds of places in it where the government can shove us about four or five steps back. This bill is a bill about making laws around the budget process. The only reason you need to make laws around the budget process in this province is because for nine years the NDP have abused the trust of British Columbians around that budget process.
I'll join in the attempt to improve this piece of legislation in committee stage, and I sure hope my friends across the way do the same thing, because it is time we had some budget transparency and accountability in British Columbia. Any step forward is at least some progress. Maybe -- who knows? -- in the months ahead, we'll have the real step forward that all British Columbians are crying out for, and that is a general election to get rid of these guys once and for all.
R. Coleman: It's always a pleasure to follow my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, who leaves it open for me to try and raise the bar a little bit higher after his oratory skills hit the floor of this Legislature.
The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act
I am the fourth speaker for the official opposition tonight. Yet this particular piece of legislation was referred to in the throne speech by the Premier. Where is the run to the ramparts? Where is the rush to support? Where are all the speakers on the government side that want to stand up and speak for transparency and accountability? They're not here. They're hidden in the bowels of this Legislature, because they're not available to speak, because they don't want to stand up and speak for transparency and accountability, and therefore they're not prepared to be here tonight and do that.
It could be one of three things: (1) they don't care; (2) they don't know; (3) they don't want to know, and they don't want to care. Maybe they don't care about obligation or know about obligation or want to know about obligation. Maybe they don't care about, know about or want to know about performance or outcomes or measurements relative to the operation of government.
[2020]
Let's hear what their leader, the Premier, said in the throne speech. He said:
Earlier this evening I was in the estimates of the Minister of Social Development and Economic Security. The member for Parksville-Qualicum got up and asked a very simple question. The minister had been talking about setting up a trust fund for damage deposits. The member stood up and asked the question: "How much money do you have out there in damage deposits in the units that that you are responsible for, and how many of them are non-performing numbers?""My government recognizes the fundamental importance of transparency in budgeting. It is critical that British Columbians have the highest confidence in the budget numbers. Citizens may argue about the choices made in the budget, but they must have confidence that these choices and the facts and assumptions behind them are fully and fairly presented.
"My government has accepted a broad range of advice on the budget-making process. The auditor general, the Enns panel, the official opposition and individual British Columbians have all been heard and heeded. In this session, my government will introduce a new law: the budget transparency and accountability act. The aim of this act is to give British Columbians the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts."
The minister doesn't know. The minister doesn't have the facts. As a matter of fact, the minister said that it was because of information verbally given about the problem that they had actually formed an opinion. They did not form an opinion on any financial data or information whatsoever. Yet she's prepared to discuss a piece of legislation to fix a problem that she's not even sure exists. That's not financial accountability, and that certainly hasn't anything to do with transparency. When a member of the official opposition asks a reasonable question, you should get a reasonable answer with the information. That's the pattern within this House.
Let's talk about a couple of other things. This is the Premier again. Transparency and accountability
[ Page 16189 ]
Interjection.
R. Coleman: This is the Premier of the day. There's no such thing as a new Premier or a new government on that side of the House, hon. member. "Only through proper process will our government avoid the mistakes and financial recklessness of megaprojects like the fast ferries." Well, let's talk about transparency and accountability in the fast ferry project.
First of all, is there a contract to sell them or isn't there a contract to sell them? Is it only terms of reference on a contract? Do we actually know how much we're going to pay for that contract?
The reality is that there probably isn't a contract, it isn't finalized, and the information isn't there, and that's why we can't have that information. But there's your transparency. That's the change in operation in this House -- the transparency that the official opposition in question period can't so much as get an answer to the terms of contracts to sell a $500 million disaster which has been foisted on the people of the province of British Columbia.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Why doesn't the government tell the people of British Columbia what those ferries actually cost them? Let's give you some ideas. These are all the things that the fast ferries could have bought if transparency and accountability existed on that side of this House.
We could have constructed seven new rural hospitals. Now, that's great, except for the business plan that doesn't exist and the performance plan that is not long-term or planned for by this government. With no committee on health ever meeting, they would never know how to staff, operate, manage or budget those seven hospitals. But we could have built seven hospitals.
We could have hired 400 nurses for a year. But that would have called for some transparency and accountability and planning on behalf of the government eight or nine years ago, to actually have trained 400 nurses that we could have paid for a year. That's not transparency, and that's not accountability.
We could have cared for 200 foster children. We could have eliminated the cardiac and hip surgery wait-lists. You ask the people of this province who are sitting on cardiac and hip surgery wait-lists whether they think it's a good idea that unaccountable government, non-transparent government, has spent money that would have gotten them off a wait-list to pay for ferries that we're going to sell at a discount and that don't work on the routes they're supposed to work on. I can tell you what they'll tell you. They'll tell you that they wanted the surgeries, that they wanted the spending priorities to be okay, and they wanted them to be right.
Budget transparency and accountability from a government that would actually answer the questions about the true cost of the fast ferries and the true business plan behind them
[2025]
Think about priorities: accountability and transparency. Let's go build three fast ferries that don't work, without a business plan. Let's not account for anything. Let's not be transparent or honest about the cost and the business plan behind those boats. At the same time, let's leave 600 people who need kidney transplants and 40 people who need liver transplants out in the cold.
Where are the priorities? Where is the accountability? I don't believe that a piece of legislation can change the philosophical bent of a megaproject government that doesn't want to do things with a business plan. We could have brought 250 patients from Prince George to Vancouver by air ambulance. We could have bought six MRI scanners. I know there's a long wait-list for MRIs in the public system in this province today, because I've got friends waiting for MRIs. They're waiting, and you could have bought six MRI scanners in addition to all these other things.
But listen to this one: you could have funded 900 long term care beds for a year. Can you imagine what that would have done to the acute care bed shortage in the province, if you had the long term care beds in place to take the pressure off the system? It would be a staggering saving to the system, rather than flushing it down the toilet into some aluminum boats that don't work in the Georgia strait. Two hundred RCMP officers could have been hired for a year. People want safe communities; they want communities where the crime rate is down. But we have a government whose priorities are boats and non-accountability in their business plan relative to spending money.
We could have had ten mobile mammography units. Textbooks
So let's review budget accountability and transparency and planning in government: altogether, construction of seven rural hospitals, 400 nurses for a year, care for 200 children, eliminate the cardiac and hip surgery wait-list, 200 teachers for a year, 600 kidney transplants and 40 liver transplants, 250 Prince George-to-Vancouver air ambulance trips, six MRI scanners, 900 long term care beds for a year, 200 RCMP officers, ten mobile mammography units, textbooks for 10,000 school students in high school and 12 CT scanners -- and have money left over. So where is the budget accountability and transparency of this government? It just simply does not exist.
This is a government that's had some change, they think, because they want to have transparency and accountability. We applaud transparency and accountability, because it's high time that the government had it -- nine successive years of deficit budgets, $34 billion in debt, $2.7 billion a year being spent on interest alone.
Let's stop there for a second. The most expensive ministry of government is the ministry of interest -- the ministry where we're throwing the money down the tube every year, because for nine years all we've done is borrow and spend and borrow and spend and not told you the truth about budgeting and not told you the truth about accountability. All of a sudden you think that by writing a document together as a caucus, on that side of the House, you can all of a sudden be accountable and transparent? There's not a hope that you can
[ Page 16190 ]
ever become accountable and transparent after doing what you've done to the economy and the deficit of this province in the last ten years.
Hon. Speaker, $2.7 billion of interest is the budget of 14 ministries of government. And take a look at what these ministries are: ministries that have had the responsibility for a large portion of the operation of government, ministries that have wasted money -- wasted staggering amounts of money. Billions of dollars have been spent with no accountability and no plan.
[2030]
Let's touch on a couple of those. We've spent $10 million on the Raiwind power project in Pakistan, $10 million on a project that'll never do anything for the province of British Columbia. We spent $1.3 billion through Forest Renewal B.C. without a business plan. They went out and spent $1.3 billion without a business plan, and they want to talk to us about a bill that's all of sudden going to change the way they do business on accountability and transparency. They weren't accountable on FRBC for the first five years. What makes anybody believe that they could possibly be accountable no matter what the legislation would say?
They spent $73 million on the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre -- not a hole in the ground, not a transfer of title. Nothing is built; nothing is going to get built. There are no partners in place. As a matter of fact, there is not even a financial plan. "Oops. Well, just a sec. We forgot that we needed a business plan." They forgot that they actually needed to be able to put together a plan that showed how this thing could come together. They didn't do it. They just kept spending money down a hole, and at the end they go: "Oh, I'm sorry." That's their form of accountability and transparency. Their form of transparency is to try and say that they're sorry for making mistakes all the time on every single thing they do.
Let's talk about some of these ministries of government that we're spending money
We have a Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. Do you know what the budget is, hon. Speaker? It's $22.73 million. Think about that for a second. It's about $7 billion for the Ministry of Health; it's $22 million for the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers.
Now, in a transparency and accountability model, somebody might ask the following questions: why would we have a ministry that's less than 1 percent of the total budget of government? Why would we have a ministry that is so small that you need a closet to run it in? The only reason can be is because that ministry is some kind of a ministry by name to make somebody look good for a reason. The minister receives the same dollars, the same perks as a minister who's responsible for $7 billion. There's accountability; there's transparency. Not on your life, hon. Speaker.
This is a situation where you've got to look at accountability and transparency on the basis of somebody's past performance. Let's give you some examples, the NDP government's debt reduction promises. The 1995 debt management plan promised to deliver budget surpluses in 1995 and 1996, and 1996-97 and pay down $10.2 billion of debt over 20 years.
It also said that they would maintain B.C.'s credit rating as the highest in Canada, and they would reduce the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to 10.2 percent by the year 2015. Instead, the government has not balanced a single budget in nine years. Its newest projected date for a balanced budget is 2004 to 2005. Now, let's see; that would be almost 15 years after an NDP government got elected. They're not going to be there, as far as I'm concerned, to even try and reach these goals now. But this is unbelievable. So what else did they say?
[2035]
The 1997 financial management plan promised to balance the budget in 1999 to 2000, reduce taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP to 15 percent by 2015. Oops. Since the 1995 debt management plan, Moody's and Standard and Poor's have downgraded B.C.'s credit rating to second-highest in Canada, and the Canadian Bond Rating Service has downgraded it to the third-highest -- missed another goal, missed another accountability measure.
The 1998 modified financial plan promised to balance the budget in 1999-2000 and limit taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 19 percent to 22 percent over three years.
Taxpayer-supported debt has increased to a projected $27.9 billion in the year 2000-2001. The 1999 five-year financial planning framework promised -- here we go again -- to balance the budget in 2002-2003, limit the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 22 percent to 27 percent over five years. We've managed to go from 15 percent to 27 percent in only two fiscal years. The taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio has increased from 12.5 percent, when this government got elected in 1991, to a projected 23.5 percent in 2000-01.
There's no accountability there. There's no track record to believe. There's nothing transparent. There's absolutely no opportunity for anyone to draw any conclusion whatsoever that this government is capable of either (a) supporting, which is obvious from the number of speakers who are just not available to support this legislation, or (b) implementing a Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
We will be making some amendments to this legislation, because in deference to the NDP, the official opposition actually has a handle on what works in balanced-budget legislation and truth-in-budgeting legislation.
Oh, that's another one. They're going to actually bring in balanced-budget legislation. Now, you thought that transparency and accountability was a metamorphosis. Can you imagine an NDP government that hasn't balanced the books for ten years coming with balanced-budget legislation?
Can you imagine the argument that's taking place on the other side in the caucus room of this Legislature, when they get in there and say: "What are you prepared to do? Oh my goodness, we're starting to sound like people actually care about fiscal responsibility, and then we're going to do accountability, and we're going to do transparency. We like to spend; we like to borrow. We like to do megaprojects without a business plan. We don't believe in doing anything that has any forward planning or transparency or accountability. We don't do this. We don't even know how to implement it"?
This is piece of legislation that is so foreign to this government that they won't know what to do with it after they get it.
[ Page 16191 ]
They won't know how to manage it, because they don't know how to manage anything. They can't make a project work; they can't bring it in on time.
They have ministries that don't make any sense. They have ministers who can't answer the most basic questions, such as "How much money have you got out there?" And you want to bring in a piece of legislation. There is no business lens; there are no measurements; there's nothing.
This is an act that will get support from the official opposition with amendments to make it work for British Columbians. The government that sits in the House, on the other hand, will never be able to make it work for British Columbians, because they are simply incapable, incompetent and don't know how.
[2040]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm pleased to speak for a few minutes tonight in support of this bill. One of the things that I think anybody observing this debate would note is the demeanour of the opposition not just during this debate but in general these days. The opposition is very
This debate on this bill, for me
Interjections.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It never ceases to amaze me. I think there are some who might say that ten years ago there were some members of the opposition who conducted themselves similarly, and look what happened to some of those members. That's a style that people rightly reject, whether it's in opposition or in government. I think what this bill broadly sets out to do is ensure that politicians who are arrogant enough to believe they have all the answers and don't have to be accountable will have to be held accountable in the future.
Some Hon. Members: Who were those politicians?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I hear some of the members saying: "Who were those politicians?" Well, this is the sad thing about the level of debate we're hearing in this House tonight, because this is not about partisanship. If we look at the history of this province and financial accountability in this province, it doesn't matter whether it's this government and mistakes we've made or whether it's previous governments. If we look at situations like the Coquihalla Highway and cost overruns in the past and poor planning there, the fact is that it's something that's afflicted a number of governments in this province. At the end of the day, that's just not acceptable to people.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Members, the Chair has been listening carefully. We listened to the opposition members speaking earlier, and the House was very quiet on the government side. I would suggest that the same courtesy should be extended to the present speaker.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think what's important to note here is that this legislation should go a long way to ensuring that past mistakes
This legislation will ensure a higher level of accountability. At the end of the day, what this legislation will do is make this province, because of the experiences that we have had, a leader in financial accountability in the country. I think it will be fair to say that people will be able to see far more clearly what budgeting is about. They'll see far more clearly justifications and rationales for major projects in particular than they have in the past and certainly than the citizens of other provinces will see.
Hon. Speaker, because I'm noting the hour, I'd just like to take a few minutes to talk about the impact that this legislation will have on capital projects in British Columbia. The Premier has noted that this law does a great deal to improve project planning and management. As minister responsible for the SkyTrain project, I want to assure members of this House that we've already done a great deal to ensure that SkyTrain lives up to the spirit of this act. When we're talking about this act, it's fair to say that it's very much a response, in terms of the experience of this government, to the experience of fast ferries. That's what the bill is in response to in terms of the capital project provisions.
[2045]
Certainly, when we were in the early stages of SkyTrain, before any law was put in place -- and certainly this bill is not law yet -- we were very sensitive and cognizant of the fact that there was a low level of public confidence in major capital projects in this province. So we've gone a long way with the SkyTrain project to increasing accountability. In fact, the recent Deloitte report lauds the accomplishments of the RTP project in terms of the level of accountability and openness there is in that project -- probably a higher level of accountability and openness than we've ever seen with any capital project with any government in the history of this province.
The auditor general, in his report on the fast ferry project, cited a lack of governance as a major cause of missed performance targets and cost overruns. What we've tried to do with the SkyTrain project is work hard to ensure that there's a proper governance structure for SkyTrain. The Rapid Transit Project 2000 is a limited company which the government formed in 1998 to build the SkyTrain line. It's overseen by a board of directors who are appointed by the provincial government's executive council. The board is composed of the president and chief executive officer of B.C. Ferries currently, the chair of B.C. Transit, the president of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, the president and project director for RTP as well as several people from the private sector with business experience.
That was certainly cited as one of the shortcomings in the fast ferry project. Certainly one of my predecessors,
[ Page 16192 ]
the current Minister of Labour, worked very hard to make sure we didn't repeat those past mistakes with this project.
It's also important to note that RTP 2000 submits its capital budget estimates for planning and construction to Treasury Board for review on a regular basis. In fact, there are regular monthly reports with Treasury Board staff which I can consider to be valuable, because they report to the Minister of Finance as well as to me. I consider it to be a fail-safe mechanism to make sure we have as many of our highly qualified civil servants looking at this as possible to make sure everything's on track.
In turn Treasury Board makes financial recommendations to cabinet after receiving estimates for planning and construction from RTP 2000. This linked process will ensure that government has a direct role in the direction, governance and financing throughout the SkyTrain project. More broadly, this bill means that Crown and government capital projects valued at $50 million or more will need a clear and fully developed business case before they're funded. Certainly quite a legitimate criticism that's been out there is that there hasn't been enough of that in the past. I believe the Deloitte report was critical of the SkyTrain project, as well, in this regard.
We've taken that to heart. That's why sections 8 and 14 of this bill make it clear that this kind of business case will have to be presented in the future. In the case of the SkyTrain project, my challenge now as the minister responsible is to make sure that there are proper accountability mechanisms in place to make sure we keep proper track of it and to ensure that we stay on budget. It's a major project, and that's a challenge, but certainly it's one that I'm up to.
The government, through this legislation, will also keep a closer eye on the overall operations of its Crowns, since we are all now producing long-range performance plans. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act will, I hope, not only help to restore British Columbians' faith in the overall budget numbers but also help to restore the pride British Columbians have in major capital projects that government undertakes. I hope and I believe that the SkyTrain extension will be one of those -- that at the end of the day, the people of British Columbia will take great pride in what is an important transit project and feel secure in the knowledge that it's been well managed during the construction phase.
The legislation will legitimize, I hope, each and every one of these major capital projects by ensuring that they are the right solution to a clearly defined need. Of course, that clearly defined need will have to be outlined in accordance with sections 8 and 14 of this legislation.
[2050]
The release of performance measures will create public expectations. We fully expect British Columbians to hold our government as well as its agencies and its Crowns -- but ultimately the government -- accountable for those measures. It's only by being straightforward in our intentions and thorough in our capital planning that we can ensure that we make effective investments that British Columbians will believe in.
I am hoping that people will see that this legislation will amount to our guarantee to British Columbians that we're trying very hard, in view of past mistakes, to correct those mistakes, to make sure they're not repeated again. Because it will become a law of this province, it will ensure that no future government will make those mistakes.
As I indicated in my remarks earlier, we've seen those mistakes made by other governments in the past as well. That's not to avoid responsibility for the mistakes we've made. At the end of the day, setting aside the politics and the partisan nature of some of the debate that takes place here, this is just good public policy. It's good public policy, and I think the people of British Columbia will come to appreciate that when we look at how this province is run financially in the future.
So with that, hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I would move adjournment of debate.
Hon. G. Bowbrick moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Bowbrick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:40 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
(continued)
On vote 45: ministry operations, $2,026,375,000 (continued).
K. Whittred: I wanted to rise, first of all, and simply give my apologies for not being here on Thursday at the beginning of estimates. I did have other commitments for that day, but I am assured that my colleagues and our team carried on very well without me. I also wanted to give my thanks in advance to the staff and to the minister, of course. I'm sure that we're going to have a very, very productive session. On that note, Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn this over to my colleagues. We are going to finish the constituency issue aspect of the program before we move on to specific areas in the ministry. I will cede the floor to my colleague.
L. Stephens: When I left off Thursday morning, we were talking about crisis grants. This continues to be a huge issue in my riding, and I'm sure it is in others as well. What people are told in my riding is that they have to pay back the crisis grants and that the total amount is taken off their first EI cheque or their first paycheque, whatever it is. I just wonder if the minister could clarify what the process around these crisis grants is.
[ Page 16193 ]
Hon. J. Pullinger: There's been no change. The nature of a crisis grant is to provide funding, obviously, in a crisis kind of situation. That frequently occurs, as the member intimates, when an individual or a family is waiting for EI benefits or CPP benefits or some other kind of benefits to which they have an entitlement. Because it's an entitlement, they will generally, in certain cases, get back pay, if you like. Or they will have a cheque that comes to cover the amount from when they applied.
Clearly -- and I'm sure the member would agree -- it would not be appropriate to have a system whereby during that time, you collected double payments, one from whatever your other source is and one from the province -- for instance, to have EI and welfare during that period, even though you collect the EI later. So in order to avoid what I think most would call double-dipping, what we do is extend or advance payment in the form of a crisis grant, and then that amount is repaid when the individual receives that back payment.
L. Stephens: So there are two categories of crisis grant, then. If you get one for, say, having no food or for possessions that you've lost in a fire or anything like that, those kinds of crisis grants you do not have to pay back. But a crisis grant where you are receiving a payment of some kind down the road
I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not the field offices are quite clear about that and what kind of a mechanism is in place to make sure that people are informed. The one issue that I get time after time after time in my office is this debate around these crisis grants -- how they get them and whether or not they're paid back. People don't seem to have any idea what the rules are around them.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Actually, while they're both grants provided in a crisis, one is called a crisis grant. That's not repayable and serves to assist people in the kind of situation that the member outlined, such as a fire or an unexpected event that could not be planned for in a person's or a family's day-to-day affairs.
[1445]
The other one, to differentiate, we call hardship, which is what I was speaking to in my last comments. That is repayable, because it is generally based on advancing payment for some other kind of payment that is going to happen. But there are also other circumstances in which hardship is tendered and also required to be repaid. For instance, if someone quits their job -- just decides to quit work -- especially if there are children, we make sure that there's some funding there. But they would have to repay that when they get a job.
Similarly, if someone is disqualified for fraud, then if there are children, they may get a crisis grant in the form of hardship. That would be repayable as well. I may be incorrect, but I believe the largest number are simply for people waiting for EI or CPP or payments such as that.
L. Stephens: I don't think anybody's arguing that it needs to be paid back. It's the form that it takes. What's happening in my area -- and I don't know if this is true around the province; I'm presuming that it is -- is that the total amount is taken off the first cheque, wherever that amount of money may come from. Is there any provision for a quarter or a half or three-quarters, or whatever it is, of the amount owed to be taken off, as opposed to the whole sum? In many cases that just means that the people are back for another hardship grant in another week or two weeks or whatever. So is there any way that the system can be a little bit more flexible for those people who may find that the hardship grant that they have to pay back is almost the whole cheque they're receiving?
Hon. J. Pullinger: In the case where somebody's getting a lump sum to cover months that the province has extended interim financing, if you like, or payments in lieu of, say, employment insurance, that is repayable when that lump sum comes. I think that's appropriate, and that's the usual case. It is usually the interface between employment insurance and income assistance where we ask for the full payment when the payment comes. We certainly try not to disrupt someone's month-to-month income. We try to keep that as level as possible, because welfare is calculated on a month-to-month basis. That's the nature and premise of the program. Outside of EI, for the most part the policy of the ministry and the attempt of the workers, is to find repayment agreements based on individuals' personal circumstances. Therefore it varies from individual to individual. I think the member would agree that's the way it should be.
L. Stephens: Could the minister just clarify -- I didn't hear her say that -- that the ministry offices are allowed flexibility in the payback from clients?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, the ministry can and does do that, but it's always a balancing act. It is obviously not a good thing to leave people in a situation where they have an ongoing debt. So if there is a lump sum, we try to deal with that. It's a balancing act, but there is the power to do that in certain cases.
L. Stephens: That's good news. I think, certainly in my riding, people will be able to make arrangements that are a little bit more apropos to their particular situations. This has been something that has caused ongoing battles in my social services office, with individuals who keep coming in. It's just a revolving door with people talking about this hardship grant.
[1450]
In Langley City we have a number of lone-parent families. It's about 17 percent -- much higher than even Surrey. I'd like to ask the minister some questions about poverty, particularly around single-parent families, which are mostly headed by women. There's a new study that has just been released, which shows that Vancouver is No. 3 in the poverty rates for selected Canadian cities. I wonder if the minister could comment on what is included in her budget to address poverty issues and perhaps maybe even specific targeted areas for single-parent mothers.
Hon. J. Pullinger: That study is based on 1996 data, and it did show that the major cities, as one would expect, are where large numbers of poor people live. But I do want to put on the record what this government has done since 1996 to try to deal with poverty.
We have the B.C. family bonus, which has closed the poverty gap for families by 19 percent and is closing the poverty gap for single parents by 25 1/2 percent. That is very significant. You will find that mentioned in most literature. First Call will mention the fact that that's moving in the right direction in British Columbia.
[ Page 16194 ]
We have also brought in the B.C. Healthy Kids program, which provides free dental and optical for those same kids. By the way, the B.C. family bonus and the B.C. Healthy Kids program serve approximately 42 to 45 percent of all B.C. families, which is very significant. We have in the north, because of the unique circumstances in the north, put a dental van on the road for the third year in a row.
We are one of only two provinces building social housing, which is extremely significant. We have tightened employment standards and brought in groups, such as domestic workers and farm workers, under employment standards -- the most minimal labour laws of the province -- and we've raised minimum wage to those groups. Similarly, we have effected pay equity across the public sector and the public service, closing that wage gap significantly and lifting large numbers of single parents out of $7- or $8-an-hour of poverty into a living wage.
Today, in fact, we made the formal announcement of the second public child care system in all of North America, which will have a profoundly positive impact on those same families.
So in a whole range of ways -- whether it's housing or minimum wage, employment standards or direct programs such as child care, the B.C. family bonus, the B.C. Healthy Kids -- I think it's fair to say that in most ways, British Columbia is leading the way in the fight against poverty.
One other thing I would like to put on the record as a reminder is that we also put a bank in the downtown east side, one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada, to assist poor people. It's doing a very good job of helping people stabilize their lives and work with their incomes. It provides a whole range of services. Sadly, we haven't had a lot of support for most of those proposals.
L. Stephens: B.C. Benefits -- there was a 2 percent increase. Could the minister tell us if there were any cost-benefit studies done? Did they do any information-gathering to arrive at that 2 percent figure? Has there been any kind of analysis done in regard to the amount of money that the government is spending on B.C. Benefits for the different categories of people and whether or not it's appropriate -- whether or not it is in fact what is required in today's cost of living and those other factors?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Again, it's trying to strike a balance. That is the CPI for this year. I would have loved, as I know my colleagues would have loved, to see it go up more than that; 2 percent costs $23 million. I know the members opposite have been committed to going the other way, and I think that just simply speaks to the difference between the two sides.
[1455]
L. Stephens: I think the minister is making some observations that are completely inaccurate.
However, a question that I would like her to answer is: where is her government going to put about $25 million that's coming to the province from the government of Canada under their supporting communities partnership initiative that's just been announced? That's $31 million coming to British Columbia. This is to battle homelessness that takes place in communities. Minister Bradshaw made this announcement. Could the minister comment on how much of that money is coming to her ministry?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I would ask the member to direct that question to my colleague the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, who is the lead minister for the Vancouver Agreement.
L. Stephens: The last time I checked, this minister was responsible for homelessness. Has that changed? Is the minister no longer responsible for homelessness?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I have an agreement with my colleague, who is the lead for the Vancouver Agreement, that it makes sense for her to also take the lead on homelessness, given that that is a major part of the package. So I have quite happily given her the lead on that file.
L. Stephens: The other minister may be the lead, but surely this minister is familiar with the details and what this particular amount of money is going to mean for the province of British Columbia. She made an announcement on October 11, 1999, dealing with $300,000 that her ministry was putting into homelessness. So I'm sure the minister must have some idea of what this $31 million is going to buy.
The Chair: I would remind the member that rules of debate in committee require strict relevance to those areas under the direct administration of the minister's office. I believe the minister referred the member to the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, who has this file. If that helps the committee members in keeping their debate in order.
L. Stephens: Could the minister answer: how much money is in her budget for homelessness?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't have that figure, but I think it's fair to say that most of the money in my ministry is designed, in one way or another, to prevent homelessness either directly or indirectly. We have a cold weather strategy; we have shelters; we have housing; we have rent supplements; we have programs such as SAFER, the housing portion of income assistance. We have purchased hotels such as the ones in the downtown east side -- Sunrise, etc. There's an enormous amount of money in British Columbia that goes into preventing homelessness and poverty and helping people get on with their lives. I'd be happy to provide the member with a briefing of all of that, if that's what she'd like.
L. Stephens: I would simply like to get an answer about homeless shelters. How much is in this minister's budget for shelters for homelessness? In the October 11 press release that I mentioned
[1500]
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's about $12.5 million directly for hostels and shelters. But the entire budget of B.C. Housing is about preventing homelessness as well. If we didn't have those programs and that budget, a large number of those people would likely be homeless as well.
L. Stephens: I really want to get some idea of these shelters -- emergency shelters for the homeless. That's what I would like broken down -- not the second-stage housing, not
[ Page 16195 ]
the other co-op housing, but these shelters. That's the number that I would like to have -- and how many beds have been opened for this $300,000 and how many beds the minister expects to have open this year in her budget.
Hon. J. Pullinger: In the interests of time, perhaps I could commit to get the number of beds for shelters to the member. The budget for emergency shelters, as opposed to hostels, is $3.4 million; the budget for single-person hostels is $9.08 million. The announcement from last week is
L. Stephens: The information that I received after the October 11 news release said that your ministry was going to be making 375 beds available. However, only 100 beds were going to receive funding at that time, and only a small portion of the $300,000 would be spent in the '99-2000 year.
One issue that we hear over and over again, particularly those members who live in the Vancouver area, is that there aren't enough emergency beds. There certainly aren't enough for women only, and there are virtually none for women and children. I wonder if the minister could talk about what she plans to do in those two specific areas: shelter beds for women only, and shelter beds for women and their children.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Overall, we have over 700 beds -- 737 at last count. But what the member is referring to is an announcement of the cold weather strategy, which we initiated a few years ago in British Columbia in response to the homelessness that has occurred as a result of funding cuts at the federal level and certainly problems -- crises -- in other provinces. What's a crisis in other provinces is a big problem here. So we have undertaken to put together more of a systematic approach, if you like, rather than just funding a shelter here and a shelter there. We have connected them and made links and, I think it's fair to say, have one of the most seamless cold weather strategies in the country -- and that's as it should be.
[1505]
We have numerous partners in terms of providing for shelters. We work with the Ministry of Women's Equality, for example, on women's issues. We work with regional health boards. We work with municipal governments. Much of what we do
L. Stephens: Again, I didn't hear the minister tell me how many beds her ministry is going to create -- shelter beds for women only and for women and children.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't have the breakdown of what we have presently in terms of women only. However, I can say that I believe, as the only province left actually building social housing, that single-parent families and families of all kinds have been a very high priority. We have made some significant progress there.
I'd be happy to get
L. Stephens: Contrary to what the member may think, it's not minutiae. If she speaks with the individuals and the organizations, particularly on the downtown east side, I'm sure she would have found out by now that that is a very serious gap in the services to the homeless. Most people and virtually every organization that works down there with people on the street will tell you that the emergency beds are seriously lacking, particularly those beds that will accommodate women only and those beds that will accommodate women and their children. So I want to suggest to the minister that perhaps I will endeavour to give her some names and phone numbers of these particular organizations so that she's informed of what is required. Perhaps some of this money that is coming from the federal government can be used to provide some of those very worthwhile and badly needed facilities.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to put it on the record that speaking to the minutiae of the budget does not address in any way, shape or form, in terms of language or in terms of intent, the importance of the issue. Of course this side of the House thinks it's important. In fact, I would offer that we think it's so important that we're actually acting on it. We are building social housing, we have a cold weather strategy and we have a whole Ministry of Women's Equality. We have a whole range of programs, most of which the members opposite have voted or spoken against.
So we on this side think it's very important. I meet with anti-poverty groups and groups promoting a range of solutions to poverty and homelessness on a regular basis. They have important information and detail that is crucial to us making good decisions. As I say, we try to respond to a community-identified need with community-proposed solutions. I would also offer that my colleague the minister responsible for the Vancouver Agreement represents that neighbourhood, the poorest neighbourhood in British Columbia.
L. Stephens: Again, the minister misrepresents this side of the House in these kinds of issues. I think that's quite evident by the discussion that's taken place so far. We are very concerned about the individuals on the downtown east side and other parts of the province, which is why we're asking these questions and whether or not the ministry is going to be putting in place the kinds of facilities that are needed there and required by people who are living on the street.
I gave the minister two examples. One was women-only shelters, and the second is women-and-their-children shelters. I have yet to hear the minister specifically say that there are X number of beds that will be available or that there are X number of non-profit organizations that they are working in partnership with to provide those kinds of services. I've tried a couple of times, and I don't appear to be getting anywhere. So I will leave it at that and turn to the questioning from my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head.
[1510]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member continues to want a top-down solution. Fair ball -- I respect that. It's just a difference of opinion.
We instead try to work with communities. We have a policy that no one who comes to the ministry who is homeless will be left in the street. If there are not enough shelters, we
[ Page 16196 ]
will find them appropriate accommodation in a hotel, a motel -- whatever we can do and whatever's the best solution for the concerns presented to us. The policy of this government is that people who present themselves in need of shelter will be provided with shelter one way or another, and we prefer community solutions.
Hon. Chair, I want to take umbrage at
They have recently said that social housing is a waste of public resources. They have said that publicly funded comprehensive child care, a major solution to poverty, should not
I think the evidence is clear, as well as their own policies, including reducing the single rate down to $470 a month, etc. It is very clear that the members opposite both admire and will follow Mike Harris and Ralph Klein, and so be it. That's fine; I respect that. But to suggest that I'm somehow distorting the picture, when we know -- and the members themselves have made it very clear -- that they think what Mike Harris and Ralph Klein are doing is the right way to go
The Chair: The hon. member for Langley on a rebuttal.
L. Stephens: Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask that you call the member to order. We on this side of the House would like to do business today. We would like to address the ministry's estimates in a respectful and proper manner. If this minister is not prepared to do that, then I suspect that we will have to find another solution. So, Mr. Chair, I'm at your disposal, and I would ask that you call the minister to order.
The Chair: Thank you, member. That's a good point. I believe it's a valid point of order. I would ask all members of the committee to stay within the relevancy -- strict relevancy. And if that's the wish of the committee, the Chair will conduct a debate in that manner. I draw the minister's attention to standing order 61 as well.
I. Chong: I'll take this opportunity to canvass the minister and ministry on specific constituency issues relevant to this ministry. I have three cases which I would like to bring to the minister's and staff's attention. I bring all three cases, which have been resolved, to this minister's attention to show the lack of interministerial cooperation and also where areas of improvement can certainly be looked at.
[1515]
First of all, I'll give the minister an overview of what occurred. It involves a constituent who was a recipient of B.C. Benefits and also of family maintenance through the Attorney General's ministry. The concern from this particular constituent was that
The moneys that were collected by the Attorney General
Where we are at a stall at this point, as I understand it, is that phase 2 was originally to have been done by November of 1999, but it has still not been implemented. In fact, it is still in discussion. I know that the ministry, therefore, is aware of this lack of integration, and it's causing hardship to families. I'm wondering if the minister could advise where we are with this implementation. As I understand it, there is no tentative date set thus far for implementation. If we could find out this information, it certainly would resolve a number of issues that come to our office on a monthly basis. I'm sure all other MLAs who have constituents facing this problem would surely love to hear where we're headed in this direction.
Hon. J. Pullinger: As I'm sure the member would appreciate, there are a whole range of variables that make a cheque late, including the date that it's paid to the family maintenance enforcement program by the person -- the debtor, if you like, or the payer. But yes, we are and have been for some time
[ Page 16197 ]
still working on 1960s -- or seventies or something -- green screens, as of 1991, and modernizing it and bringing it forward.
[1520]
There is a great deal left to do; there is no question. I do recognize that difficulty and others, actually, of the same nature that cannot be fixed without the technology to do so. We're certainly working on it. Then at some point it becomes a matter of budget allocation. As the member is aware, technology is extremely high. I'm not prepared to cut welfare rates or something, and I'm sure -- or I would hope -- that the members opposite would not expect that to happen in order to fund the technology. But it's a bit of a mug's game, because there are problems in the system from a lack, historically, of technology. The best I can say is that we are working on those and are certainly very aware of them.
I. Chong: I'm a bit perplexed because in no way in my presentation to the minister did I make any allusion to cutting welfare rates, as she just indicated. All I was saying was that I am aware that the ministry has implemented phase 1 and is looking at phase 2, as was told to us by this district supervisor. And at the time that there was discussion, we understood that the implementation date was set for November of 1999. It is now June 2000, seven months later. At the last opportunity that we spoke to some staff people at the FMEP program, we were told that they just don't know when the implementation date is.
I was hoping to find out from the minister what time line will be given to this, whether it can be conceivably looked upon as something that could be done in the fall. Certainly I understand the costs that are involved through computer programs and through integration. What I'm also aware of, of course, is -- if that cannot be done -- whether the ministry is looking at a way to ensure that these payments are benefiting the recipients that much more and whether the ministry is able to forward the amount of the family maintenance cheque and include it with the one B.C. Benefits cheque so that one cheque is issued once a month to the recipient. Then the ministry attempts to receive the cheque through the Attorney General's department, where the cheque will come in from the ex-spouse, where there are sometimes timing problems.
In this particular case, as I say, that I'm going to refer the minister to, everything has been resolved. But it still brings to mind that there are others out there who have not sought the assistance of their MLA's office, who are out there wondering what can be done and who, month after month, go through this anxiety of not having some assurance.
If the ministry is not able to do integration or implement the integration process immediately, whether they will provide another mechanism -- that is, to pay the amount with the B.C. Benefits cheque directly to the recipient and then collect from the Attorney General's department subsequently.
Hon. J. Pullinger: In British Columbia, actually, we're the only province in the country, again, that exempts, if you like, $100 of the family maintenance collected either directly or through the family maintenance enforcement program. So the variable is $100 a month.
I absolutely recognize the difficulty of the issue. But as I say, it's very complex. It can be driven by a whole number of factors, including payments coming late to government. We are working with a relevant ministry to do what we can to fix it. But at the end of the day, a significant part of the problem is a technological fix, which is a whole lot of money. It's a very significant chunk of change, if you like. Therein lies the difficulty. So I'm not able to provide the member with more detail than that.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for disclosing that she's not able to provide a date that's possible to look at it. I respect that there are a number of issues; it is rather complex. But at the same time, where family maintenance enforcement programs are in place and agreements on them are in place with people who live in other jurisdictions and when you know that that cheque is coming in every month and that the Attorney General's department is receiving it, I would still ask the minister to have staff look at the consequences or perhaps the opportunities that exist there, which could allow for these cheques to be remitted to the recipients and then have the ministries, amongst themselves, do the collecting afterwards.
[1525]
It's a huge cost in terms of forgone revenue on interest or whatever, I can understand that. We have to take a look at those issues. But by the same token, $100 is a lot of money for people who are on income assistance. They're just looking for a solution that makes it easier for them to plan their day-to-day and month-to-month living arrangements and support for their families. So I'll just leave that with the minister. If there's an opportunity for the staff to look at it, I don't need an answer right now. I'm satisfied with what's been presented.
I would like to move on to a second issue. Again, it deals with interministerial cooperation. This has to do with a funding formula. In this particular case, a constituent who was a head injury patient at the Gorge Road Hospital here in Victoria required a new wheelchair that was recommended by his physiotherapist. This was in January of 1999. There was a rather long process. The patient obviously immediately chalked it up to bureaucratic problems. We wanted to take a look into this.
A request for a wheelchair was originally denied by the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security, because MSDES did believe that the Ministry of Health should have been responsible for paying for essential medical equipment. We understand that. This is where, I guess, the fundamental problem of funding falls into a state of confusion for the recipient who is merely looking to get some medical equipment.
The then minister committed to bring this issue forward for executive review in September of 1999, acknowledging that this was a problem. I wrote to the minister regarding this particular case on January 24 of this year -- a whole year later -- to try to find out whether there was going to be a workable solution to this ongoing interministerial funding issue. A month later, on February 23, the ministry, through the MSDES tribunal decision, did approve the wheelchair. So the person eventually did get the wheelchair, which I think we can both appreciate was satisfactory in the end. However, we were given an assurance by the previous minister that this is an ongoing problem and that the staff would be directed to look into this. I'm wondering whether or not this has been brought to the attention of the minister and whether there was an executive review. I know we can't find out specific details on that. But perhaps the outcome of an executive review, if in fact that did occur
[ Page 16198 ]
Hon. J. Pullinger: I am very aware of this issue. It's one of those very difficult issues which is always exacerbated when funding is tight, as it is. As the member knows, we get 15, not 50, cents on the dollar now for health care, which -- given the size of that budget and given that the same is true in other ministries -- puts extreme stress on programs. So it is an issue. I asked my deputy some time ago to work with the Ministry of Health and any other deputies who were appropriate to come to the table and find a resolution to this issue. That is ongoing.
I. Chong: Clearly we do have to find a solution that works. What is clear to everyone involved in cases like this is that because of the lack of coordination between ministries, we see requests like this coming up. They're routinely denied, and then they're referred to an appeal tribunal that then generally approves the request. In the meantime, a lot of time has passed and someone, especially in this particular case, who has a mobility problem has gone through some rather distressing times -- everyone knowing full well that a tribunal would very likely approve the situation once they've reviewed the case. Again, I thank the minister for her efforts, and I would ask for her ongoing efforts to ensure that we find workable solutions in those cases.
[1530]
The third issue I'd like to raise with the minister again has to do with a ministry policy where the ministry appeals a tribunal's decision that does not necessarily go in its favour. These are all complex issues, as the minister can appreciate. In this particular case, we were dealing with a constituent who is a single parent with a dependent child who, for purposes of age, is no longer considered a dependent. Once you're 18, you're designated through the Ministry of Human Resources through the federal government, so that you're no longer considered dependent in the same sense.
The difficulty, of course, is the consideration of benefits. The levels of benefits are applicable based on the levels of income a person receives or that the person and the dependent receive. Here we had a person receiving CPP disability benefits for herself and her son. The disabled contributor's benefit, being a certain portion, was included as part of the income base for which calculations were being made. The ministry states that the disabled contributor's child benefit, the DCCB -- I think that's their title -- is unearned income as set out in the B.C. Benefits regulations. It provides that all unearned income shall include any type or class of CPP benefits. Since CPP is earned income for tax purposes, it should be considered earnings for the purpose of the ministry as well.
I think the minister is aware -- rather than going through all the details of the case -- of where I'm coming from, where we have differences of definition and where we have disability benefits involved, which are clearly set out to deal with the specific needs of the recipient, who is a disabled person, as opposed to income assistance to help someone just to get by. There was a tribunal decision in this particular case that the son's DCCB should not be deducted from the entitlement of the mother, but I understand that the ministry was intending to appeal the decision to the board.
I'm wondering whether the minister can advise whether this happens frequently and whether a policy has been designed to deal with issues of disability where people are going to tribunals and the ministries are appealing them. Are we looking at this to find a better workable solution?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to ask clarification of the member. Is the member suggesting that income assistance should be paid on top of CPP? I'm not quite clear where she's coming from.
I. Chong: No. What I'm saying is that there are cases where recipients are able to attend a tribunal appeal and have certain decisions made on their behalf, which deal with disability benefits, with the ministry then appealing those decisions. I'm wondering whether there is a frequency of this occurring and whether the ministry is now looking at a policy to make it very clear as to whether or not disability benefits which are combined, as with a mother and a dependent son, should be looked at together or in isolation.
I don't know if this happens in a number of other ridings, but this particular one came into our office. As I say, the constituent was quite upset that the ministry was set to appeal a tribunal decision that the ministry wasn't happy with. Is this standard procedure in these kinds of cases, or does the ministry always appeal every tribunal decision?
Hon. J. Pullinger: No, we certainly don't appeal every decision, but there are appeals made. The appeal board, as the member knows, is required to interpret the law as it applies to any given situation. So that's a very valuable process in many cases. Their job is to make sure that, whoever appeals the decisions, the outcome falls within the law.
[1535]
I think I'm clear as to what the member is getting at with the other question. I can't answer to that specific case, of course, because I don't have the details of it. But generally we don't ask people what their relationship is. Other than in a dependency relationship, it doesn't matter who the individuals are. If they're living in a dependency relationship of any form in a household, then their income appropriately is considered together. That is to differentiate from people renting rooms separately or something, where there is no dependent relationship. So if it's a dependency relationship, whether it's of the parent-child nature that the member describes or it's two adults, then their income is considered collectively.
I. Chong: I appreciate the minister for answering. I know some of these issues are complex. They've all been resolved happily, thankfully.
But I'm still curious. I didn't hear a response on whether she was able to advise what the ministry policy is in terms of appealing tribunal decisions. Are they based on a certain level, or are they based on the frequency that the ministry deals with? Or are they just one-off cases that occur which the ministry appeals?
Perhaps that also would help us in other situations that my office deals with. Usually people come in after they've had a decision or gone to an appeal. Then they've had a ministry come in with an intention to appeal, which is why our office sometimes gets involved. If the minister could even provide some clarification on the policy involving that, I could at least have that for the benefit of serving my constituents in the future.
Hon. J. Pullinger: In this ministry, as the member would appreciate, it is always a balancing act of trying to keep the system, the rules, fair and equal for everyone and at the same
[ Page 16199 ]
time trying to deal with individual differences. It's very difficult. I think it's fair to say that the ministry does a very good job of trying to balance those two things.
In the case of an appeal, if something goes to a tribunal, whether or not the ministry takes that to the appeal board is very individual. Fewer than one in five decisions of a tribunal is taken there, and it's based very much
It's very much individual. The policy, really, is trying to do exactly that, and that is to balance fairness for all, which means trying to keep a fairly uniform set of rules that are fairly uniformly applied but, at the same time, recognizing individual circumstances and differences. It's juggling those two factors always, as well as the particulars of the situation at hand and whatever the tribunal may or may not have said or decided or whatever. All of those circumstances determine whether or not the ministry will appeal.
So I can't say to the member -- and I think she's looking for this -- that the policy is this or that. It is very much a balance of those two frequently competing values.
[1540]
I. Chong: I do appreciate that there will always be cases which are specific, which require attention that would not otherwise be given in a general nature. However, I had a number of other cases which I didn't bring forward because, again, they too were resolved. But it brings to mind, once again, the area of the appeals.
In a number of other cases I think we were somewhat successful, not because of the circumstances but in the way that our office was able to present it to the former minister. In any event, we did ask specifically for the criteria on which ministry would appeal a decision when a decision had been favourable to a constituent or a recipient, for example, and then the ministry decided they wanted to appeal it. We approached the former minister with many of these cases and basically asked what the cost of the appeal would be versus the cost of leaving the appeal alone -- in other words, allowing the recipient to receive whatever medical apparatus or benefit the person was looking at.
In a number of those cases -- not in all those cases, but in a number of those cases -- I want the minister to know that we didn't get an answer back. We just received a response back indirectly through the constituent: "Oh, I received a letter from the minister's office, and they've decided now to withdraw the appeal." That begs the question as to
The cost of saying no versus the cost of saying yes is really what we're looking at. If somebody needs a medical device that costs $150, which was awarded, and then you deny it and they have to appeal it and the cost of the appeal is $500, surely we see that there are some guidelines. That's what I am trying to seek from this minister -- whether there is a guideline even in terms of financial dollars.
Hon. J. Pullinger: On the cost of no versus the cost of yes, just two points, which I think the member would agree with. One is that I don't think the cost of the process should ever determine the outcome. I think there needs to be in place a fair and balanced process for people to make various appeals and for one party or the other to have to say, "I can't afford to do that," or: "The cost of the process says that even if we think the decision is incorrect from either side, we'll just toss the process because of the cost." I know the member didn't mean it that way, but I do want to underscore the fact that it's a cost-effective process. I think due process is incredibly important, and therefore that is not a consideration -- and, in my view, should not be.
In terms of one part of the question -- that is, should we just provide the funding rather than going to appeal -- if I take off the appeal part, which I've dealt with, and say: "Why don't we just provide the funding
If in fact you were to suggest
You simply can't do that. It's one of the very difficult human aspects of a ministry like this, where you're balancing, all the time, not only those two competing pressures of individual circumstances as frequently opposed to the need to have a fair and evenhanded policy
I know that when there was discussion, a debate, about things like the flat-rate earnings exemption, some argued that the ministry was nuts -- that it wouldn't cost anything. I certainly heard that out in the community. How can it cost anything to allow people to keep an extra $100 a month? Well, guess what: it cost about $25 million to do that.
[1545]
People frequently don't understand how that econometric modelling works. That is the nature of this ministry. You need to understand that every move you make sets a precedent which is potentially worth many million dollars. So you have to be very careful about how you do that. You have to make sure that the appropriate processes are in place and the decisions are made within the law. In many cases, we've determined that the rules, while they appear to be fair and evenhanded, in fact are not working for one constituent group of people or another, and then we try to address that. You address it by policy, not by individual, because of the obvious outcomes.
[ Page 16200 ]
I. Chong: I first of all want to thank her for not misinterpreting my comments. She's correct: I wasn't suggesting the cost of "no" versus the cost of "yes" having to be the criterion. Again, I do want to follow up on some of her comments about the cost to taxpayers and the cost-effectiveness. That's why I bring up the issue of what the ministry policy on appeals is as such.
Even though sometimes the cost of an appeal is much more costly than granting it, and I understand that precedents are set, the cost-effectiveness of that also has to be weighed. Not just in this ministry but in a number of other ministries, sometimes ministers or staff have to take a look at thresholds, minimum thresholds, upon which decisions can be made. That's where the policy, I suppose, is derived. Whether or not it does make sense where, as I say, particular assistance is granted to someone, the cost of which is under $150 or under $200, and whether or not those kind of things can be looked at
If the minister wishes to disagree, I can accept that. I'm just wondering whether staff has ever considered that or whether staff has ever brought that forward to the minister. What kind of consideration has been given to that? Clearly, if the cost of an appeal cost the ministry $500 each and every time, then, precedent or not, we are not being cost-effective. Taxpayers have a right to tell us, "This doesn't make sense," or take a look at all of us as politicians and wonder whether we're thinking in the broadest sense.
If the minister is saying that that cannot be done because of a number of other complex issues, as I say, I'll accept that. I just want to know whether consideration has ever been given to whether or not it could work with the thresholds. Sometimes we hear ministers saying: "No, these things don't work." And then we talk about it in our estimates process, and suddenly the minister comes up and says: "You know, you're right. We're going to take a look at that. We're not going to assess for anything under this amount, and we're not going to appeal for anything under this level."
All I'm seeking is to see whether this ministry -- being that it's a relatively new ministry, but it's a culmination of a number of other programs from various other ministries which were established before -- has considered this and has it possibly for discussion in the future.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me try once more. The member continues to say that we should be weighing off one circumstance against the cost of the appeal. What I'm saying to the member is that it's not really possible to do that, because you can't have a policy for one person. If we were to say the threshold was $300, then we're effectively raising the rates by $300. I mean, if you were to say: "We're not going to appeal anything that costs less than $300," well, I can tell you from
I mean, people are rational economic beings, and that would be the rational economic thing to do -- to appeal up to $114. Everybody who knew about it would do that, because it would increase your rate by $114. That would probably cost $300 million to do that. That's the problem in this ministry. So you know, you could make it $50. Well, $50 would cost way more; it would probably cost $100 million. That's the nature of this ministry. Where you set the threshold is where everybody
You could look at income assistance two ways. You can look at it as trying to support people on a permanent basis at a certain level. Some have suggested using the low-income cutoff that would put 25 or 30 percent of the population on income assistance. That you couldn't even touch; you couldn't do it.
[1550]
By definition, an income assistance system will never provide adequate amounts of money. It cannot, by its structure. So the alternative is to have a system that tries to support people while it gives them the tools they need to get off and into a marketplace where the minimum wage is decent. The minimum wage has a profound impact on poverty and on this ministry.
You also have to make sure that people are covered by employment standards. If a whole group of farm workers or domestic workers or disabled people -- people not covered by the most basic labour laws -- have a decent minimum wage, then that affects this ministry.
You have to look at it as part of a broader system, which includes the marketplace. I would offer that what we're doing is the approach that must, of necessity and for a whole range of reasons, be taken and that is to start with the assumption that everybody has something to contribute to society, and everybody wants to work. I think that's true for the overwhelming majority of people.
Then what you have to do is try to gear the system to assist people to move off the system into the labour market, and then you've got to make sure, when they get to the labour market, that they can live. It is inadequate; the market does not provide adequately. That's why we provide child care, housing, the B.C. family bonus, the B.C. Healthy Kids, premium assistance and a whole range of other redistributive mechanisms to try to bring people up to that critical point where they and their families can live.
I mean, for a family of four -- two kids and two parents -- if you're over $30,000 a year, your children show no long-term effects of poverty. If you're under, they show all of the long-term effects of poverty. So the object of all of those programs, whether it's raising the minimum wage and employment standards or whether it's the B.C. family bonus and the B.C. Healthy Kids or whether it's our skills training programs or even things like local hire to make sure that people have family-supported jobs -- they're all part of a broad cross-government effort to close that obscene and growing income gap in this country.
As I said in my opening remarks, what we're doing structurally in the global economy is driving wedges between citizens, between provinces and between countries. We're attempting to close that income gap. So when the member's considering that, you need to consider that any time you raise
Do you want to take a brief recess?
I. Chong: No. I've just got one question.
[ Page 16201 ]
I'd like to close this discussion because, with all due respect to the minister, her last few comments weren't particularly relevant to what I was trying to pose. I wasn't discussing income assistance from all levels and employment standards and works such as that. I was trying to get to a question of whether consideration has been made
Perhaps I could throw this last question on the floor. I don't need an answer today. Perhaps staff is able to look into it for me: whether there is, somewhere in the financial documents, the cost of appeals that the ministry has handled in the past year -- the dollar costs -- and therefore how much it has saved the ministry by winning those appeals on behalf of the ministry. If I can get that information at a subsequent time, that would be fine. I don't need that answer right now.
I want to thank the minister and staff.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to say that my comments are very relevant. What I'm trying to point out to the member is that you cannot take one piece in isolation. If you're going to create a threshold, which is what the member was directly asking about, then you are effectively raising rates by that amount. You have to multiply that by everybody who may qualify, to figure out how much it's going to cost. So it's extremely relevant; it can't be more relevant.
Also, it's not the case that we don't consider these situations. I have to tell you that anybody who's had this set of files, this ministry
[1555]
Certainly through the appeal process there are, from time to time, issues that form a bit of a pattern or a trend, and that's very valuable information to the ministry. Absolutely we would look at any of that kind of information and try to effect the best response that we can. Nevertheless, you are in a conundrum in this ministry -- that you cannot move in a unilateral way to, say, have a threshold in place without considering what it would do if everybody decided to come in just under that threshold. That is logically what people would and, I would offer, should do.
With that, I would move, with the agreement of the members opposite, a five-minute recess.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:04 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
V. Anderson: To follow up on the discussion we were having, which is a very helpful discussion and one that I think is very much needed out there
I think we're struggling with some shifts that have taken place not only here but everywhere. The previous discussion was dealing with some of that, and I'd like to discuss that for a few moments. I think it's relevant to understand where we might be and where we might be going. We come from an era where our terminology was about social services and the safety net, and those were two different things.
[1605]
Social services was helping to meet people in whatever their particular problems or difficulties were that they faced in their lives. That was the positive side of it. The safety net side of it was how, when everything else failed, you keep people from falling off of the ship. It's not how you looked after them on the ship, if I can use that analogy. Social services was helping people to be comfortable and get their necessities met while they were on the ship. The safety net was when you fell off the ship. How did somebody catch you before you drowned? How did they pull you out of the water and get you back onto the ship? So there is the safety net concept and the social services concept.
For one reason or another, those are inherently in the background of many people's thinking at this point. We seem to have moved away from either one of those concepts into another concept altogether, which is reflected in moving from the Guaranteed Annual Income for Need Act, which dealt with social services and the safety net, to the B.C. Benefits Act, which is dealing primarily with the kind of income that people have -- income being the main concern. That's income through either job or replacement of job, but it's still an income, as the minister is talking about -- a market-based kind of technology rather than a safety net or social services technology.
What I hear happening at the moment is that, in this new discussion, we move, on one hand, from assisting the people who are employable but temporarily unemployed to get from their temporary unemployment back into employability -- that's kind of one process which is underway, and that's the labour market part of the process. On the other hand, we've taken a new awareness, which I think is very appropriate, for people who have permanent disabilities. We've therefore set that as a category to support people in that area and to develop a support system in that area of disability. Both of those two thrusts have things that are working right with them and things that can be improved. That's understandable when you go into those two thrusts.
We could talk about those individually. Later on the critic on our side will be talking about the labour part of that, and I'll be talking in a few minutes about the disability part of that. But before I get to that, what I'm concerned about and where I hear a great deal of the frustration, unease and misunderstanding, if you like, in the community, is the group in between. That's the group who isn't in a position to easily move to employability; on the other hand, the group isn't recognized with a permanent disability, which we technically call disability 1 at the moment as a category.
These people are kind of in a no person's land in between. It's these people who would need the social services, in a way that we used to think of it. It's these people for whom the safety net, at the moment, doesn't really seem to be there. It's on this group that a great deal of time is being spent by agencies across the province for advocacy and support in difficulty.
[ Page 16202 ]
I wanted to highlight and ask the minister to respond, if I'm right -- and I'm not being critical here; I'm just being descriptive -- on what's happening. In trying to work on the labour market and on the disability on the two sides, we've got a vacuum in between, which is where I hear a great deal of the difficulty coming from. I'd just like to put that forward at the very beginning.
[1610]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Very interesting comments about social services versus safety net
That may have some positive things. It certainly has some fallout, as we are seeing locally, nationally and globally. What we have done in response to a whole range of changes that have moved from an industrial economy to an information economy -- globalization, which is creating gaps between citizens, provinces and countries, etc. -- is to say that in a system wherein you just had income assistance, you sort of had a circle of people over here, and the light was shone on them. And we heard a lot of poor-bashing as a result. We said: "Just wait a minute. We're all part of one group of people. But there's a line, and if you fall below that line, you need help."
To have just one response, and a fairly narrow one at that, in terms of welfare is simply not appropriate. That's why we brought in B.C. Benefits, which was part of a broader vision, a much more modern approach to the issues. It is a response to a failure of the social contract and a failure of the market system. It doesn't provide adequately for people. It does not provide any kind of a fair distribution of income or resources to people. I think that's clear.
It is also a response to the dismantling of that social safety net and the social programs that we've had. At one point, in the 1950s, the assumption was that people who used welfare were not employable. Today 73 percent of the people on income assistance are employable. Many of them probably should be on employment insurance. But as a nation, we've decided to dismantle that. So we've changed the assumption.
For instance, it used to be assumed that if you have a disability, you're unemployable. That's just wrong. There's virtually no one that doesn't have something to offer this society. It's the assumption that this government starts on. Given all of those realities -- the fact that there are two parents working, the rise in single parents, a whole range of changes to the economy and to society -- we've set about, in a very difficult time, to try to make a system that works.
So that's why we don't just deal with people on the old system of welfare. This ministry and our government deal with and provide support to everybody who falls below the poverty line. This is why -- and I know the member thought it was irrelevant, but it is true -- everything from minimum wage to employment standards to the B.C. family bonus to income assistance -- all of those programs, including child care, etc. -- are all part of a broad package of addressing the income gap and addressing poverty.
Having said that, I want to say that it is an evolving system; it must be ever evolving. The piece we added in to the old welfare system is the ability not to just get work, which was always there under GAIN -- the requirement to go and look for work. What we did was add in training and very broad linkages with the labour market, plus the whole range of other supports. That is the significant difference.
We have a different and much more modern, progressive system that is very much working to help people. From time to time we do find that there's a further change needed, and that will go on forever. I would say that the member is quite correct: DB-1 is one of those. We've had some significant process, and now we're trying to determine how best to respond to the changes that we know need to happen.
V. Anderson: Within that context some particularities were raised , but I still think we need to keep it in a context. And the context of the responses that we get at the moment from the advocacy groups -- whether it's in the community living network whether it's in the downtown east side or whether it's across the province or whether it's Federated Anti-Poverty Groups or End Legislated Poverty -- all of the advocacy groups
[1615]
So there is a general consensus from all of the advocacy groups that in respect to the general advancement of the population as a whole, because of the cost-of-living increase and because of the increasing pressures that the minister is mentioning that people are now facing, people generally within this area of responsibility that this ministry has are worse off now in comparison to the general population than they have ever been -- not in recent years, since the contract. Put it in that context, because it's not as bad as it was in the 1930s. But people were saying, for instance, that the community living support system at the moment is equivalent in purchasing power to 1982, which means that it's not as good relative to what they could get in 1982. So the numbers are up, the dollars are up, and the response is greater, but the actual result is not giving to people a feeling that they're able to get ahead when they're in that middle ground.
They're struggling on the disability end, and there's a recognition there that wasn't there. That's welcomed and appreciated. But the recognition now needs more in that area, and there are the people who aren't making it yet into the labour area because of health, because of social conditions, because of a whole bunch of things. And there's a feeling out there that I'm trying to discuss with the minister that there's a focus on the labour end and a focus on the disability end, but there isn't, if you like, a group of specialists working with the group in between. There's a feeling that I hear reflected from them that they feel that if they aren't in one group or the other, then they're disqualified. And it's that group that I would really like to highlight in discussion with the minister today.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I certainly understand what the member is saying. Starting in the 1980s, when the social contract was being dismantled, people started to fall behind dramatically. We started to address that in the early nineties, despite the fact that we took on a $2.5 billion deficit. But then the rug
[ Page 16203 ]
was pulled out from underneath us. We have seen health care funding go from 50 to 15 cents. We've seen exactly the same thing happen to transfer payments through this ministry. We've lost program after program after program from the federal government. I mean, the federal government used to build two-thirds of housing; they now build nothing. They don't pay a nickel.
So the reality is that we started to move along a road that we wanted to move along, and we had the rug pulled out from underneath us. I will avoid partisan comment; I'm biting my tongue, but I will avoid it. But people did fall behind. We have done our level best through a whole range of things. I could give the member ten different ways, I'm sure, that we're leading the country -- whether it's having the highest rates for families in all of Canada, whether it's the only province where we have something like children don't go on welfare. They go on the B.C. family bonus; they have an entitlement. All children who fall below the poverty line have an entitlement.
Child care, early intervention
[1620]
We frequently feel like the little kid with her finger in the dike trying to hold back the forces. We simply can't do what we'd like to do in that context, which doesn't make me very happy. But the reality is that for every $1 for income assistance people that the federal government withdrew or every $1 that we add back, it costs us $2 million. So every $1 that's taken away or every $1 that we want to add is $2 million. It's huge; it's very hard to deal with.
You could do one of two things with that. You can either leave the system the way it was, which essentially had a very big wall around it -- it was virtually impossible to get off welfare for a large number of the people -- or you can do what we have done, which is provide increasing numbers of ladders out. So while income assistance isn't adequate -- nobody would contest that in terms of living on it -- what you try to do is make sure that people don't have to live on it and that it's a very temporary situation. You help people move out into the labour market, where they earn a decent wage, even a decent minimum wage.
So we have things like the jobs partnership, where the average beginning wage is something like $9.79 an hour, etc. That's what we're trying to do. You can either try to address the problem with the income assistance system -- which you cannot do in this day and age; it's impossible -- or do the best you can there and then try to help when people move out of that inadequate system into a better life of independence, where they get a whole range of supports that this government has put in place. That's what we're trying to do, hon. member.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that you're trying to do that, and I'm not negating that. I'll give you credit for trying.
One of the realities that comes in
They're discovering at the moment that the six-stage system to apply for welfare is a system that is incomprehensible and very difficult for those kinds of people to get through. The very fact that most of them in this stage that I'm talking about come to welfare is that it's the end of the line. In fact, they have been told that they can't come for benefits until it is the end of the line. They've given up all the other resources; they've given up all their expendable ability, so they really have nothing left when they come. That six-stage process, which is now before them, is just so daunting for many of them.
In the six-stage process you go for your interview. You go to the receptionist, and they send you for your interview, your orientation. Then you go back to your process person, they go over your files, and then they send you back for more materials. You have to get the materials, and then you go back. Those who are going straight through to the employment option get moved on very quickly, because they have all of the materials; they have everything in hand. They go to the interviews; they go through the job process. The ones who do not move quickly into the process are the ones that the process bogs down.
I want to highlight that that's where I feel a lot of the difficulty is for many people. Whether it's in the downtown east side or whether it's in our Marpole community or whether it's throughout the province, I hear the same thing from every part of the province. The process at this point, which is meant to help the people who move along rapidly, is a dysfunctional process for those who can't move along as rapidly in the process.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I certainly hear what the member is saying. Actually, the process is that you make contact with the office. If you have children or are in crisis, that's dealt with. If not, you go to orientation. Orientation is about trying to avoid those other repeat returns to the ministry. The orientation is about two things. One is telling people how they can link with the labour market to either avoid or minimize their stay on income assistance, because the longer you're on and the more often you're there, the more difficult it is to get out of that system.
Secondly, it's to provide people with information to make sure that when they go to the ministry to apply, they in fact have all the documents that they need in front of them to avoid those other trips. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. But it has been very successful. I've had both individuals and certainly people in ministry offices tell me that it cuts down the repeat visits markedly. So that is in fact what we're doing there.
[1625]
We have made a number of changes. But I certainly recognize that when people come, they
Here is an example of what's happening. Here's a woman who had, in her words, been through everything. Her husband had been in jail more than once, drugs and guns were in the same house as her kids, friends were dying of overdoses
[ Page 16204 ]
and her marriage was filled with violence and abuse. It doesn't get too much worse than that. They were living on income assistance. They were living in government housing, public housing.
Today she is a single parent. She's in her mid-thirties, and she has put her life back together. She's been to self-improvement courses. She's been through a skills assessment process. She discovered what her interests were. She was assisted, through a work experience program at the Alberni Valley Times newspaper, and she went from stuffing envelopes to doing stories and photography. In other words, the woman is a journalist. She is now managing editor of the newspaper. Her fourth son is growing up without ever having known poverty. That's what we're doing in this ministry, providing those kinds of linkages for this kind of success story. That's, quite frankly, what it's all about.
V. Anderson: I'm quite aware that for some of the people, the process is working extremely well. That's good; I'm happy that it is. But on the other hand, the report we get back from the advocacies
So it's in this area
It's that part of the system
Hon. J. Pullinger: I know that it's true that it's never been so difficult for advocates. I also know that it's true that we've never had such an income gap in Canada, nor the growth of an income gap. I also know that it's true that in my lifetime I've never seen such a dismantling of the state and the social programs that go with the state, which is creating massive problems across this country. This is not unique to British Columbia in any sense of the word.
I am aware that there are gaps. There are people that are, quite frankly, invisible in the system, and we have moved from treating everybody as if they were the same, to increasingly
[1630]
With respect to the justice system, I applaud the advocates. We fund the advocates to find people. I know that it's difficult, and we do try. For instance, on the issue of DB-1, we do try very hard to find solutions. But they are always multimillion-dollar solutions -- always -- and therein lies the difficulty. If we're in an era where cutting taxes and thereby cutting available funding for social programs is what the majority want, it makes it very hard to swim in the other direction, which we try to do.
I welcome, as always, the member's input into this ministry. I've actually written to the opposition members and asked them to come to me rather than to the media with issues, so that we can work on them and try to resolve them. It's very useful to me to have anybody do that, and I welcome the opposition and encourage them to do that. I appreciate the member's concern. Certainly I share it -- and then some.
V. Anderson: I'll raise a few of the areas that have been highlighted. One is the area of dental concerns, where people come and, again, are falling between the cracks of the dental programs. There are new dental programs available, but where it seems to come is where they have emergency dental needs of a very severe nature. When they apply for them, they are told that they don't qualify. It's in this area of none qualifying. And we're talking about tribunals in so many of these cases. They have gone to a tribunal, and they have qualified under the tribunal. They have gone to the appeal, and they've qualified under the appeal and the tribunal both.
The question is: why didn't they qualify in the first place? There seems to be a difference of policy understanding between what the ministry recognizes as proper procedure and what is happening in the field from the information that the staff have. It seems to be a breakdown in communication rather than it not being available. If you go to both tribunal and appeal and win your cases, that simply means that it was your right to get it, but it took you a terribly long process for that to have been fulfilled. How can that be corrected?
Hon. J. Pullinger: On the issue of dental concerns, what we did was we looked at history and made available the average amount -- the average top amount that people use for ongoing dental care. But if people are in an emergency, they should get dental care. We have now created the jobs partnership in the Job Wave, and what that does is get us out of the program box a little bit. It's a pilot. What it does is get us out of the sort of walls of a program, which we've been breaking down in a number of ways through different partnerships and community programs and a whole lot of ways.
Through that pilot those working to help people get back into the workplace can provide them with what they need. Sometimes it's a set of shiny teeth, so that's a very broad
[ Page 16205 ]
definition of what can happen. It might be a pair of steel-toed boots; it might be a set of shiny teeth; it might be a set of tools; it might be any range of things. Whatever it takes to help people move into independence, within some broad parameters, that program can provide, which in my view is a much better way to come at it.
I know the member
That's why it's important for the member to come and talk to me if there's a difference, because over time, from a range of sources, I will determine that there is a difficulty systematically; and then I'll try to address that. Other than that, we have to just try to balance the individual versus the collective need for fairness and evenhandedness and do the best we can. In this kind of a system you're dealing with human beings, and every situation has its own uniqueness. So it's very hard to say that we shall deal with it thus and that. In fact, we're moving in the other direction, where we're continually introducing more flexibility and more openness into the system, if you like, and connecting it more strongly with communities, because that, in my view, is where the solutions lie.
[1635]
V. Anderson: Another area -- and I can highlight that, and we'll work on it -- has to do with the child benefit supplement. This has been a concern for those who are employed and are on low income: that the amount of money that is coming from the federal government for children and families flows directly to them in the child income supplement, but that the amount of money that is given for those people who are on welfare, under benefits
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me deal with it from both the macro and micro perspectives. From the macro perspective, in terms of the beneficent federal government giving all this stuff to British Columbia, let me remind the member that, first of all, it grabbed everything, and it's now giving us a pittance, by comparison, back. We need to keep that in perspective, and I'm sure the member recognizes that.
Secondly, in terms of the immediate
There are 430,000 children in British Columbia who get that entitlement, and that's the way it should be. They also get the B.C. Healthy Kids with it. The problem, as far as I can determine after a few years on this file, is that people had an expectation -- whether it was not communicated as clearly as it should be, or whether it was simply an expectation that wasn't met -- that children would not only be taken off income assistance and given this amount, but would still get that whole amount as part of welfare. And that was never the intention. So people on income assistance -- it's certainly unfortunate that there was an expectation that wasn't met, and, as I say, I don't know exactly how that happened; I could make some assumptions -- had an expectation that they would get a $103-a-month increase. First of all, that $103 a month would be in the neighbourhood of an additional $300 million, which is not doable.
That was never the intent of the program; it was to separate out children and say that all children in British Columbia would have an entitlement. So when, say, a single mother on income assistance steps out into the workplace, she knows that other cheque is going to keep coming. That's the benefit of it; that's the genius in that program. It has been dramatically successful, and it's unfortunate that people have had expectations about that when looking in the narrow confines of income assistance.
[1640]
Because we were first, because we'd already set up that system and other provinces hadn't, when the initial funding came, we had nothing to set up. But the nature of that agreement is that all of that money will go for specific purposes, and we've certainly done that. It certainly increased support to kids.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's explanation of that, and I'm not trying to argue with you about it. I just wanted to get it out on the table. We can argue about it on another occasion; this isn't the time for that.
Another general concern, and it's twofold here
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll be happy to clarify that. What happened was that in the wake of the Gove report, which this government commissioned and then acted on, the Ministry for Children and Families was formed, which split the old Social Services ministry. When that happened, as the member would appreciate, it was a very massive undertaking. In fact, Gove said it should take five years, and we did it much more quickly because of politics and pressure -- and I won't go there. There was clearly a demand to do it more quickly, which we, with some reluctance, met.
Part of these very complex, difficult changes involved group homes. It has been determined, over time, that while the group homes themselves were appropriately moved to Children and Families, some of the funding for the group homes was left with this ministry. So we have corrected that.
[ Page 16206 ]
We have simply shifted the budget over to Children and Families, and they will provide the group homes, as group homes, with the supplies they need.
This ministry is mandated, while working on social development in a context, and certainly that's part of it
V. Anderson: I grinned there because my first reaction, when you said it had been fixed, sounded to me like the dog had been neutered. I wasn't sure that was the best way to put it, as I came to that.
The minister has commented there, and I think appropriately so, that when the social services system was in a sense dismantled, it was divided up into other categories and pieces with Children and Families, Social Development and Economic Security, and Community Development. The are different facets now, all of which have certain valid rationales.
Partly as a result of that, the other comment is coming back again. Just recently, in trying to deal with another issue, each ministry I went to said: "That's not in our ministry's category; that belongs to somebody else." So we went to somebody else, and: "That's not in my category," and "That's not in my category." I had to say to them all: "But it's in the category of the government ministry." If it doesn't particularly fit in one ministry, then what is the process of coming together?
[1645]
The other comment we're fairly consistently getting from groups is that the ministries don't seem to be talking between themselves to each other to deal with the individual needs of groups or individuals, whichever it might be. As the minister has indicated, most of the solutions are really going to have to be intergovernmental solutions, rather than one part of the ministry or the other.
In previous times with the older ministries, people developed a comment that the ministries were like stovepipes. If you happened to be inside of the stovepipe, you were all right, but if you were in between the stovepipes, you had problems. Part of the effort of the realignment, as I understand it, is to increase the communication to be able to solve the problems rather than to decrease it. At the moment there is a feeling that that's not working in that connection between the ministries.
Hon. J. Pullinger: First, the old Ministry of Social Services was split in half, and the children's part went to the new Ministry for Children and Families. It wasn't fragmented into the others, as the member suggests. The Ministry of Community Development is entirely new. I think it speaks pretty clearly to how we are in fact resolving the reality that in something as big as government, when you move something from one ministry to another, you obviously increase the communication for children
Of course, when you do move from here to here, you make a disconnect wherever you took it from. I don't care where you move the pieces; that's going to happen within government. There is no such thing as a perfect alignment, nor is there any such thing as a place where some programs can sit where they're not connected to a range of other programs. It's a fact of life, and that's something that can never be resolved within government.
However, the ministry that the member alluded to, the Ministry of Community Development, alludes to the way we are starting to fix this. For instance, Health was one of the first. We had the two-year Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs which recommended that we do what we did, which was to put it together at the community level. It's not perfect, but it's getting a lot better in terms of finding the determinants of health- and community-based responses. It's certainly moving in that direction.
Similarly, our offices are connecting with the community. My very specific direction was that all of the offices should move out and connect on a permanent basis with the community, and they are doing that. They are also connecting the range of services at the community level. If you walk in to the new Langley office, for instance, you will find there the whole range of services that people require. You can get your child care, your family maintenance enforcement, income support, job placement. You'll find phones and faxes and information about jobs. There'll be computer terminals where you can look for work. The whole gamut is right there. Not only are we integrating the ministry, but we're also co-locating with other appropriate and relevant services.
The place where it all comes together is in the community. We are, more and more across government, moving towards connecting them at the consumer end. There is no humanly possible way to connect them in a seamless way at the government end, because things do ultimately all relate. You can't ever do a perfect job by doing it in the community either, but you can do a much better job, in my view, and that's where we're going.
J. Reid: I have a question with regard to B.C. Benefits and the damage deposits that are paid on behalf of B.C. Benefits recipients to landlords. The fact is that policy has changed at some point -- I'm not sure where it has changed -- to where, when the damage deposits are returned, they are returned directly to the B.C. Benefits recipients instead of back to the government. Then, of course, they're supposed to return them or declare them. Often these are not returned, and then there's a process of follow-up that has to take place. If the minister could explain why there was a change in policy and what's being done to recoup these damage deposits.
[1650]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The reason for the policy shift was consistent with the whole shift of B.C. Benefits from the old, very narrow system. B.C. Benefits -- I don't know if the member was here -- is much broader. It's cross-government, it's very comprehensive, and it deals with all low-income people.
[ Page 16207 ]
We also changed a lot of the assumptions. For instance, the old system used to assume that most people were unemployable. We assume that virtually everybody has skills to offer the community. Based on those kinds of assumptions, we shifted it. We also assumed that the vast majority of people, just because they're going through a rough patch in their life, doesn't mean that they can't manage their own finances. It's somewhat patronizing, I think, in most cases for government to deal with your landlord rather than to deal with the individual who requires income assistance. We have changed it to a system whereby if you need assistance, you need assistance. We'll provide you with that; you deal with your landlord. If you don't get the deposit back, then you're responsible for it. That's the same responsibility every renter has.
There are difficulties with that. I know that like everything, it cuts both ways, but in terms of this file I hear many stories of people who have in fact got the judgment they need and not been provided their deposit back. They've gone and got the judgment they need from the process, and the landlord refused to give them the money anyway. Obviously for disempowered people, people that are struggling to make ends meet -- I mean, these are the poorest people in our society -- that's a huge problem. We're looking at some fair and evenhanded ways to resolve that.
It's no big secret that we're looking at a proposal for a third party to hold these funds, so everybody is in an equal situation. The landlord can be sure that the funds are good. The landlord can get that funding, if it should come to him or her at the end of the occupancy of the suite or house -- whatever. They can simply apply and get that money, if they have cause. If they don't have cause, then it goes back to the owner of the money.
I've asked your colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara, in a meeting whether your side of the House would support such a proposal, given two things. It would be very streamlined, non-bureaucratic and with no additional undue costs to government -- say perhaps startup funds. Based on those two assumptions -- that it's not bureaucratic and it's not expensive in any way shape or form -- I've certainly asked, in the context of my responsibilities, whether the members opposite would support such a third-party system that was fair to both. I would love to have a response.
I hope that answers the question.
J. Reid: What would be the policy for tenants who have done damage, who lose their damage deposit, who move, who then can apply for another damage deposit, and the cycle repeats itself? There is a certain number of these cases that seem to be fairly chronic. How does the ministry deal with these kinds of situations?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The principle is that the damage deposit is effectively a loan. If it's not returned to government or if an individual damages the place they're using and it has to go to the landlord, then they're responsible to pay that back. You can't simply do damage to a place and then expect to get another damage deposit and move on, which is what was happening. That's one of the reasons we've changed that. If an individual does damage that costs money from what's effectively a loan, then we'll take a repayment agreement of $10 or $15 a month. Landlords -- no matter where somebody's source of income is, of course, they're an investment; it's part of the market system; it's part of a free-market activity -- can and do protect their own interests by asking for and getting references from people, to make sure they have good clients or renters.
[1655]
There are circumstances where people, for one reason or another, do damage repeatedly, and it would not be fair or realistic to expect that individual to behave differently. People have problems, and people with some very serious problems frequently end up on income assistance. In that case, we can and do administer the benefits for them and deal directly with the landlord in those kinds of circumstances. We also build particular housing for the hard to house, because obviously, at some point, private sector landlords aren't going to want to house them.
So we deal with it in both regards. We will administer benefits if it's a financial issue that's ongoing and the individual, for some reason or another, is not able to manage. In the case of the hard to house, we build social housing and build in support so that their particular
J. Reid: It's my understanding that for people receiving B.C. Benefits, the local offices keep track of how many damage deposits are outstanding. Certainly once two or three have been put out and not returned, there is concern, and perhaps there might be action at that point in time. That seems to be the practical level that's being worked on. I'm wondering if the minister and the ministry have any idea about how much in value is currently outstanding on damage deposits, say in the last fiscal year.
Hon. J. Pullinger: We have 65,000 security deposits out there. I don't have at my fingertips the aggregate amount, but I'd be happy to forward that to the member.
A Voice: Oh.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I just heard an "Oh" beside me. We may have it.
A Voice: But not close enough.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It was a missed "Oh." We haven't quite made it. We'd be happy to forward that dollar amount -- that is, the aggregate amount of money that's out there.
J. Reid: The other part to the question, then, the last part, would be: as that is being looked for, could I have the information as to how much of that amount is in dispute as being wrongfully held back by landlords and how much of that amount is forfeited in damage deposits because of damage? If I could also get that breakdown, I'd appreciate it. I hand the questions back to my colleagues then.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Unfortunately, the way the system works the only figure that we can track is what comes back to the ministry, and the rest is anecdotal. I mean, we know whether or not somebody repays their damage deposit; we know if they come for a second one. At the time that they come for a second damage deposit, they have to repay the first one. But certainly the advocates tell me repeatedly that there are people who do go through the system and do get the tribunal judgment that they require and that they don't
[ Page 16208 ]
Because of the power imbalance -- and there is a power relationship there, as I'm sure the member would recognize -- significant numbers of people don't get the deposit back anyway.
[1700]
There are a whole lot of different circumstances there, but they're not all calculable, if you like. It's something that's happening out there. We just know the part of money delivered from the ministry and money that comes back to the ministry. Beyond that, we'd have to rely on what people are telling us. TRAC may have those numbers for the ministry.
J. Reid: I do have a concern that the minister has suggested that they're looking at bringing legislation in responding to this. If the problem is anecdotal -- if there aren't the hard figures and the hard facts to be able to say that this is the extent of the problem -- it is a real concern that legislation would be drawn up around anecdotal evidence.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I referred the member to a community body -- TRAC, Tenants Rights Action Coalition -- that can, no doubt, provide harder evidence, but it's not kept in my ministry. However, making a system inherently more fair
The member for Vancouver-Langara and I were in a meeting where the view of
V. Anderson: I would like to ask the minister about the Advisory Council on Income Assistance, which is part of the act. Is it operating at the moment? Where does it stand? Who are its members? What are the kinds of recommendations or reports that are coming through from that council?
Hon. J. Pullinger: No, the council is not operating. Every minister has a different way of meeting with the public and getting information. My very strong preference is to spend as much time as I can with community groups around the province. I find that getting the information directly is very effective, and that's the way I do it. So I'm not using the council.
V. Anderson: I can appreciate that. I'd like to get out around the province and talk to the groups too, because I like firsthand
So I would be curious to know why the minister wouldn't use this kind of resource that's available there, when it was written into the act itself. The side issue is: are there other parts of the act that maybe the minister would like to comment on that she has decided not to use as well as this particular one?
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's an enabling piece of the act that provides for such a council. There's no requirement to use it. It was never, ever required to replace advocates; it simply was not designed for that. It was for policy advice.
I find it more effective to work on specific issues. As the member knows, I applaud the advocates, who are not at all shy about coming forward with issues, and that's good. We fund them to do that, and that's good. There's a significant amount of money that goes out the door to fund advocacy groups, and I've never noticed any hesitation whatsoever in those advocacy groups coming forward to advocate for issues. I think it's a critically important part of the system, and I welcome it.
[1705]
It's a policy advisory committee, and I simply do it in a different way. I would prefer to have different tables focusing on issues. I simply find that a more focused approach, by those most directly affected, gives better outcomes.
V. Anderson: We're talking about advocacy groups. I trust that I'll meet the minister at the FAPG annual meeting again on October 5 this year at Naramata. I hope she'll have it on her agenda and be well advised that they hope she will be there, because they appreciate very much when the minister is able to attend.
What about the office for disability issues? That's been transferred, I understand, to your ministry. Who's part of that office, and how does that function within the ministry at this particular point?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to have the office for disability issues in my ministry. Its mandate is to coordinate disability issues and to make sure that issues are addressed across government. I think they do a fairly good job of that -- a very good job of that, actually.
V. Anderson: When you say that it addresses issues across government, can you elaborate a little more about what is its process, does it have meetings throughout the province, who's a part of the office, and what kind of staffing or budget does it have?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The office for disability issues does a range of things. For example, it's a place where ministries can test their policies. It provides a screen to make sure that policies that come forward are accessible for people with disabilities. But it also does things
[ Page 16209 ]
V. Anderson: How many staff do they have in that ministry, and what is its budget at the moment?
[1710]
Hon. J. Pullinger: We're a very integrated ministry, and it doesn't appear as though we have a broken-out number here. But there are six FTEs. The sort of rule of thumb, as I understand it -- and I'll probably get kicked in the shins by my deputy -- is about $100,000 for all the
A Voice: A little less than that.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's little less than that in our ministry, per employee, which is sort of a rule of thumb to make anything work. You can assume it would be a budget something like that, which would encompass everything. So that's a wild guess. What I do know for sure is that there are six people.
V. Anderson: I understand this, and I know you can get an average of what
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yeah. That's what I'm trying to explain. We don't have that budget broken out; it's part of the ministry. So we don't have a separate budget that I can lay my hands on. The calculation I gave the member is kind of a rough estimate of what it would take to make any given part of the ministry go; obviously that's flexible. That is not salaries that I'm talking about; I'm talking about sort of the rule of thumb in terms of how much money it takes to do all of the things that a particular body would need to do to function.
We'd better get back to the member on this. I'm sorry; it's not broken out.
A Voice: It was $590,000 last year.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Okay, there you go: $590,000. That's just about right on -- right? Six staff at $100,000 each; we're slightly less. It's $590,000. I was right; I just didn't know. That's the budget for that office.
V. Anderson: In this day of business plans, is there a plan or a description or a summary of the work of the office for disability issues? Is that available someplace? Or can we get it later, to give the scope of what they do and what they accomplish and what their programs are?
Hon. J. Pullinger: This one I know. Actually, I knew the last one too, but this one I know I know. That work is incorporated in the performance plan of the ministry. The member can find it there.
V. Anderson: The disability benefits level 1 review has been ongoing. Could you tell us what the state of that review is and where it is? Is it completed? Is it underway? Just where is it at this point?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The review is completed. The recommendations have come to me. As always in this ministry, there's a significant budget attached to the recommendations. I have not yet responded. It's under consideration.
V. Anderson: We couldn't get the details. Is the minister able to share with us any of the principles that are part of that review? What are the main issues that are being dealt with in that particular review?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to share that once cabinet has dealt with it.
V. Anderson: I want to ask the minister, just to follow up on the comments that she dealt with earlier about the Vancouver Agreement: can she state how this ministry participates? I know that the lead role is taken by another ministry, but how does this ministry participate? What is the staff component? What is the financing component? How does the input from this ministry get into that particular undertaking, since this ministry is highly involved, and always has been, in many of the projects that will be impacted and affected by this particular program?
[1715]
Hon. J. Pullinger: I have an ADM that sits on the ADMs' Committee. There are field staff on the working committees. The agreement, as I'm sure the member is aware, is at this point agreed upon by a set of operating principles. Anything beyond that would be future policy and decisions yet to be taken. I should mention as well that Mr. O'Dea, who's the chair of B.C. Housing, reports to me. He is also an ADM in the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. So talk about ministries communicating with each other; you can't get better than that.
V. Anderson: There's been a great deal of discussion about the form that people have to sign when they ask for welfare support. Part of that form is the information privilege that
Hon. J. Pullinger: That form was
Anyone requiring information about any of their files can apply through the same act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In practice, I'm advised that we try to simply give them their information without making them go through that legislation.
V. Anderson: I was just curious. There's the Ministry of Human Resources, as it was called then, and the questions and answers about privacy. I have a comment here: "Can I see the verifying information you have collected about me?" The answer was: "Yes, you can ask your financial assistance worker for copies of the information collected from other agencies." Is there a simple form by which people make that
[ Page 16210 ]
application? How do they go about it? What is the kind of time frame? Is there anything excluded, or is everything in the file made available to them?
Hon. J. Pullinger: An individual wishing that information, as the document suggests, simply has to ask for it. The circumstance that we need to be extremely careful about under the FOIPP legislation is where there's third-party information involved.
V. Anderson: Could you amplify what you mean by third-party information? I'm not quite sure. If someone is giving information about myself which could be incrimin- ating to me, it seems to me that I should be able to be aware of that in order to get back to them and clarify it if I need to.
Hon. J. Pullinger: A couple of things come to mind. One would be that if there were estranged partners of a former relationship -- or anyone else, actually -- you would have to ensure that protection of privacy was complied with in providing information and make sure that all of that information affecting that third party was severed. If, in fact, the information has come from a source such as the police, it may be the case that that would have to go through the FOIPP screen to ensure that it's appropriately severed.
The legislation sets up a process so that where it's not absolutely clear-cut, you can then put a request through to make sure both that the people get the information they've asked for and that people's third-party privacy is protected. That's what the FOIPP legislation is for.
[1720]
V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister could share a little bit about where the family maintenance enforcement program is, now that it has come into this ministry. Have there been any changes or improvements or items that are significantly different? What is happening as a result of its coming into this ministry?
Hon. J. Pullinger: There has actually been no change. That program still rests with the Ministry of Attorney General. We continue the family maintenance enforcement program, and we continue to act on behalf of our clients. We take the position that parents are responsible for the financial support of their children, where that's possible.
What I would add is that we are finding, since British Columbia adopted the guidelines for support, that the average maintenance is increasing -- also the number of payments. The success of the program, in other words, is increasing in terms of getting money to kids. I am advised that there are 6,113 families that are more independent than they would otherwise be because of that success.
V. Anderson: Could the minister comment on how that is working for persons who are living outside of the province as well as for those who are living in-province?
Hon. J. Pullinger: You mean the payer or the receiver?
V. Anderson: Either way.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It would be the payer, obviously, who lives outside the province. We have agreements with most other jurisdictions. As always, one of the difficulties with this issue is making sure that we (a) have the person and (b) have the accurate income information of the payer. We act on behalf of our clients, and then of course the justice system deals with the rest.
V. Anderson: I want to ask about the bus passes. I think some changes have been made recently in bus passes. Could you explain what those new changes are, and what the effect of them is?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We sent out a media release last week, which I believe is what the member is referring to. What we've done effectively is that
What we've done is put a pilot in place to see if we can capture others who are low-income seniors but would not qualify for CPP. So people from around the world who come here -- and as the member knows, people come here from everywhere; that's how this country's been built since the aboriginal people -- are not penalized, effectively, for having been here 9 1/2 or 9 3/4 years, or seven years, instead of ten. We're simply trying to capture that group of relatively new arrivals to Canada.
[1725]
V. Anderson: Does that indicate that the minister is paying for these bus passes across the board for these new people, and would that include the GVTA use as well? Or is there some expectation that GVTA is paying for that, or some of that? What's the process between them?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, it is the GVTA area. What we've done is simply try to capture that group of people that I described in my last response under exactly the same criteria as everybody else has been captured: low-income seniors. The eligibility hasn't changed, other than to try to deal with the ten-year gap.
V. Anderson: What I'm inquiring about in that regard
Hon. J. Pullinger: We negotiate with the GVTA. It will affect -- we guess, because we're delving into the unknown -- about 1,700 seniors, at a cost of about half a million dollars a year.
I should put on the record that that wasn't a wild guess; that was the best calculation we could come up with. But as the member would appreciate
[ Page 16211 ]
V. Anderson: Maybe I didn't understand properly; I still wasn't clear. That's the amount of money that's being spent. Is that extra money that's being spent by the government, or is some of that being spent by the GVTA?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We negotiate the rates with the GVTA, but we are providing the funding -- the $500,000.
V. Anderson: On the bus pass, there are many other groups, particularly the unemployed, people looking for jobs, people on welfare or people with disabilities. Is there any significant change in that area? I know that unemployed particularly people and looking for jobs have a great deal of difficulty getting around to try and find jobs. Has anything been done in that regard?
Hon. J. Pullinger: A number of things. First of all, the first point I would make is that bus passes
We have done a number of things to try to ease that transition better for people. We did reinstate the flat rate earnings exemption, at a cost of approximately $25 million. That provides people with a little additional cash to improve their situation. We also have the jobs partnership -- Job Wave pilot -- which is very much performance-based. It provides ample opportunity for the contractors to provide whatever it is that the individual needs to go find work. It may be an interurban bus; it could be a whole range of things, from teeth to transit and back again. We're trying to address that particular gap -- I recognize it is a problem; there's no question about that -- through those kinds of things.
V. Anderson: Bus passes are also a problem -- or travel allowance, one or the other
Hon. J. Pullinger: We provide transportation in a range of ways. There's transportation to a confirmed job. There are the two that I mentioned that are designed in a broad way to address a range of issues. If somebody's registered in an employability program, they can have access to money for transportation. Also, medical transportation is provided on an as-needed basis. Generally, what the ministry tries to do is find the most appropriate, most cost-effective means, whatever that may be. In 1999 that was $5.56 million, and we're looking at $5.5 million this year. That is not a fixed formula about how you will get from point A to B; it's for medical transportation. People with disabilities can also obtain a bus pass.
[1730]
V. Anderson: What's the state of the community volunteer program at this point? Is that a fixed-number fund? If I remember rightly, there's more than one program in that regard.
Hon. J. Pullinger: There are two programs. One's called the community volunteer program, and that's a benefit of up to $100 per month for clothing, transportation and other expenses. The reason for that is to provide life skills and experience for people who are not able to participate in the job market currently. That would be people who have DB-1, older dependent children, a child in the home of a relative who's also 15 or older, DB-2 people with a medical condition, or single parents with a child under seven, etc. Those are the individuals who might be able to apply for that program. The budget is $2.5 million, and as the member would expect, those programs are always oversubscribed.
The other one is the volunteer incentive program. That one is a volunteer work experience program that provides Youth Works and Welfare to Work participants with a time-limited opportunity, in this case, to gain important experience as a volunteer, which is frequently the first step into the labour market -- as the member, I know, appreciates. That was introduced in January '96 as part of the very broad B.C. Benefits package. There were approximately 900 participants in the last fiscal year, and the budget is approximately $90,000.
V. Anderson: Two questions I want to ask with regard to support allowance. Has there been some discussion over time whether the support allowance should be a separate item from the housing allowance, or whether that should be an integrated program? Could the minister indicate which is preferred by the ministry, and why they would take that preference rather than the other? I know there are arguments on both sides.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, there are arguments on both sides. But generally it is found that what will happen if you add
[1735]
V. Anderson: Following that up, has there been any discussion to take into account the differentiation in the cost of housing in different parts of the province? Some places are much more expensive for a similar type of housing than it would be in other places. And yet, with the standard support allowance, some are given a benefit and others -- when you talk about equal and fair -- are not getting the same benefit with the amount of money that's available to them on the support allowance.
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's one of those very difficult issues. On the one hand, it is true that some people spend less than their shelter allowance, and other people are very pressured to find somewhere
So while people are more pressured, say in the downtown east side, we are also doing more social housing in that
[ Page 16212 ]
area than -- I think it's fair to say -- just about anywhere else in British Columbia to try to address the need. So it's a tough call. I don't know where you would draw the lines. It's pretty difficult.
V. Anderson: On drawing the line, I was curious to know why it is -- according to the report that I have here -- that if there are more than three people in the house, the support allowance stays the same as it is for three people. Why is it drawing the line at three, and if there's more, then there's no extra?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Children, as the member knows, are not on welfare in British Columbia, and every child
V. Anderson: I know this was discussed briefly, but it's been brought up. The question discussed earlier was homemaker services and the shift that the minister and I both heard from many of the people that we met with recently on being cut back considerably in the support, which is seen as not basic. But for many of the people, it's a question of whether they'll be able to maintain their own independent lifestyle in housing or whether they'll have to move into other accommodations. Those items are, from their point of view, a health issue, because they keep their house clean, which it wouldn't be otherwise. It also makes a difference as to the kind of food and other conditions that they have, to have that kind of support even in a very limited amount. I know there's been a cutback here, both from Health and this ministry. Is there a policy here, and is there some reconsideration of how this may be brought together again?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The policy is a Health policy; we are just an income support ministry, and we don't presume to make health decisions. Let me be very blunt: it's driven by the fact that the federal government has gone from 50 to 15 cents on the dollar. It's creating enormous pressures, along with an aging population.
[1740]
V. Anderson: Also, I appreciate that the ministry and our present Chairman today were active in getting convention refugees some recognition. I always appreciated that he picked that issue up. But there is still some inequality out there with regard to refugees. Is there a committee of the ministry working on trying to deal with those people who are in the process of getting status and are kind of in limbo -- helping them with some of the difficulties that they have in that particular area?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I certainly applaud my predecessor as well. He did a lot of good things in this ministry. One of the undelightful parts of this job is that frequently you work hard and make something happen, and the person that follows you gets to stand up and cheer. Certainly I had the benefit of a lot of things that my colleague did.
With respect to the issue the member is effectively asking about, of whether or not non-Canadians should be provided with income assistance -- and I know that's not exactly where he goes, but that is what the question cashes out to be -- we don't and, in my view, should not provide income assistance to people who have no status in this country. That would simply be inappropriate use of taxpayers' dollars. The answer, in my view, is for the federal government to move more quickly on determining that eligibility, and I would welcome the member's assistance in making that happen.
V. Anderson: I'm wondering -- recognizing the time, Chairman -- if we should move to adjourn and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: In view of the time, the practice that's been adopted in recent times in committee is that rather than have the motion moved to rise and report progress, we've just been recessing for the meal period. So if the member or the minister would move a recess until an appropriate hour that everybody's satisfaction can be satisfied
V. Anderson: I would move that we recess to
The Chair: Well, certainly the Chair's in the hands of the committee.
A Voice: To 6:30?
V. Anderson: To 6:30 -- fine.
The Chair: The motion is that we recess until 6:30.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 5:42 p.m. to 6:42 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
K. Whittred: Continuing a little bit with the work that my colleague was doing around the disabled, I want to address just a few issues, particularly pertaining to the disabled and job opportunities. Secondly, I want to address some of the items from the mental health advocate's report as they relate to people with disabilities.
First of all, I think the minister would agree that one of the issues that we hear most commonly from disabled people is that if they work, of course they then have income from their benefits clawed back. I do understand the issues involved. I really truly do understand the issues involved. I would like to tell the minister, perhaps, about a woman I spoke to recently, because I think this illustrates the point so very well. This person was disabled, and in her own estimation she said: "You know, I can work two days a week." In fact, she had a job -- she'd had a job.
Unfortunately, with the regulations the way they are, it isn't worth her while to do that. My question to the minister is not about the rightness or wrongness of that. I know that this ministry has attempted some pilot projects. I would be interested to know whether the ministry has investigated any alternative kinds of programs that would enable people like this person, who could handle a part-time job but couldn't cope with a full-time job, to somehow do that.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, of course; we look at all those issues. There are actually two issues that the member is asking about. One is people with disabilities -- a range of different
[ Page 16213 ]
disabilities -- and their ability to function in the workplace and their limitations, for a variety of reasons, in doing that. One of the answers must be for us to change attitude and to start altering the workplace to much better accommodate people with disabilities. That must happen, and that work is underway from a whole range of places.
[1845]
Secondly, how can we support people to earn independent income? That's very important too. As a matter of fact, we have three pilots now to assist people to find and keep employment. Employment for employment's sake has a great deal of intrinsic value, as the member, I am sure, would appreciate.
Thirdly, there is the issue about how you address the benefit issue. Certainly I've contemplated different options in terms of how you might structure benefits so that the more you work, the more you earn. We will continue to do that. The fact of the matter is that however you want to phrase it, if you're going to raise income rates -- whether by excluding more income that people earn from calculation of the top-up benefit or whether it's just a flat rate -- every dollar, nevertheless, is $2 million.
However you cut it, it's extremely expensive to raise rates and in a time when the resources to the province from the federal government -- notably for social programs -- and also in an eroding tax base
If you're going to raise rates by excluding more income, it has the same effect -- i.e., the flat rate was worth $25 million. So you extend the flat rate, and only 10 percent or so of the population on income assistance benefit from that; it's still $25 million. If you're going to raise rates, then that's a very big budget item, and that means other things will have to be cut. And what we're trying to do is strike the balance. It's not easy; believe me, it's not easy
So that's where it sits. In terms of rates, we will always try to adjust and find the balance between rates and income assistance and other programs that support people when they move off. In terms of pilots, we will continue at look at pilots in ways to assist people to participate in a workforce where they get paid a decent dollar for their work.
K. Whittred: I appreciate the minister's response. And the one thing I do agree with the minister on is something she said earlier -- that this is a very difficult ministry. There's no doubt that virtually everything that we address, every issue that we address, is one of these issues that certainly tests the wisdom of Job.
Just on this, I would like to ask the minister one more question, and that really is: drawing upon the expertise within the staff of the ministry, is the minister aware of any other jurisdictions that handle the disabled and their abilities, which may not allow them to work full-time in a different way? I mean this genuinely. I don't know the answer.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm advised by my deputy, who -- as the member knows -- has some considerable expertise, connections and knowledge in this area that British Columbia is in fact ahead of the pack in terms of both our definition of the disability and our supports to employment for people with disabilities.
The other option available is the sheltered workshop model. We don't do that in B.C.; we phased it out when we became government. But that is the only other option in a similar vein that sort of protects your income assistance status and income while you work at something which is generally not very valued as work, I'm afraid. And we have moved away from that model. We just believe there are much better models.
[1850]
K. Whittred: In the -- I guess not necessarily the private sector -- areas of the public sector, if one is fortunate enough to be in a job with a good contract and for whatever reason becomes disabled for a period of time -- and I could use my own career as an example, as a teacher
Hon. J. Pullinger: What the member is talking about, of course, is extending benefits into the workforce. That, of course, is possible, but it's about money and a fairly significant amount of money. If you move beyond saying, "This is where the top-up is," into a place where you're extending benefits on a graduated basis, what you're doing is extending benefits beyond that top-up amount, and every single dollar that you put into that is additional dollars. It is a good model. I've certainly looked at those kinds of things. But as I said, the community lobbied for and chose a flat-rate exemption instead, and I certainly respect that.
K. Whittred: We will move on from that. I think the ministry is probably as concerned as I am about that and, if there was a way to solve it, would introduce an appropriate kind of program.
I want to ask just a couple of questions about an area of skills development, the vocational rehabilitation services. Just as a general question, if I could ask the minister to simply explain to me what that service is. Let's hear what it is, first.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Vocational rehab provides a whole continuum of support, as well as assistance and access to things like training and employment. It's for people with physical or mental disabilities. The reason for that is to assist them in setting realistic vocational goals and, of course, to help them use their innate skills and abilities in the workforce.
K. Whittred: Could I ask the minister how many people actually work in this field and how many clients are serviced, approximately?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The number of individuals served by this program is approximately 8,000. It is our line staff -- some of them with specialty training, which we've done over the
[ Page 16214 ]
last few years -- who deliver this program. They do it along with a number of community partners, a diverse set of about 70 service delivery agencies.
K. Whittred: Would these service agencies
All right. Could I ask a further question? Does the ministry have any idea about the success rate of placement? The idea of this, I guess, is successful placement in a real job. How many successful placements would the ministry achieve?
[1855]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Historically, this kind of program has been measured in terms of success by looking at participation rates. In my view and in the view of the ministry, that's not adequate, so we're moving to outcomes -- i.e., how people succeed in the labour force. That's true, by the way, of pretty much all of the ministry. It's in relatively recent years that we've moved very strongly to determining how many people get and keep jobs for a significant period of time and the kind of jobs they are -- whether they're decent-paying jobs, etc. So we're moving into that model across the ministry and certainly within the vocational rehab as well.
K. Whittred: I wonder if I could go back just for a moment. The minister earlier alluded to sheltered workshops and the sheltered workshop model. I do know that that is perhaps more related to the community living sector of the Ministry for Children and Families, but I think it certainly also applies to this ministry, particularly now that this ministry is so involved in skill development.
I'd like to relate a story to the minister about this. I was in a community where a program for mentally handicapped adults was in place. One of the things that this program did was that they had a greenhouse and a nursery, and it was in fact extremely successful. The problem was that the cost of the greenhouse -- the nursery -- was so high because they couldn't run it as a sheltered workshop anymore. That isn't allowed. Some of the participants in the program actually needed full-time assistants, so they were paid, of course, whatever the minimum wage for that category would be, which I think was around $16 an hour. At the end of the day, there was no way that this nursery could possibly sell its products for anywhere near what anyone would pay for them.
As a result, they ended up just giving their plants away, and, of course, the people that were involved in this felt badly because they thought they ought to be getting some reward for their business enterprise. I would just like to hear the rationale from the minister about why the idea of the sheltered workshop was abandoned.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I guess there's a place for just about every model. But by and large, the assumption in the 1950s was that if you had a disability you couldn't work. Sadly, that still exists. If someone has a mental disability or is developmentally delayed, I would offer that there is a large range of things that they can do and do extremely well, as well as any of us -- better than some of us. I think that the member's point about having somebody with a disability in a job where they were not able to function as fully as some others, and that being an additional cost and therefore they couldn't compete, etc., is no doubt true. I have no doubt about that at all. But it seems to me that as a society, what we have to do is stop trying to compete and start to integrate.
Instead of looking at people's disabilities, we need to be looking
[1900]
Most people can contribute a significant amount. People with different abilities, whether or not they have a disability, can contribute well in different ways, and we just need to expand our thinking a little bit and start getting a little bit more creative about how we do that. The approach of this ministry is the assumption that everybody has something to offer, and our job is to help them (a) determine what it is they can and like to do, and (b) try to interface -- if you like, to put it in techie language -- with the marketplace to find out where they might use their skills effectively.
K. Whittred: I don't disagree with the minister. In fact, I think, perhaps as much as anyone, I am well aware of the abilities of people that we call disabled. I in fact taught in a school that had the nickname of Hanging Basket High. Those were hanging baskets that were produced by the young people in the so-called special program.
But to get back to my example about the sheltered workshop or the lack of it, in that instance
Hon. J. Pullinger: I guess we just disagree on different sides of the House. It would appear as if the member is saying: "Well, we should reshape the workplace and lower the wages and provide little isolated places for people with disabilities to work because they can't compete in the regular marketplace." I take, and my colleagues take, a completely different approach. What we believe ought to happen, and what is happening now, is that you should look at people where they are and determine what their skills and abilities are and find them a regular job doing what they can do. If you can make hanging baskets at school, you can make hanging baskets in a nursery.
We have a wonderful example of a person with a disability who wasn't doing anything that we under our system would term productive. In fact, this person was spending most of his time watching videos. Instead of writing him off and saying, "Well, that person can't do anything," they said: "Okay, this person has an amazing knowledge about videos, a very high level of interest in videos." This person is now stocking videos in a video store.
I can tell you that I have an amazing lack of knowledge, an amazing lack of interest in both of those, just because of my particular set of skills and interests. I would wager that that
[ Page 16215 ]
person does a job as well as anybody can. I mean, engineers don't do child care -- early childhood education -- very well; early childhood educators don't grow wheat very well, etc. The object here is to determine what people's skills and abilities are, and then find them appropriate work that they can do, that they can perform. I would offer that most people can do that.
K. Whittred: One of the problems, when we talk about the disabled -- people with disabilities and the opportunities for them -- is that it is such a very broad range of persons that we're talking about. The minister has mentioned some success stories; I would not argue with those.
I would also argue that the degree of disability
[1905]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Two quick things. One is that the person I just described would probably have, by most measures, fit the category the member just detailed and would have been in a sheltered workshop a few years ago.
Secondly, I would point to an example in the part of the province where I live and the area I represent, where there was a sheltered workshop where people were very much marginalized and isolated from the broader community, albeit they were certainly supported by good and caring people. They have changed that sheltered workshop into a public restaurant, and with supervision they're able to support themselves in large measure. That is with a disproportionate number of people with disabilities.
Clearly that model still isn't going to be something that's going to turn a profit. In all sorts of ways, a fully integrated workforce will do that better. We now have a group of people who have some abilities, who are learning skills and who are integrating and interfacing, if you like, with the public on a regular basis, which I think is just a superb thing.
One of the problems, as the old song in the sixties made very clear, was that we spent so much time taking society apart and sticking people in little houses all full of ticky-tacky. We've isolated seniors, we've isolated people with disabilities, and we've isolated people of aboriginal background, etc. We're now moving strongly into integrating. Instead of saying, "You don't fit society," we say: "What's the matter with society that you can't participate?" Maybe that's the difference between the individual view and the socialist view. We say that if people can't fit into society, then we'd better start looking at society and start reshaping it. Nevertheless, there are the two views, and I certainly respect the member and her views.
K. Whittred: I don't really think that there are two views here. In my opinion at least, what the ministry has done to some extent is remove the options on the other end. If I could go back to my little analogy about Hanging Basket High, that was in fact a wonderful program both educationally and in the workplace. There was a partnership with one of the major nurseries, and people were employed. I think that is the kind of program that the minister is speaking of.
There are, however, other individuals who cannot function in the unsupervised scenario. It's a little bit akin, I think, to the school system, where all people are integrated but certainly at different degrees. There are some children that still require, and probably will always require, some degree of protection. That is all I'm saying. I think that the government, by doing away completely with the sheltered workshop
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me provide another example. There is an individual who is a quadriplegic, who probably at one time would have been in a sheltered workshop. By using an innovative approach and looking at that individual's personal likes, dislikes, passions, etc., this individual who has to use a Bliss necklace to communicate -- you know, you tap out the letters -- is volunteering for a radio station and writing up the song sheet every day, like anybody else would do.
So I certainly agree that there are some people, the nature of whose disabilities are such that they need to be, and should be, supported by their fellow citizens in a range of ways. There's no question about that. Whether that's through creating co-ops that have a tax break, because they have a percentage of people who would otherwise be marginalized in them, or whether that's through direct subsidy, or whether that's through sheltered workshop
I think that most people, if we look outside the box, if you like, all full of ticky-tacky, and start getting a bit creative and really start to examine ourselves as a society and say, "Why is it that we have this significant proportion of this society that is not able to function in it?" then we'll start finding the answers.
[1910]
We did that; we are doing that with aboriginal people. There is a prime example where we marginalized people, took away all their institutions and then blamed them for not participating. Women -- there have been a hundred years of work to take down the barriers in society for women who couldn't participate.
I think we're finally getting it that, instead of trying to jam everybody into a society designed by a few, it's time to start designing the society by everybody for everybody. I think that must be -- and from our side of the House, that must be -- and is the approach, and the assumptions that I've laid out are the assumptions that we operate on. I think marginalizing people, however it is, has to be a very seldom-used model, if ever.
K. Whittred: I think we will leave that. I think we could probably go on exchanging stories all evening.
I want to focus just for a few moments on the report of the mental health advocate, as there are a number of issues raised that are specific concerns of this particular ministry. Perhaps I'll just take them one by one as they are raised in the
[ Page 16216 ]
report. Now, one is about the difficulty with the process of accessing B.C. Benefits. I think this may have been alluded to in the questions that my colleague raised, but my specific question to the minister is: what processes or mechanisms does the ministry have in place for reaching out to people with specific types of disabilities?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We work with the Ministry of Health to try to make our services readily available to people with mental illnesses. For example, the 1999 Riverview Hospital and Forensic Psychiatric Institute pilot project provides a financial aid worker to coordinate benefit services and work with mental health service providers, etc. It works right with that facility. Similarly, there's someone who works with Eric Martin Pavilion in the same way, so that as people are discharged from those facilities, they have much readier access to the services they need to live in the community.
Having said that, I would suggest
K. Whittred: I thank the minister for her response. I'm assuming that once that goes through cabinet, we will have access to those recommendations.
Another issue mentioned in the report is one that I often hear, and that is about the lack of support, at least on the face of it, for people who work or who are trying to attend school. It's the school one that I actually hear the most about, and I'm just wondering how the minister addresses that particular issue.
[1915]
Hon. J. Pullinger: One of the ways we levelled the playing fields to make this system more fair was to recognize that some people need supports from the Ministry of Health or, in the case of people who qualify for disability benefits level 2 in this ministry, ongoing medical benefits. But beyond that, we couldn't determine or reason why one low-income person should be treated differently from another low-income person in terms of how they finance their post-secondary education. The normal way is through a combination of part-time work in the summer and student loans, so that is what we do.
I've heard the same concern from advocacy groups for single parents: why don't we pay for the education or pay single parents income assistance to go to school? While that would be nice, we should do it for everyone if we were going to do it, rather than single out some people and pay for their education but not for others. So in the interest of fairness and evenhandedness, we have said that there are systems in place, and if people can attend school, they should use those systems. Where there is a demonstrated need, our broad system of society should provide additional support such as extended medical or supports through the Ministry of Health.
K. Whittred: Moving on, another one of the major complaints is about the CPP initiative. Of course, this is an ongoing concern. I certainly don't think there is any one concern that I've heard more about than the CPP initiative.
I note that in the mental health advocate's report, one of the aspects of this issue that is raised is that apparently there is an inconsistency amongst individuals. Some individuals receive a lump sum payment and then it's taken off of their benefits, while in other cases the benefit is going directly to the ministry. Is there a difference in those two means of collecting the moneys?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I explained this, actually, to one of the member's colleagues a little bit earlier. The principle is this. Income assistance is a top-up program calculated once all other private sources of income are considered, whether that's CPP or teacher's pension or an IWA pension. It doesn't matter. If you have another source of income or an entitlement to another source of income, then in terms of balancing that individual in the taxpayer's interest, I think it is prudent and wise and correct to say that you must avail yourself of your other entitlement. Or we will calculate your other entitlement, and then if you fall below what we have established as the minimums in this province, we'll top up your income to that level.
When we are dealing particularly with federal programs such as CPP or Employment Insurance, what frequently happens is two things. One is that they pay in arrears, and we pay in advance. So there is a gap. Secondly, it takes some time -- frequently several months from application -- before the individual is accepted for benefits and paid those benefits. However, the benefits are paid from the time of application or entitlement, somewhere back in history. We advance those funds, but it would be grossly unfair both to the taxpayer and to other recipients if they were allowed to accumulate that benefit and collect income assistance benefits from the provincial government at the same time. That is simply not allowed.
If you have any other entitlement, if it's an IWA pension or a public pension, that is taken into account first. If, in fact, we front the money for several months while somebody is waiting for the CPP, we are paying that money in lieu of their CPP. Therefore when their CPP comes in, that rightfully belongs to the B.C. taxpayer. When someone comes in, in that circumstance, and says, "I have a pension entitlement, but I don't have the pension, and it's going to take a few months to get it," then we sign an agreement with them that says when the entitlement comes, they will reimburse the money that we are effectively loaning them while they are awaiting that money, because it is either a portion of or their entire income assistance that is fronted to them. Does that make sense?
[1920]
K. Whittred: Yes. Another one that is mentioned here is the difficulty in meeting nutritional needs. I think this leads us perhaps to some discussion around schedule C, which is where I assume people would apply for additional nutritional products. I might just ask the minister: is there difficulty
Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't break it out by product, but there are almost, close to or in the range of, 200,000 payments that were made last year for dietary products.
[ Page 16217 ]
K. Whittred: Another common concern that we hear -- and this is also mentioned in the advocate's report -- is around financial penalties for marrying. I think the minister is probably aware of this one, where benefits, of course, are based on the household. If two people are single, they get paid at single rates, but if they marry, their income is then reduced. I have also, of course, had people tell me -- as I'm sure the minister has -- that the ministry snoops around into their private affairs to find out whether in fact they are married, if they're a couple, or if they're sharing an apartment and so on. Perhaps the minister would like to respond.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I guess I would just like the member to clarify whether or not she's suggesting that every member of a family should (a) be calculated separately and (b) receive full benefits separately. Is that what she's asking?
K. Whittred: Actually, I wasn't really asking the question. I'm simply raising issues that were raised by the mental health advocate, and this is one that has been raised by the advocate. The implication is that sometimes mentally ill people feel that they are not being treated as fairly as they might be, and I guess they feel sensitive about this issue of having people looking into their marital relationships.
[1925]
Hon. J. Pullinger: I understood that this was a time for the members to ask their own questions, not to ask others' questions. Certainly the mental health advocate has asked those questions of government, and we'll be responding to the mental health advocate. I will therefore assume that that's the member's question and that she is suggesting that it's not okay to calculate
My response is this: if you're a family unit, I quite frankly am not concerned about the nature of your relationship other than that it is a dependent relationship. And if it's a dependent relationship, I think it's fair to argue that it's entirely appropriate to treat it as a family unit and to adjust benefits accordingly, and that's what we do.
K. Whittred: I guess the implication isn't
I have just one more issue I'd like to raise out of this report, and this one was also raised with me. It is a phenomenon that I understand is occurring, and that is difficulty with private disability insurance benefits. I understand both from this report and from reading or from communications with advocates that increasingly, private disability insurance companies are finding ways not to pay benefits, which of course means that people have no other recourse but to go to the B.C. Benefits system. I wonder if the minister has any information on this or any numbers.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the record should show that the opposition is in favour of calculating everything singularly and not calculating anything as dependency relationships. If they're taking that position and asking those questions, then it is their opinion. To suggest that because somebody else wrote it or somebody else raised it
If the member follows that train of logic, then she's suggesting that income tax should be calculated even when there are crossover benefits, that all benefits should only be calculated as singles, and quite frankly, that's just not the way the world works. If there's a dependency relationship and you have one person living in one house or three people living in one house, that is almost always taken into consideration in the calculation of just about any benefit that happens, with the exception of direct insurance, which is a nice little segue into the second question.
What's being discussed there is private sector market insurance, as far as I can make out; therefore it has nothing to do with this ministry.
K. Whittred: My question to the minister regarding the private disability insurance
Hon. J. Pullinger: This program is income- and asset-tested, but it doesn't ask why your income or assets are there. We don't track failures of private companies to do what they ought to, if that's what the member's suggesting.
[1930]
K. Whittred: All right, we will leave that. I think those are the main issues related to this ministry that were in that particular report, other than housing, and housing has already been covered. Just in a kind of peripheral way, as this ministry relates to housing, particularly for very low-income people, I wanted to ask the minister what the rationale was for the government for having the Vancouver Agreement outside of this ministry, which actually deals with most of the issues involved.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I would ask the member to direct that question to the minister responsible for negotiating that cross-government initiative.
K. Whittred: Okay. We'll now move on to some different areas. I have a number of issues to address, and these sort of span a broad area of the ministry.
First of all -- and I think the minister has actually alluded to this before -- there are the costs of the change regarding the earning exemptions. The other question I wanted to ask in relation to that is: are all earning exemptions treated the same? I know that the minister has mentioned about family maintenance. So my question on that part of the issue is: are family maintenance, CPP, income from any other source all equal?
[ Page 16218 ]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Earned income is all treated essentially the same. There's a flat rate: $100 and $200 per month. In other words, we will ignore the first $100 or $200 and top you up effectively higher by $100 or $200, hence the $25 million cost to do that. In terms of unearned income, it's treated differently in that, for instance, CPP is simply a private source of income, and you're topped up on top of that.
The earnings exemption, as it's called, is actually a bit of misnomer in the way it's used, but it is an exemption in terms of the calculation. It is there purportedly for the purpose of allowing people who are doing some work to garner some extra additional resources to pay for the costs of going to work; that's what it's about. What it was expected to do was to help people then make the next step into more work. In other words, it provides them with a bit of transition benefit.
We in British Columbia stand alone, again, among the provinces in that we allow families who already have the highest rates in Canada to benefit from family maintenance by exempting $100 of that as well, and we're the only province in this country to do that. Beyond that, it's mostly exceptions such as court settlements -- Jericho Hill, for example. And where there's an injury, generally what we do is allow that to accumulate to the asset base, based on the assumption that if you have had a settlement for an injury of some kind done to you, you should be able to use that money, therefore, to assist you in dealing with the difficulties caused by that. It very much depends, but a much bigger asset base is generally allowed for that purpose, which people can then use towards their disability or the difficulty that they have as a result of the trauma they experienced, for which they got a settlement.
[1935]
K. Whittred: Just let me see if I've got a couple of things straight here. Now, you describe B.C. Benefits as a top-up for CPP.
Hon. J. Pullinger: A top-up for anything.
K. Whittred: A top-up for anything -- you're going to have to explain that, I think, minister.
Hon. J. Pullinger: B.C. Benefits is a top-up program. What it does is that people whose incomes fall below the levels we decide as a society you shouldn't fall below
A Voice: As of July.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yeah, as of July.
So what we do, effectively, is ignore that first $100 and calculate it on top of that. But by and large, with the exception of the earnings exemption -- which is for that purpose and that purpose alone -- all income is treated as income. Income is income is income. A buck is a buck. And so it's just simply calculated, whatever money is coming into you. We say: "Right, you would qualify for this amount, and we'll fill in the difference between whatever money you have coming in from private sources, whatever they are, and the minimum amount." So we top up income. And hence the discussion around clawbacks is generally
K. Whittred: All right, I understand what you're saying. That's not the way it's usually perceived, but I do understand the minister's explanation. Now, the minister said: "Income is income is income." But I believe that the minister also said that certain income was considered
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, there are other exceptions. Those are the basic two categories -- earnings exemptions and lump sum settlements -- which can be added to the asset base. But in the interest of trying to balance that
There are a number of other exemptions to try to fit with the reality of people's lives. For example, if there is a dependent child in the family who's attending school on a full-time basis, their income is exempt. The basic family care rate paid for foster homes -- that's exempt. GST tax credit, B.C. sales tax credit, child tax benefits are exempt. A child in a home of a relative
People aren't penalized because their kids go to work, which is a good thing. People aren't penalized because they get a benefit from another level of government. They get some of their own taxes back; they're not penalized, etc. We try to find that ever so elusive balance between making sure that people are simply topped up to the minimum level, based on their earnings, and finding some realistic exemptions, such as the ones that I have laid out for the member.
[1940]
K. Whittred: I had a case come through my office earlier this year that has just twigged my recollection. It had to do with a woman who was getting a settlement from the federal government related to the income redress issue. I believe that she
Interjection.
K. Whittred: The job equity money, the pay equity, yes -- that was being
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's very straightforward; that is earnings. Those are earnings. Somebody went to work. If one person's earnings are exempt, so should the next person's earnings be exempt. I would offer that, if we took that
[ Page 16219 ]
approach, we would have a system that was completely unaffordable and would bankrupt itself in a very short time. You cannot say: "What you earn is exempt, and what you earn is not." You can't do that. That would be grossly unfair to others. You can't do that.
However, the difference is that where there is an injury perpetuated on an individual by a third party for which there is compensation, one would have to assume that if you're getting compensation for an injury, you have in fact been injured. Therefore either you have additional expenses or, sometimes, you have incapacities, or a whole range of things can happen to you. Clearly you have had some sort of a mental or physical injury of some sort happen to you. And that money is specifically for redress for that injury. It's not income; it's about something injurious that has happened to you. Therefore you can only assume that that money ought to be set aside in some measure for people, to deal with making that wrong right. That is a social justice issue; the other one is earnings.
K. Whittred: I do understand the social justice issue, but I feel compelled to ask this question: if I am in a car accident and I am rewarded with a very huge ICBC payment, is that payment outside the realm of income as far as B.C. Benefits is concerned?
Hon. J. Pullinger: If somebody received a large lump sum from another arm of government, I would assume that would be because they had some sort of a disability. In fact, that happens frequently. But those individuals, by and large, would be on disability level 2; they would have a permanent disability. That's why they got the huge lump sum from ICBC. Therefore they would have up to $100,000 of asset excluded. Everything else after that would be considered as income. In other words, they fall within the regular rules. It clearly wouldn't be fair for somebody who was awarded an enormous amount of money that they could live on for years to also collect from another arm of government.
There is a disturbing trend that I have noticed -- I actually noticed it about a year ago -- of settlements happening through the courts, or other programs, that appeared to take into consideration the existence of an income assistance program, and that gets factored into the settlement. In my view, that is entirely inappropriate, for two reasons. One is that I think it's an inappropriate use of this program. Secondly, I think it's an inappropriate way to settle a social justice issue. If in fact somebody ought to be awarded a right, including an income for some sort of injury, then that should be awarded from whoever or whatever body is deemed responsible, ultimately, for that injury. I find it a very disturbing trend for income assistance to be calculated in as part of the settlement.
[1945]
I asked my deputy over a year ago, when I was Minister of Human Resources, to take a look at that within government, in terms of how we deal with our provincial positions at different working tables, and also to work with the federal government and work with governments across Canada to take the lead to change that. It's just not an acceptable or appropriate use of an income assistance system, in my view, to use it for an outcome of a litigious process that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with income assistance.
K. Whittred: I would agree with the minister on that particular point.
Changing the subject a little bit, I would like to go back to the welfare cheque delay that was just very recently
Hon. J. Pullinger: The costs are negligible. There are a few crisis grants. As the member knows, we were able to fix the problem by 3 o'clock, I think, the same day. There were a handful of crisis grants. As I said publicly, and I'm sure the member heard me, it would be grossly unfair for individuals on the receiving end of the cheques to have to pay any kind of penalty for an error within government. So if the banks were to charge any costs as a result of that delay, we would pay for them. I would expect and hope that there are no such costs.
The banks and credit unions were superb in working with us to remedy the situation at breakneck speed. I applaud my staff for that. They reacted in what I would say, quite frankly, is a typical manner of rolling up their sleeves and fixing the problem. They are superb at that, and I think their excellence shone through again here. I would also applaud the banks and credit unions and the staff at the Ministry of Finance for working with us to make sure it was fixed.
It's a negligible amount of money. I would hope the banks and credit unions don't charge any charges; if they do, we'll pick them up.
K. Whittred: Once again, I do commend the ministry on the manner in which that was handled. I hope that there are no more little gaffes in the system.
I wonder if the minister could give us a rundown of the trend in caseloads for the disability benefits recipients -- in fact, let's not restrict it to just the disability benefits, but the others as well.
[1950]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Actually, I apologize to the member. I didn't answer the second half of her last question, which I will do forthwith.
In terms of problems within the system, I believe the member asked what we have done to make sure it doesn't happen again, in terms of the cheque delay. Actually, we have a whole bunch of safeguards built in. It's being pointed out to me that it's in the Ministry of Finance; it is not in our ministry. There were a number of safeguards built in. Unfortunately, we are all human, and those systems failed. We've gone back to put in place some other feedback mechanisms to make the system even more secure. It was just an unfortunate error, and I don't expect it will happen again.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It was a human error, and we human beings make errors; that will always happen. But we have built in more safeguards, so I don't expect it will happen in this situation again.
The disability benefits DB-2, caseload is the only one that has been rising. It has gone, since January '95, from just under 22,000 individuals or families on DB-2 to over 36,000. That one
[ Page 16220 ]
is growing; that's because we have the broadest definition of disability in the country, and it's a permanent designation. We have much more work to do on disability issues, as we do on many other parts of the caseload. We're beginning some of that work, most notably looking at individuals who are on disability 2 and determining through pilots how we can support people to re-enter the workforce. They have great skills and abilities and ought to be able to use them. Our job as government and society is to take down the barriers and help them do that.
For the rest, the caseload is at an 18-year low; it hasn't been this low since 1981. I haven't checked the Liberals' web site lately, but I hope they've taken off the information which was there last year that said we'd doubled it, which was never the case, and have put on that we're actually at an 18-year low in terms of the number of people requiring income assistance in British Columbia.
K. Whittred: Can the minister tell me whether or not the ministry has the ability to track where people go when they leave welfare?
Hon. J. Pullinger: No, nor should we, with one exception. That is with permission of people within the confines of the FOIPP, freedom of information and protection of privacy, and for specific outcomes -- i.e., to determine how effective any given program is.
For instance, through the jobs partnership, which is a 19-month labour attachment project, we do know where people who have been off income assistance are. That will provide us with valuable research. Under no circumstance should we be able to have a kind of file that would simply track everybody who used the income assistance program. It would be entirely inappropriate.
K. Whittred: I agree. I am, in fact, on that committee, and I've been working a fair amount with the privacy issues.
I think my intent in that question was really more to the question of knowledge that the ministry has within its programs of what its clients are doing. Does the ministry know, for example, how many Job Start programs a person has taken, or how many skill-based programs? Is that kind of information -- perhaps tracked isn't the right word -- simply known, or is that just a great big amorphous black hole that no one has any information about?
[1955]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The first question was about whether we track people off income assistance. No, we don't in any systemic way, other than as the exception that I pointed out. Within the system, information of that nature is kept within an individual's file.
Do we have a master program somewhere where we can check on John Doe or Jane Doe? No, we don't -- and shouldn't have.
K. Whittred: I will be coming back to questions related to this in a little bit more detail when we do the labour market attachment stuff. Perhaps I should have left that question for later; however, I didn't. It was on my particular line of questioning right now.
Before we leave this and move on to an entirely different area, I want to ask just a little bit about the prevention, compliance and enforcement sector. I'm alluding right now to the most recent report I have, which is '97-98. Just in summary, it would appear that the ministry is fairly confident that its work in this area is progressing as it should. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the work that the ministry does in this area.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I thank the member for the question. Part of the systemic change that we made when we moved from a them-and-us system -- them being people who required the services of income assistance or welfare, and us being everybody else, no matter how poor an individual might be -- to a more integrated system, one of the flip-side changes that we needed to make was to ensure that we had the best enforcement we could reasonably have of people who commit fraud. I want to make a clear differentiation, because I am not saying that that's a common occurrence with people on income assistance.
I would think that when people on income assistance receive more benefit than they should, for the most part that would fall under the category of what we call "administrative error." But there are people who have multiple identities, who attempt to defraud various systems in this province and in others, and it is those people that we've gone after in a very serious way. My view is that for the dignity of people who require the services of this ministry and for the integrity of the system, it is imperative that we not only do eliminate as much fraud as possible and catch people who perpetuate fraud, but we are seen to. I think it's fair to say that that has happened on both counts.
K. Whittred: I wonder if the minister could be a little bit more specific. Is there information in this last year specifically about the number of cases that have been brought forward to the ministry, the number of convictions, the amount of money retrieved and the cost of litigation to the ministry?
Hon. J. Pullinger: In 1999 there were close to 14,000 cases referred for investigation. For about 23 percent of those cases, I would like to point out that the allegations were either unfounded or there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation. I would like to point out as well that every allegation of fraud is investigated; hence the high number. Clearly, if we're going to have integrity in the system, we must treat seriously every complaint. However, obviously a significant proportion of them are unfounded.
Charges were laid in 142 cases, with another 60 being submitted to Crown counsel, and they are awaiting charge approval. This is where we differentiate. When you look at the large number of investigations, what you find is a very tiny number that actually warrant something that you might call fraud response -- i.e., a referral to the justice system; 142 out of 14,000 is a tiny, tiny proportion. The rest, I believe, would fall more appropriately into the category of administrative error, and we take repayment agreements for those. So the percentage of fraud is very small.
The savings in 1999 was over $25 million, close to $26 million. That amounts to a payback of 5-to-1 for every dollar invested.
The legal costs involved would be in the Ministry of Attorney General. We don't do legal work.
[2000]
[ Page 16221 ]
K. Whittred: Now, I recall that last year there was a slight increase in the budget and that that increase -- I would have to refresh my memory -- was largely for hiring new investigators in this particular part of the ministry. I wonder if the minister could give me a comparison between the previous year -- that is, the '97-98 year -- and this last year.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Those were prevention officers -- sorry, verification officers for prevention purposes -- that were hired. They weren't after-the-fact investigators. Their job was to make sure that the information that people submitted in the application process was correct, which saves everybody a lot of grief and cost down the road.
K. Whittred: I'm curious. The 1998 report talks about 147.67 FTEs. How many are in the ministry now? Is it bigger or smaller or the same?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The total of headquarters, field and summer replacements is 178.1.
K. Whittred: I would like to ask now about Mr. Russ Pratt, who was, I believe, recently employed as an assistant deputy minister in the ministry. First of all, I understand that he is working on a special project related to disability issues. Could the minister describe that project?
Hon. J. Pullinger: First, let me say I'm delighted to have somebody with the level of ability and expertise of Mr. Pratt taking on this short-term project for me. He's a very capable individual, and I certainly welcome him to the ministry and to the executive.
Mr. Pratt has a very significant background working with labour, management and community groups, as well as with other governments. The project we've asked him to do is to work across government and with the community to determine how to break down some of the barriers we were talking about earlier for people with disabilities.
Just let me repeat one sentence: I believe and this government believes that, for people with disabilities, we have focused too much on the disability and not enough on the abilities. We are focusing on people's abilities. His job is to provide advice back to the ministry, and to me, about how we can assist people in using their abilities to achieve a greater level of independence, wherever possible.
[2005]
K. Whittred: Mr. Pratt's project: is he dealing largely with barriers to work, or just barriers in general? Is there a thrust?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Barriers to work, for the most part. He's building on some of the work -- excellent work, actually -- that has been done in a variety of places and determining how we can best take down the barriers, both attitudinal and real, to support people to move into the workplace. Quite frankly, with 36,000 people on income assistance for disabilities, that's a lot of wasted talent. We want to determine the best way we can to free up that talent for the benefit of society and the individuals.
K. Whittred: I want to inquire of the minister: what were the circumstances under which Mr. Pratt was hired? Was there a competition for this position?
Hon. J. Pullinger: All ADMs are appointed by order-in-council.
K. Whittred: Can you give me the range of Mr. Pratt's salary?
Hon. J. Pullinger: My understanding is that the ADM range is roughly $93,000 to $101,000. If the member wants clarification of that range, I would direct her to the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. She may have more detail, or we can find it in more detail. But that's roughly what it is: $93,000 to $101,000.
K. Whittred: Thank you, minister. Could I ask when is the report that Mr. Pratt is delivering anticipated?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The report will be back to the ministry, and to me, within the next six months.
K. Whittred: So we can anticipate hearing by the end of the year. Would that be correct?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The work undertaken for the ministry and for work that's going to cabinet would more likely be released after it's been considered and acted on by cabinet.
K. Whittred: Well, I will certainly await Mr. Pratt's project.
I also wanted to ask about the ministry reorganization that occurred some months ago, as this ministry was actually enlarged and assumed a variety of new duties and a new focus. I wonder if the minister could give me a summary of the cost that was involved, in terms of changing this ministry from the Ministry of Human Resources into the now Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. There must have been some costs involved, in terms of letterhead, web site, publications -- all of those sorts of administrative issues.
[2010]
Hon. J. Pullinger: In my view, it was an excellent decision to bring together seven different votes, actually. We now have all of the tools we need -- or the most direct tools that we need -- to really deal with poverty and inclusion issues in a much more comprehensive way. If the member was to add up the votes as they were, and the aggregate amount today, she would find that it was either a flat line, or more likely, that there are in fact some savings as a result of the efficiencies.
K. Whittred: On that, we will ease into a new area of questioning that provides a useful transition. And as a transition, seeing as I just asked a question about the cost of implementing the new ministry, I think I got what would be called an evasive answer, Mr. Chair.
In any case, I want to go back a few months to July of last year, shortly after this new ministry was announced. The then minister -- in fact the predecessor of this minister -- said that there were going to be 30-, 60- and 90-day plans. These were widely publicized and were to address the goals of the ministry. My question is: do those reports exist? Whatever became of the 30-, 60- and 90-day plans?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I can't speak for the last minister in this portfolio, but I would assume that what he would have
[ Page 16222 ]
been speaking of would be an internal planning process within government. I would assume that those are the documents that
Hon. Chair, before I cede my place, I cannot let the comment of the member go. In terms of suggesting that I've been evasive in my last answer, that is simply not correct. I answered that to the best of my ability, which is to say that the cost -- that the aggregate of the ministries -- is the same, or less, than the seven separate ministries.
K. Whittred: We will now move into another part of this ministry's responsibility, and that is the piece that deals with child care.
This very day, the minister, in conjunction with the Premier and her colleague the Minister of Women's Equality, announced -- or re-announced, I should say -- the child care initiative that the government is putting forth. I have a few questions around that.
[2015]
The first question I have is: when and why did the amount change from $8 a day to $7 a day?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Number one, I released the outcome of the discussion document today and announced details that were not previously made public, because those decisions hadn't been made yet. The implementation team and others had given me some advice; that was announced today. Secondly, it never did change. I said from the beginning it would be $7 or $8 a day; we determined we could do it for $7.
K. Whittred: Before I get into a much more detailed number of questions, I'm just dealing right now basically with today's announcement. It appears to me from today's announcement that the child care initiatives are only going to apply to those that are currently in a spot. I wonder if the minister would confirm that.
Hon. J. Pullinger: No. The member is partially correct, not in terms of those involved but in terms of the fact that I said from the beginning that the first step is to bring a number of existing spaces into a publicly funded system. What we announced today was that the decision is to bring into a publicly funded system the licensed group child care -- on-school sites and off-school sites; all of them -- for grade 1 to 12-year-old kids. All of those spaces, if you like, will be brought into a public system and funded differently -- effectively, core-funded by government. As well, there will be some modest expansion; I would expect 2,000 to 3,000 spaces.
K. Whittred: I think that the minister actually answered the next part of my question, which was going to be how many actual new spaces are going to be created. And the answer was 2,000 to 3,000. Is that
Going back and sort of tracing this process through, could I ask the minister: how much does the ministry currently spend per child in day care?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't calculate it that way. We spent $188 million. This government and the last have expanded child care services to parents in communities quite significantly, and the aggregate amount is $188 million.
K. Whittred: Thank you. And how many licensed, regulated child care spaces are there?
Hon. J. Pullinger: There are 71,355.
K. Whittred: How much per year does the ministry give to licensed child care spaces?
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's a private market-based system right now. As such, government doesn't fund it at all. We provide subsidies to parents, we provide capital and equipment grants, and we provide some compensation adjustments to child care workers to recognize the fact that they are underpaid. But there is no systemic approach, because there is no system; it's a market-based service.
[2020]
K. Whittred: If you'll just give me a minute, I have to think about the minister's use of terminology -- that the government does not "have a system." The system in place, I would suggest, is very much connected to government, in that it's government that sets the rules, it's government that licenses the spaces, it's government that determines how much the child care workers are paid. The whole program that the government is embarking on is geared toward specifically licensed child care spaces.
I'm not making a judgment about that, hon. Chair; I'm simply saying that I think that the minister is playing with words when she talks about the fact that the government is sort of removed from this system. I would suggest strongly that the government is right in the middle of this system.
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member asked me what we provide currently in terms of
But the point I was making, which the member clearly doesn't understand, is that the problem we are dealing with is that today we have a market-based, fragmented, licensed, unlicensed, private, invisible and, in many measures, unaccountable non-system of child care looking after our most precious resource -- our children. That's the problem we're fixing. We are moving it into a publicly funded, licensed, regulated system and taking the first step this year. And, yes, there will be some constraints. There will also be core funding, which doesn't currently exist. We only have a grants program right now and the government role that we've had for some time, which is regulating a private system.
K. Whittred: I am looking at three brochures, and I wasn't really going to bring these up because they're not very controversial. These have to do with the infant and toddler incentive grant, the emergency repair grant and the facilities
[ Page 16223 ]
and equipment grant. The one thing that they all have in common is that these moneys, which are not huge amounts, are only available to licensed child care facilities. In other words, there is no help available for home-based child care facilities that people may want to set up. So by the very nature of this kind of assistance, I guess the government is in fact creating the model it espouses. But to suggest for a moment that the ministry is not already doing that, I think is simply preposterous.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm always astounded at having to explain the marketplace to the members opposite; however, I'll try again.
Right now, we have a private sector -- some societies, some co-op, some for-profit, some we don't even know what they are because they're informal -- set of child care services in British Columbia. The overwhelming majority of them are good. However, because they are market-driven, they're not affordable for a large number of people. Because there's lots of child care that's unregulated and the numbers
[2025]
So what we've done to date is to work with the private sector -- the market-based private sector child care that exists and that exists today. It is not government-run, not government-operated; it is not government-funded. They can apply for grants, but so can the member's chamber of commerce under other programs. Grants to promote certain activities are available in any government, anywhere you find them. They're available from municipal governments, they're available from the federal government, they're available from virtually every provincial government across the country.
So we allow some parts of that private sector, market-based system to apply for grants, and we have restricted it to licensed, regulated child care. If the member disagrees, fair ball. I don't disagree with the member disagreeing; I just disagree. But to suggest that it's not a private sector market-based system right now is preposterous. It is market-based. We are going to move to a core-funded public sector system.
K. Whittred: I would like to ask: does the minister feel that the system, or what she calls the lack of a system, that's in place in the province at the present time
Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the fact that one in ten kids -- the last number I saw -- have access to licensed regulated child care is a problem. In a market system, people with low incomes -- it's the same with housing, the same with a number of other crucial services -- are driven to the bottom of the market. I think that is a huge problem. Let me put it this way. In today's economy and in today's society, where we have in the overwhelming majority of families both parents working, for all the reasons people work, we also have -- let me remind the member -- 42 percent of families that fall under the poverty line and receive the B.C. family bonus. That's a lot of families -- 42 percent.
You can extrapolate from the numbers of licensed spaces, the number of kids, the problems I outlined and from what obviously is the demand, based on the numbers I've just outlined, that we have a problem. Interestingly, the child care community knows it, the school system knows it, the parents know it -- everybody seems to know it. But obviously the member opposite doesn't, and I guess they don't think it's a priority.
K. Whittred: The minister is wrong about what this member believes and what this member knows. In fact, I know quite a bit about this. I guess where we may perhaps disagree is on the virtues of a total provincially run system. I guess that what I basically believe is that I don't believe this government will deliver a universal child care program. I don't believe that the province can afford it at this time. I do not believe that there are spaces. And I think that much of what the government has done has in fact been based on a program that predisposed that the federal government was going to be involved.
The government has relied heavily upon a discussion paper, which was quite a good discussion paper. They have relied heavily upon responses from organizations like the Vancouver Board of Trade. They have relied heavily upon responses such as that that came from the city of Vancouver. There are other community responses, all of which are very favourable to the idea of more affordable child care. All of those were based on the idea that there was going to be some federal government money and some federal government involvement in this program.
In my opinion, the government is putting all of its eggs in one basket. In doing so, I'm afraid that the objectives are probably not going to be achieved. I can see the minister perhaps wants to respond. Well, okay.
I would like to talk for a moment about the Quebec child care model on which the government is basing its program. I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of the comments of the Quebec auditor general regarding their program.
[2030]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is wrong again. We're not basing it on the Quebec model. We are learning from the Quebec experience, that's true, but we've looked at a range of models. The member is also dead wrong in saying that we're having a government-run system. I'm not sure how she missed it, but she missed it. I have said again and again that what we're doing is building on the strengths of child care services that exist. We are going to core-fund community-based child care centres. We will contract with them; we will provide funding. We will set some parameters, so that all of the
I think, and I said earlier, that while I don't like the non-system we have -- and I'm not comfortable with the fact that we have basically an unregulated system -- most children, I would suggest the majority of children, are cared for in unregulated places. That causes me great concern. I don't like those things, but I did also say that the overwhelming majority of child care providers are very good. Because of that, we
[ Page 16224 ]
are working with them, and 18 people who represent the broad child care community, as well as parents, the school system and a range of interests are at the table. Actually, they're making decisions to implement this.
So it's very much community-driven in terms of the decision-making, which is, in my view, the best way to work. I always work that way, wherever possible. It is very much community-based in terms of the outcome. We're simply going to work with current providers to bring them into a publicly funded system that's far more affordable for parents. As I say, it's $7 and $14 a day. That's the rate we've decided on; everybody's okay with that. Where there is need, we will lower or eliminate that $7 or $14.
K. Whittred: Well, the minister is now confusing me completely. A few moments ago she said that the whole purpose of this was to regulate the system. And to regulate the system, it means the government is going to bring in regulations. It's going to set the salaries; it's going to say what kind of equipment you can have and determine who gets that equipment. It already does that. I know a young woman who runs a day care, and she runs an excellent day care. In fact, she runs a bilingual day care, but it's a home-based day care, so therefore she is not eligible for any of this. That means the government is regulating how that business is going to function.
Then in the very next breath, the minister spoke of wanting to implement a community-based day care system. Now, community-based I understand. But I think what we have here is that we're using words and actions that don't quite meet in the middle.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Because the member doesn't understand doesn't mean that the words don't meet in the middle. Let me try again for the member.
Today we have a licensing system. It exists; it does say how many children of what ages you can have and how high the fence should be. That's there. It's for the protection of our children, and I would hope the member isn't complaining about having it. We do have licensing and regulation available. But there are more unlicensed, unregulated spaces today than there are licensed and regulated spaces.
[2035]
We provide some programs to some child cares now. They're licensed, regulated group care that we provide the grants to -- that's correct. We also provide services to family day cares. We provide referrals and information, toy exchanges and so on through the resource centres that this government put in place. So there is support for family care providers, no question. But clearly there is a different set of needs and expenses in a group child care that's much larger than there is in doing child care in somebody's home.
Now, let me try once again. We have a fragmented system where some people choose to be licensed and some people choose not to be licensed in terms of family care. We have the majority of spaces unlicensed and unregulated. We have our children being cared for in unlicensed, unregulated spaces. We have our children being cared for in unlicensed, unregulated spaces.
The current average cost for child care is not quite, but almost, double what we're proposing. We're cutting the cost for parents almost in half. So from the parents' point of view, when we have the new system in place -- this first slice, this first piece -- instead of having to come and apply for the child care subsidy, instead of having the provider apply for all these various grants, we will simply fund a number of spaces in child care acts, and they will be core-funded.
A requirement of being core-funded is that they be licensed and regulated, and I am absolutely immovable on that. There is no way, while I'm minister -- or, I would suggest, while we're government, even; I think all of my colleagues would agree -- that we will core-fund unlicensed, unregulated child care. It's not going to happen, and the child care community agrees with that.
The difference will be that instead of having to apply for grants, in terms of the parent applying for a grant and then still paying an unaffordable amount, and the ends never meet or rarely meet
On the other hand, from the providers' point of view, instead of them operating like a business, either a non-profit group or a for-profit group
When it's in a public system, they will get a cheque to pay for all of their spaces. They'll just get paid for them. So there's a very significant difference. It will be a publicly funded, comprehensive child care system that, at the end of the day, any parent will be able to take their children to.
Yes, we are looking to the federal government for support. The federal Liberals, after all, have been saying for a long time now that they want to see a national child care program. They have been saying for some time that they want a children's agenda, that that's a priority of theirs.
[2040]
In fact, British Columbia created and developed and ran the B.C. family bonus and took it to the federal table. As a result of that work by British Columbia, that leadership by this province, we now have a national child benefit. I have certainly had some conversations with my federal counterpart, and I am certainly going to federal-provincial-territorial meetings down the road. I will undertake that we as a government are going to do the same thing. We're designing a piece here, and we're going to take it to the federal table. We're going to see if we can convince the other provinces and the federal government to do the right thing and to put in place an infrastructure for our most valuable resource: our children.
Let me point out, as a final comment, that North America is the last holdout in the developed world and beyond. There
[ Page 16225 ]
are far-less-developed countries that have public child care systems. We are the last holdout in North America not to have it. God knows why that is. I guess it's the small-l liberal individualism of the United States or something. But Quebec was the first one to break that. We are the second.
The member says she doesn't believe we can afford it at this time. She sees it from an economic point of view. I see it and my colleagues see it from a human and civil society and community point of view, a family point of view. I would push back and say: "This side of the House believes that we can't afford to wait any longer."
K. Whittred: The minister made some remarks about the attitude of the government side of the House. I cannot resist injecting at this point the remarks of her predecessor who, when he talked about his 30-, 60- and 90-day plans
I think that in this discussion one of the things that the minister opposite is trying to do is paint a picture of this side of the House as being non-supportive of day care. That is simply not true. There is no one who knows the value and the need for day care, I think, more than this member and certainly, I'm sure, my colleagues. I think our quarrel is simply with the one single system that the members opposite are trying to introduce. Our cynical belief, I guess is that this really is not going to happen.
I wanted to come back to some comments about the system in Quebec. Regardless of what the minister said, the Quebec system has been held up as a model over and over again. One of the things that I discovered in researching this particular topic and in talking to people in Quebec about this
The message that I got from talking to people in Quebec was that by introducing this lavishly expensive program, they had mortgaged their ability to do anything else for families. In other words, they had put all their eggs in one basket. I think what this side of the House is saying is that we need a basket with many different colours of eggs in it in order to provide those services to families.
[2045]
You know, Mr. Chair, I am going to be very, very generous in terms of the government here, because I think, when we're talking about things like child care, that all of us here are parents. The needs of parents or grandparents are no different, regardless of which side of the House we're on. So we on this side of the House do understand about the necessity for child care. It's how you deliver that service, where you deliver it and how you determine you're going to pay for it.
And one of the things I do have to even commend the government on was that in their discussion paper, they made mention of many different alternatives. Yet when it comes time to make an announcement, the only alternative that they have made is the one single method of subsidizing the child care. So on those, we do disagree in how child care services ought to be provided.
The auditor general spoke of many accountability problems in the province of Quebec. I'm sure that the government may be aware of these. The auditor general in Quebec alluded to some problems that the minister has even
The other issue that was alluded to was the issue of who the day care is to serve. And one of the things I learned about the system in Quebec is that there is no differentiation between people who really need the service -- that is, lower-income people or even moderate-income people -- and those who may have barrels of money. Everybody, if they can get their child into the centre, can go and get the service for whatever the cost is per day. That is about the cheapest babysitting that anyone's ever going to get, if you want to go and have a tennis game. So I ask whether or not that is a service the government ought to be subsidizing. Now, I'll stop there and
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me try this one more time. This is a made-in-British Columbia child care system. We have issued a set of options, and we have had 10,000 responses. We've done a lot of informal consultation with a team of 18 people who have significant expertise from a whole range of backgrounds. Attached to each of those 18 people is the organization that they represent.
One of them, for example, is the Provincial Child Care Council, which also has significant expertise. It is those people who are making decisions with me and for me in terms of how we implement this. I don't know how you could possibly get more made-in-B.C. We have looked in Europe. We have looked, essentially, across the world. There are not too many places to look in North America, so when I'm talking about Canada, I talk about Quebec. It's the only province that has any kind of child care system. But one of the things I have said repeatedly is that we are implementing and doing this very differently from Quebec, because we are very mindful of the problems that Quebec has had, and so are the 10,000 people that wrote in, in response to our document.
In the context of mentioning Quebec, I have said again and again that we are implementing it much differently, much more bottom-up, grassroots, community-based and arm-in-arm with parents and providers. We recognize that the way Quebec did it, which was too much, too fast, too soon, didn't work as well as it might have. I still applaud them for taking that step. I think it was a good thing to do and a courageous step in terms of public policy, and I applaud them for that.
Those are the first points in terms of made-in-B.C. It's made in B.C., and I don't know how you could get more made-in-B.C.
In terms of suggesting that this is somehow going to be monolithic, let me try that again for the third or fourth time. We are taking community-based child cares that have
[ Page 16226 ]
developed in communities in response to communities and therefore reflect both the diversity and the uniqueness of communities. We are going to fund them, on contract, to do what they do best, which is provide child care. And no, we're not going to shut them down if some kids are sick; we don't do that in schools. You fund the spaces.
[2050]
But I would offer that when one child out of ten currently has access to a licensed, regulated, affordable space, I think the problem
Thirdly, the amount of infrastructure it would require to put in place a screen like the income assistance system would be massive. It would also defeat the purpose of providing quality child care to all children. If the member had done her homework, she would know that all children, no matter what their backgrounds, benefit from quality, licensed child care -- all of them. The return is $2 for every $1 invested.
If you look at a subset: high-risk children, who are not necessarily just poor children, but high-risk children, high-risk kids
I take exception to the member's comment to suggest that dropping somebody off at a child care is babysitting. It's not. I don't know where these people across the House are. In the overwhelming majority of families, both parents work. In almost half of families, they are low-income. Those people, those families, need quality child care for their children. We are nowhere near meeting the demand right now. We have one in ten that is licensed and affordable, and we don't even know where a lot of the others are. That to create a system where our children have access to the kind of care that they should have -- and we should be smart enough to provide them -- is somehow problematic is a very odd view of the world. I would suggest that the opposition is out of step with just about everybody else.
We have a range of services in British Columbia and federally. People get tax subsidies. We have the B.C. family bonus, which helps parents with child care costs. We currently have individual subsidies, and they will continue. So rather than having a portion of child care paid with a child care subsidy, parents will have all of the child care paid. So low-income families will pay nothing. That's not the case today. The member obviously doesn't know that.
So, you know, we have a range of programs in place. There is no obligation for any given child care centre to contract with the government. If they wish to remain outside the system and if parents wish to take their children to one outside the system, they're welcome to do that. There's nothing saying that they can't. If they wish to take them to their neighbours, as they do today, there's nothing saying they can't do that. If they wish to take them to their church or to their community centre, where there may be some informal program instead of child care, they're welcome to do that.
What we're doing is reaching out to communities and asking them to provide the solutions, asking them to provide the child care, and we'll contract with them to do it. But it's a bottom-up, community-driven system that's being put in place with the child care community. And in many cases, the decisions are being made by the child care community that we've asked to come to the table to help us on this. It can't get more bottom-up; I don't know how it could get more diverse, more inclusive, more community-driven than it is.
So I would suggest that the member opposite simply
So, hon. Chair, with that, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:55 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada