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)
TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 16
[ Page 16781 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
B. McKinnon: I'd like to take the opportunity this morning to wish my colleague from Richmond East a very happy birthday, and I ask all members to also wish her a happy birthday.
Hon. I. Waddell: I call Committee of Supply in this House; we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In Committee A, I call estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
The committee met at 10:10 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 38: ministry operations, $29,752,000 (continued).
D. Jarvis: I would like to give a little summary of what we said yesterday in order to follow up today, and I know the minister will be pleased to hear it.
Yesterday we ended with an aspect that I felt that ICBC was becoming such a monopoly that it was
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Oh, we have some strangers in the House again.
It was becoming such a monopoly that it had gone far past what its original intent was. That was ostensibly that, like all things in the past, the insurance industry was not the best that we had it 27 years ago in British Columbia. ICBC came in with the idea that they were going to provide better coverage and better insurance and look after the insurance better than what had done by the private sector up to that time.
But as things always do change over time, it seems to me that ICBC has now become such a monopoly that it really is
That goes with the fact that, on the decentralization that we were talking about, decentralization was ostensibly put in to lessen the load of the executive in the Vancouver Esplanade office. And what happens? They've added -- I don't know how many -- at least 60 percent to their executive, plus them having received substantial salaries on top of that for a job that was supposed to have been lessened by the fact that they went through decentralization. This morning's papers, as you know, stated that ICBC has taken a considerable hike in their paycheques at the management or executive level, regardless of the freeze that went on. I personally do not feel -- and I think my party goes along with me -- that there's anything wrong with paying for executives.
An Hon. Member: Not getting our money's worth.
D. Jarvis: It's a matter of getting your money's worth. If a person is qualified for the job, he should be paid well for the job. So I'm not complaining about increases, but it was ostensibly the way it went about -- not having gone through the procedures that this government had set up.
The other aspect, when we were ending up last night, was the minister saying that she felt the procedures that ICBC has to go through are equivalent to what private industry has to go through with regards to the auditing purposes, the control under the superintendent of insurance, etc. -- that they are reported in TRAC and all the rest of it, and that they do the same qualifications as what the private insurers have to go through.
At that time I argued with her, saying that TRAC -- which she brought up and which I'd brought up a year before -- said that ICBC did not comply with what the majority of the private insurers did across the country. She argued that they are great proponents of TRAC and that TRAC does say that ICBC complies. When I said last year that it didn't, she argued with me and said that it did.
[1015]
Well, I just want to make a little comment about
So I want to refer the minister back to pages 12681 to 12683 of last year's Hansard, in which I brought up the aspect of TRAC. The minister said that it had failed on only one aspect of TRAC. Well, I'm here to say that that is not so. If you read the full TRAC requirements, ICBC did very poorly. Point after point in their summaries
I'm just going to find the summation of it all rather than waste considerable time by telling the minister that
I think it's only on about two or three of the 12 TRAC items of all insurance companies across Canada that they actually did have a reasonable passing mark. So when the minister tries to tell us, or tries to spin us, that they are no different from the private insurance companies and that they fall under the same requirements as they do with regards to auditing and all the rest, it's not so.
Again, I'll read you a letter from the end of last year, December 16, from ICBC to myself in which they said: "There have been significant downward adjustments to prior-year
[ Page 16782 ]
claims in the last couple of years to ensure the liabilities are not overstated. The primary contributor to reductions in the prior claims has been the success of claims cost control initiatives such as soft-tissue injury management and safety programs." I won't read the whole letter that we have discussed.
Well, in that aspect, the minister said that there has been no change in their soft-tissue injury program and that there's no such thing as "no crash, no cash." I have been informed that it is not so, in the sense that in fact the theory of no crash, no cash is not valid anymore. You have a new statement or summary called low-velocity impact, which is ostensibly the same. The fact is that if the accident that occurs is not really substantial, then ICBC automatically denies indemnity or denies the claim. You've even expanded on this no crash, no cash aspect. You have simply said that if claims are below a certain figure -- whether it be $1,500 or whatever -- then ICBC takes the opinion that it just could not have caused a passenger or a driver in the vehicle to be injured.
In fact, claimants that do come to ICBC on their low-impact losses, when they do complain to ICBC, without going to see a lawyer
[1020]
Talk about something being completely illogical. Someone comes in and says: "I'm injured. I've got an injury out of this accident." So you give him a book on therapeutic aid and how to look after his back. You give him a back support and send him on his way. Of course, as you would have it, it ends up that he or she goes to a lawyer, and that costs the policyholders of ICBC more and more money.
Another aspect I was going to talk about on the claims end of it was the fact that in another letter from ICBC, it said: "The corporation does not require an actuarial evaluation of its policy liabilities, and therefore discounted values of unpaid claims are not provided. Nor do we discount claims or liabilities by recognizing the time value of money." I interpreted that to allude to the fact that when I discussed yesterday about how you reduce your reserves, you said that your external auditing group did not do audits on the claims files themselves.
I still feel as though it is almost improper that you could reduce your claims reserve on the basis of a group of people that supposedly aren't involved in the insurance industry. I interpret, again, the minister saying that these people were not specific to ICBC employ. They were an external audit group. Without having to go through the actual files for your claims reserves, how can they interpret correctly that there's a specific amount that should be taken off and used to help balance your books?
Having said all that, I wanted to ask the minister if she could tell me, with injury claims
Hon. J. MacPhail: This announcement was made in the last couple of months. It's an approach that the corporation is taking to have a much more businesslike approach to the use of legal counsel. I do take exception to the member opposite, who claims to be inarticulate. And I accept that. I do take exception to the fact that he refers to it as a blacklist. That's ridiculous.
This was a process where the corporation issued a request for proposal to work with, to put together a list of law firms that had to meet certain business and service tests. The request for proposal was done in consultation with the Law Society and the Attorney General. Then there was an RFP put out after ICBC and the Ministry of Attorney General had signed a memorandum of understanding on what this request for proposal would ask for. The agreement details the respective rules, the process and business rules arising, and was announced on May 12, 1999. The RFP was issued for claims-related legal services. Over 270 law firms across the province received the RFP document.
[1025]
In the process, 202 law firms submitted proposals that qualified for consideration. These proposals were then evaluated fairly based on selection criteria arising out of the protocol. ICBC completed the evaluation process, and 120 law firms were identified as the most suitable to provide claims-related legal services.
The Ministry of Attorney General has given its approval for the process and has indicated that the results were consistent with the process. Then on April 28 the corporation announced the law firms that had been selected through the RFP process, and it was received well publicly.
D. Jarvis: I wanted to say that I find it hard to realize that ICBC should be able to take the position -- of course, they are a monopoly; they can pretty well do anything they want like government can, as this government has said they can do anything they want -- that they should decide who are the best lawyers and who are not the best lawyers and how they're going to deal with those lawyers. And to have it approved through the political arm, through the Attorney General, which is ostensibly
I've got a list here, and I think I've talked to the CEO about it before: claims communications of ICBC. It's from them, and it's to all the claims managers throughout
It is perceived that there are delays with all the denials and lengthy negotiation times that take place. It goes on to the point where eventually, maybe after four years, you arrive in
[ Page 16783 ]
the Supreme Court and invariably
I am of the opinion that people who are injured should not be penalized by the fact that they may pick a certain lawyer over another lawyer, not knowing if this is a lawyer who has been "blacklisted" -- or put on a special list; let's put it that way. It's not blacklisted, because I know that has other intonations. But it's certainly not the way business should be done in British Columbia. So I'll leave it at that and see what else she has to say about it.
[1030]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just let me make a couple of comments here. The request for proposal was for legal counsel for the policyholder who is being sued. So there's not a limitation on which lawyers the corporation will deal with by someone choosing their own lawyer.
Previously these lawyers were all selected by the Ministry of Attorney General. So the move to put the selection of these lawyers on a more businesslike case and have the Insurance Corporation in charge of it makes business sense and indeed does achieve exactly what the member suggests he would wish, which is to move it from the influence of government.
Secondly, I'm not sure whose interests he's trying to protect here. The Law Society, the union of lawyers, thinks this is a good process.
D. Jarvis: Well, I am certainly not trying to protect any specific group or business people out there. I am intending to look at what the insureds are going to go through. There's no question. I mean, this originally started some time ago. I'll admit that I've talked to some lawyers about it, because that's where I'm going to get the information from. That is that the program originally came under the name of the uncooperative counsel program. Now it's been changed to the countering selected counsel program. I mean, you're using words all the time to change the thing, but the same impact is there. They are going to be treated differently. That's what your e-mail copy that I have in front of me says -- that we will be targeting these new firms differently. If you want a copy, I will send it over to you later. You probably have a copy there.
So adjusters are told not to talk about the program and to keep it secret from the driving public of British Columbia. We understand that there are special manuals which instruct the adjusters on their conduct toward the targeted lawyers and their clients. Do you have special manuals for lawyers that are specifically attuned to handling bodily injury claims with ICBC? Do you have a special manual or claims managers that handle those special lawyers, or is it the same manual you have for everyone across the board?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no special manual. I'd be happy to look at the document that the member has.
D. Jarvis: So I assume that the minister has said to me now that there is no special list for special lawyers that handle bodily injury claims: I assume that's what she's saying.
She is also saying that every injury claim is treated the same.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I find it hard to accept that, because on the basis of what she said last night and what I said this morning, the evidence certainly isn't there that this is the way claims are handled in this province. There appears to be a double standard, but the minister says there is certainly no double standard. There's no question that low-velocity impact claims now are also, the minister is saying, treated
[1035]
The Chair: There are a number of young school children up in the gallery today who are intently watching the stimulating debate. I don't know where they're from, but they are very intent on watching us, so I thought we could make them all welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: So far we've spent the first moments of what is a very important process going over old ground, where I've answered all of these questions. The member seems to want to suggest that maybe if he asks the question again, I'll give a different answer. I won't. I would, with the indulgence of you, Chair, repeat this answer, and then that's it.
The low-velocity impact program, as I said yesterday, has guidelines that take into account not only vehicle impact forces but also the specific conditions and circumstances of the occupant of the vehicle, including any objective signs of injury and the medical history of the individual. A claim is never denied solely on the basis of vehicle damage done.
R. Coleman: I'd like to canvass a number of topics this morning with regard to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The first thing I'd like to have some discussion about is with regard to the accreditation program in autobody shops. The concern I have with this is that I have now toured a number of autobody shops in my riding. I'm going to give the minister the feedback that I'm getting, first of all, and I'd like to discuss the program.
The feedback that I'm getting is that this is a process that has gone to such a level of navel-gazing that the details required for autobody shops to actually function as autobody shops are making it ridiculously expensive for them to operate. In addition to this accreditation program, though, there seems to be an overpreponderance, as people are trying to struggle through this process, of movement by ICBC only to the large majors as far as sending them work. I am now familiar with two autobody shops that have been in business for 15 years. One will shut down at the end of July, lay off its six employees and go back into just doing straight bodywork simply because of the accreditation program, as they worked through it, and the discussions with the people from ICBC got to such a frustration level that work all of a sudden stopped showing up at the body shop.
[ Page 16784 ]
So I guess my first question would be: is there any policy within ICBC that says that if an autobody shop is not involved in the accreditation process -- which I understand from the Automotive Retailers Association and other organizations is voluntary
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. And I'd be happy to accept the member's view on one particular case and look into that case.
R. Coleman: I wish it was one particular case. There are a couple of cases. There is a specific one in my riding and some others that I would like to discuss with the corporation, and I will do that. My concern is that in speaking with some staff in the ICBC offices in the Fraser Valley, who obviously would not want me to use their names, I was advised that in fact the corporation is doing this. The corporation is not referring work to specific body shops because of their level of accreditation. Maybe the minister could check with the officials to find out that that answer is absolutely correct, and then we have it on record, frankly. My information from the staff at ICBC is that that is going on.
[1040]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, I checked, and my answer is correct. There is no policy. We don't refer to anybody; it's the customer that gets to choose.
R. Coleman: I would invite the minister to actually check out the operation of this corporation. Is it true that the accredited body shops are paid $7 more per hour for their journeymen than other body shops?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a differential rate. I'll get you the exact amount. There is a higher rate for accredited body shops, and I'll get you the exact dollar amount.
R. Coleman: As we discussed, smaller body shops oftentimes contract out their painting or some other piecework to accredited people, as far as painters or what have you are concerned. But ICBC has recently demanded that some body shops, which do have people that are part-time painters because of the amount of work, actually bring these people on full-time rather than part-time. It's a requirement of the accreditation process that they have a full-time certified painter relative to their operation. I think that's patently unfair to a smaller operation. I'm wondering if that is just a glitch within the bureaucratic side of maybe one area or region of the province or whether this is an overall policy that all painters or all people within the body shop have to be full-time.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can't actually respond to the specifics of that, but let me just tell you what the process is and how changes to the accreditation process program come about. It is voluntary. The Automotive Retailers Association covers the vast, vast majority of autobody shops or support suppliers in the province. It's a joint program where the autobody shops wanted to approach the corporation to level the playing field to a level of fairness. It's a constant discussion that occurs between the Automotive Retailers Association and the Insurance Corporation, and change is constant.
If the members make suggestions to the corporation that make sense, then the corporation adds those -- makes the change to the accreditation process. I would say that autobody shops that are in the accreditation program and have difficulty with that -- difficulty with changes that are made -- certainly have avenues of discussion through their own professional association, and then that association can bring those points directly to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. This is a program that is supposed to work and does work in the interests of the person delivering the service and the corporation. But most importantly, the person who benefits the most is the policyholder.
R. Coleman: I'm just wondering, with regards to the accreditation program and the people in the field, what level of authority they actually have relative to what they can demand from a body shop on accreditation. I'll give you an example of a body shop which has a common property line with another property. Two companies own separate properties. One of them is the autobody shop; one is somebody that actually does some salvage. The ICBC accreditation people come along and say, "Clean up the lot next door," which does not belong to the individual body shop and does not belong to the customer. What level of authority do they have relative to the accreditation program as far as demanding what happens within a general neighbourhood around an autobody shop?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just tell you what the program does offer, and then I'd be happy to deal with the specific cases. Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, if the member actually has a specific case that he thinks needs to be looked into from a point of view of how the program is being applied, I'd certainly be happy to take that up.
[1045]
The program is put together so that the shops receive the benefit of identification to customers, as they get to identify themselves as preferred ICBC suppliers. There's an affiliation that they get with ICBC's reputation for safety and reliability, service and product quality. They also get training. They get access to ICBC training and technical seminars with discount.
What the customer, the policyholder, gets is better overall service. They get a written lifetime guarantee on the repairs. There is a structured process to resolve disagreements between ICBC and a supplier that is transparent to the customer. Those are just some of the aspects. There are also safe quality repairs to the customer vehicles, because the shops have the up-to-date equipment needed to properly repair vehicles, and they've committed to ensuring that their staff has ongoing training.
Recently the Ontario government sent a delegation to B.C. to see whether they could replicate this process in Ontario, so that's good. We now have a quality customer service that others are looking at, and I think that's good news. But I would also say that if there are individual problems, I'd be happy to look into those.
R. Coleman: Can the minister tell me what other insurance corporations, both private and public, are presently actually offering training programs in the automotive repair business versus the technical schools that are doing the apprenticeship and training of the trades? Are there other corporations -- and who are they -- out there doing this same thing? What standards are they practising relative to this training? ICBC is obviously into some training courses; they're training people within autobody shops. We do have BCIT and
[ Page 16785 ]
Kwantlen and different technical schools in the province that are also obviously doing trades training and apprenticeships so people can get their trades. I'm wondering what other organizations are doing the same thing.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It would probably be easier to get a list of insurance companies that don't do this kind of thing. It's pretty much universal in the industry. There are several reasons for that. Some private insurance companies operate their own body shops directly. The logic behind this kind of program rests with
We certainly can get you the list, but I think it would be safe to assume that it's the rare corporation that doesn't do this.
R. Coleman: I would like that list, because I'd like to compare it to the research that I have relative to this. I haven't found, actually, that many that are. So I'd like to compare your list with my list to see if maybe somebody has not fed me the correct information relative to this.
I guess my biggest concern with this is that it's very difficult today in any business climate for a small business to survive. You have to add people to do certain jobs. I was actually through one body shop that is accredited. The thing I found rather ironic about it
Hon. J. MacPhail: All of that's taken into account, and there is an appeal process. There's a dispute resolution process, a cooperative process, in place where all of these issues can be brought to attention through the dispute resolution process. I would urge the member to urge his constituents to do that.
[1050]
R. Coleman: I have not had, through my office, what I would call good experiences on a number of files with ICBC. Some of the field people out there, with their attitudes, leave me some concern. I don't know whether the appeal process will work for these people. I hope it will. The person that I looked at the duplication of signage with wasn't going to appeal anything but simply brought it to my attention. They're afraid to bring it to anybody's attention, because they don't want to stir the pot and lose any business from ICBC. So even though that duplication exists out there, they're afraid to bring it forward simply because they've seen some of their friends within the business, body shops within the business, see that when they do question the system, they have difficulty getting business. Of course, as you say, the competition is fierce. So there's a difficulty there.
I'd like to move on, hon. Chair, to a couple of other questions. The first one is: can the minister tell me what criteria are applied and how much money ICBC is spending on corridor patrol?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're confused. Can you clarify the question? Border patrol?
R. Coleman: I didn't say border patrol; I said corridor patrol.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Corridor. I see.
R. Coleman: My understanding is that the Insurance Corporation
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that's fine. We've got it.
Speed enforcement is $6.2 million; impaired driving, $9.3 million; photo radar, $17.6 million; intersection safety cameras, $7.5 million. They're in that same category as road improvements, but that's not patrol. Do you want to know that? I'll tell you that: $8.2 million.
R. Coleman: So we have six-point-some million dollars being spent on
My first question is: what are the criteria to establish where that corridor patrol takes place? And how is that money paid to the individual member? Is it paid through the RCMP directly, and they pay it as an overtime cost through their books? Or is it paid directly to the member? First, what are the criteria? Secondly, how are you paying?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The money is given to the Attorney General ministry and distributed via the Attorney General ministry, and the police decide where they are going to patrol. The Insurance Corporation gives the police the crash statistics; then they make a case and decide where to establish the patrol.
R. Coleman: The responsibility for policing in the province falls to the Attorney General's office. You have the RCMP, and you have the municipal forces. And ICBC is now paying money to the Attorney General's department to pay for corridor patrol over and above the normal policing function of a regular member of a police force. They are paid overtime to do this.
I wonder about this sort of interrelationship with an insurance corporation paying police forces to do speed enforcement, and there are two questions that come from that. One is: where does the revenue from that speed enforcement go? And that revenue at the same time -- are these members given a quota or the level of performance they have to reach before they do their corridor patrol, and they are eligible for the time they will be paid for?
In addition to that, with that side of it being sort of settled
[ Page 16786 ]
General's department funded by an insurance corporation to pay policemen overtime to write tickets in the province of British Columbia. Somebody's getting the revenue off those tickets, number one; and number two is that the member's getting paid the overtime. That interrelationship leaves me some concern.
So first of all, what is the revenue? Where does it go? And secondly, is there any other insurance corporation anywhere that pays Attorney General's departments to pay policemen to go out on overtime to write tickets?
[1055]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually think that those issues that you raised are very good issues. What you are heading toward is, I think: is this the most effective way of conducting a road safety campaign, and who benefits from the road safety campaign? Is it general revenue, or is it the claims holder or whatever? I think those are all excellent questions. Let me try to answer them for you and perhaps shape for you what the future plans may be.
One is that there is no question that the road safety programs -- the speed enforcement, corridor patrol, photo radar -- are saving lives. So that's the good news. And there is a reduction in claims costs as a result of these programs. So it's good news for drivers in terms of protection of life and limb, and it's good news for the policyholders in terms of a reduction in claims costs. Therefore the corporation is able to hold its premiums steady.
However, in my view, this program needs to be put on a permanent basis. The member is correct to ask: why run a program on the basis of overtime? Why run a program where perhaps there are savings to be had in terms of efficiencies by making it on a more permanent basis? So we are in discussions right now, as a government and with the Insurance Corporation and the Ministry of Attorney General, to contemplate putting these programs on a permanent basis that gives stable, sustainable funding to police. By the way, the police are very much in favour of these programs, but they too would like stable, consistent, ongoing funding that allows them to plan their workforce. I think that's a legitimate request, and we're working on that.
R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I can tell you why a policeman is in favour of it. I met one in the north who informed me how he bought his two skidoos and his camper, because he made extra money doing corridor patrol. That's how he augments his income and goes out and does it.
There were two questions before that, which didn't get answered by the minister. One was: are there other insurance companies paying Attorney General departments to pay policemen overtime to do speed enforcement elsewhere in Canada? The second was: when a member goes out to do corridor patrol, is there a quota attached to their performance as to how many tickets they need to write before they pack it in for the day?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation knows of no quota. So you might want to ask the police. But certainly there's no quota imposed by the Insurance Corporation of B.C. Actually, the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is pretty much the only insurance corporation doing anything about road safety. There may be some small relationship between private companies in Ontario and single-digit million dollars paying for road safety. But it's the general taxpayer. All of those costs come out of the general taxpayer, which is an interesting point, in that those that pay their premiums in Ontario then also pay taxes for the road safety program as well.
[1100]
R. Coleman: I suspect they pay that out of their income tax, though, and not out of a tax on premiums or whatever the case may be. The other question that I had about it is: where does the revenue go from those tickets? The minister didn't answer that question.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I thought I had; I said general revenue.
R. Coleman: Relative to those tickets that go into general revenue, if there is a disputed ticket that's written on corridor patrol, who pays the RCMP or the local police departments overtime to go to court?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That calculation is included in administrative costs, which are part of the program of money that the corporation gives to the Attorney General.
R. Coleman: Included in administrative costs -- it's actually the Insurance Corporation that's paying the overtime for court. That would be correct? I see the minister nodding.
And I see my critic wants me to move along. So I have some other questions relative to some, let's call them, rumours or discussions out there on three areas: towing, roadside assistance and salvage. The first question is relative to towing. The thinking is, with the centralization and some of the things that are happening with this new centre in Coquitlam -- there's word on the street, and I'd like to have it confirmed one way or the other -- that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is actually going to go into the towing business. I'd like to know whether that's in the plan or whether that's on the table, so that industry can be assured one way or the other.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know the corporation won't be going into the towing business.
R. Coleman: There are two more, so we'll do those quickly. Obviously if they're "No," then I think some people out there will rest assured. The second one is that there are packages that people can buy, through people like the British Columbia Automobile Association and what have you, that include roadside assistance in another package, etc. There is some thinking that this corporation is about to go into the roadside assistance package sales business as part of the Insurance Corporation's overall package. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: One of the products that the Insurance Corporation is being asked to deliver for its own customers, just its own customers, is emergency roadside assistance. The member may be aware that when one purchases a new vehicle, for instance, lots of the car manufacturers offer emergency roadside assistance or roadside assistance generally, as do other insurance companies as well. So the corporation is being asked by its customers to consider that, and we are considering that just for the clients of ICBC.
R. Coleman: I guess I could go make ten or 15 phone calls to my friends. But obviously, if the minister says that the
[ Page 16787 ]
customers of ICBC are asking for roadside assistance when that's already being provided by some other agencies in the province, I guess my question is: how do you measure the level of that request from your customers? Have you done a poll?
Let's face it, the customers of ICBC are basically every driver in British Columbia. So it's quite a monopoly to take on something like BCAA, who already does roadside assistance. You have a tremendous database advantage. You have a tremendous advantage as far as your network across the province is concerned, about affecting somebody else's business as a corporation. I'm curious as to how you've measured that your customers are saying they want this roadside assistance to be provided by the corporation.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, on this part on optional coverage, the playing field is completely open. There is no monopoly; it's a completely competitive industry. There is not, as the member would suggest, a monopoly in this area; in fact, it's exactly the opposite. The brokers who sell ICBC insurance and the private insurance tell the corporation, as they probably tell their private insurance companies as well: "The customers want this. You'd better start offering it as a product." So that's why the corporation is considering it. To remain competitive, one must listen very carefully to the customers. But it's contemplated by the corporation that the optional coverage would be offered on a restricted basis, if at all. That's what we're considering and the corporation is considering right now.
[1105]
R. Coleman: In all fairness to the minister, you know, to make the statement that it's an open field is tacitly wrong. There's no better opportunity to up sell than when somebody comes in to buy their insurance. You have the data; your people out there have the data. They have to come to them once a year, once every three months, once every six months to redo their insurance. So the up sell on the side of the corporation as a market advantage is absolutely staggering relative to other people that would be providing this service in the industry.
I want to move on from that, just quickly, to salvage. There is a concern out there that this corporation is about to go into the salvage business, which is the reconstruction of damaged vehicles and the salvaging of parts -- setting up their own salvage operation in competition to those who do salvage out there already. Would the minister or the corporation be able to comment on that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the short answer to the question is no. But we think we know where the rumour may have come from. There's a temporary facility on Main Street, a CEF facility, and there's a new replacement one being built in the valley in Coquitlam. So that's what it is.
R. Coleman: I have one quick series of questions, but I want to bring one thing to the minister's attention relative to learners' licences in the province, and that is the dropping of the six months to three months for those who get drivers' training that's ICBC-approved. The only reason I bring that to the minister's attention is that, frankly, I think that is tacitly prejudicial to those people whose children come from a single-family home or those people that don't have the income available to them to go spend $600 on a driver-training course for their children, whereas those that can afford it can jump the line by three months to get their licence quicker. That's just a concern that I would give to the minister, because I think basically that when we make some of these policies, we forget that there is a level of society that doesn't have a whole bunch of disposable income to go out and do these sorts of things. Therefore I think that's somewhat unfair.
I just have a question with regards to the corporation. From time to time the corporation has cases where there are dual court cases going on -- one could be of a civil nature and one being of a criminal nature. Is it a policy of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to send somebody to the courtroom in a criminal case to take notes of evidence of people in the criminal case?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're puzzled. I'll take the question on notice and get back to you.
R. Coleman: Maybe I could just help the minister's puzzlement. An adjuster goes from ICBC to a criminal court. The criminal court proceedings -- let's say it's a criminal hit-and-run or criminal negligence or what have you -- have an effect on a claim where there is a claim relative to an accident. I'm just wondering if it's a policy of the corporation to send somebody to take notes of the evidence given in trial by the people at that trial. That's the simple explanation for it. I'm sure your officials would be able to answer that question if I've given you a clearer explanation, maybe.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we understood. I understood, thank you. The answer is: we don't think so. We'll go back and check, just in case the member is correct.
R. Coleman: Maybe when the minister goes back to check, I would appreciate the following. Not only is evidence recorded in a criminal case in an adult court, is it also a policy of the corporation that they would do that in a juvenile court? When they do it in either court, what is the disposition of the notes that are taken by the staff member of ICBC subsequent to that? What policy directions are in place as far as governing the staff of ICBC and entering into that type of practice? I think those are the answers to the questions I would like relative to this particular issue.
[1110]
I will tell the minister that it does go on. I will tell the minister that in my opinion, people have a right to know what happens with that information, if the corporation is actually there performing that function. I would like the corporation to maybe just
D. Jarvis: Minister, I am in complete disagreement with ICBC's program with regards to the accreditation of glass shops and autobody shops. In your own words, it's a competitive business. ICBC has no right to get involved into the way things are operated in the private industry.
I'm going to give you a couple of examples here. You say that the industry has asked for it. That's not completely so. The majors of ARA are large corporations in the body shop business that have many shops all around. Some of them are even U.S.-owned originally. The smaller shops out there are
[ Page 16788 ]
trying to compete. You pay the ARA ones that are accredited more money than small body shops. The two body workers out there or the two painters or the two frame men -- whatever they may be -- may be of equal value. They may be, in fact, in a lot of cases better. They didn't want to work in a big shop and all the rest of it. But that's not the problem. ICBC is trying to micromanage the repair industry. No one really knows what reason it is for.
Some of the things that you're saying are just unbelievable. You go for accreditation; you may fill out your slip for accreditation. You submit it, and these body shops sit and wait and wait and wait, months sometimes, to get accredited. They've complied with everything they wanted. They keep coming back and saying: "We want this done. We want that done." They are afraid to come out
I'll say this too. The final decision in accreditation, in most cases, is made by the body shop managers. If that body shop gets that manager upset, his accreditation possibilities are pretty well zilch.
I've got a letter here from ICBC in regard to a fax transmittal earlier this year to one body shop that's not afraid to mention its name. I've been into their body shops, and that's Penney Auto Body Ltd. They cannot get accreditation. At least they may have it right at this instant, but until a short while ago they didn't. These are the reasons that they wouldn't give them accreditation: "Facility frontage is dirty, and garbage is present around the customer areas. The garbage container is overflowing, and garbage is around the entrance to the repair facility."
Well, obviously none of you have ever been in the insurance industry prior to your association with it now. But I have, and I have been into these shops time after time over many, many years and even lately. It's impossible to keep a body shop, an auto repair shop, neat and clean without hiring staff in there all the time to do the cleanup and all the rest of it. When your inspector came around, how was he to know that the garbage had not just been put out there, ready for pickup -- the container? The next thing says: "Scrap parts line the repair shop front entrance." Well, where else are you going to put them? Do you have to have a special room for them? Scrap parts are removed every night usually and taken to the scrap yards or whatever it may be.
Another one here that really
[1115]
The other one is: "The repair shop requires reorganizing and cleaning. Excess scrap metal, used parts and patching material is present around the vehicles." Well, when parts come in, they're wrapped up in other materials. Where are you going to put them? At the time the inspector came in, how did he know that they didn't just arrive?
Another one is: "Test patterns have been sprayed on the shop walls and will require repainting." Where have you seen a paint shop that doesn't have test paint in the shop and on the walls of the paint room?
An Hon. Member: Why is it anybody's business?
D. Jarvis: Yeah, and why is it your business? It's not your business. The market will tell whether that's a good body shop or not.
Another one here is: "Frame reference materials are not on site for the current model year." Not on site -- they weren't pinned up on the wall so that your inspector could come in and ascertain whether the frame requirements for a '99 Chrysler were on the wall. If you had any idea of what a body shop goes through or a frame-machine operator goes through
You say that a benefit to consumers is the fact that it's guaranteed work. I'll tell you what. You're going to have a claim in the next couple of days, or you've already got it. It's a claim that was taken to one of your approved, accredited shops. While that customer was driving away from that shop -- it happens to be a personal friend of mine -- the car burst into flames. Where's the guarantee there?
It doesn't matter who is doing the work. There are errors made by the best mechanics and the poorest mechanics. It's no business of ICBC to get involved in that. This is a free market society we're in. You yourselves are now even investigating the aspect, especially the CEO
Having said that, I don't know if you want to make a comment on that. I want to go on to one other aspect where ICBC is also becoming judge, jury and executioner.
The Chair: Member, the minister did want to comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, let me just respond. I gather that we're moving on to another topic here, so I'd be happy to respond to the member's point of view -- and I heard other Liberal opposition members saying this -- that ICBC has no business in the accreditation program.
One of the reasons why ICBC got into an accreditation program was because they didn't want to go the route that private insurance companies go elsewhere in North America, which is to pick and choose autobody shops and then, on top of that, insist on a quality and level of service. ICBC didn't want to interfere in the market. But they did want to ensure that their policyholders had access to quality service through the accreditation program -- so did the Automotive Retailers Association agree to this.
But let me offer this, and it's offered very openly. If the Liberal opposition does not support the accreditation program, I would be happy to arrange for a meeting with the Liberal caucus, the Automotive Retailers Association and ICBC to get your input into the issues that face policyholders. I'd be happy to do that and would do that as quickly as possible.
D. Jarvis: That would be all very well, but I think the biggest problem is not with the accredited shops or the ARA. It's with the independent repair shops, whether they be glass or auto repair. They are not included. They feel -- maybe they're justified; I don't know -- that the ARA, which are the large major repair shops, is controlling the whole system and
[ Page 16789 ]
that they want to exclude these small shops where you have a one-man, two-man
It's up to the customer to decide where they want to go, and if they don't do a good job, they won't stay in business. It's just like politics, you know. You get a political party. If they don't do a good job, they're not going to stay in office.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Exactly. And you know what I'm referring to now.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Do you want to respond to that?
[1120]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We actually would. I think the corporation is taking a little more responsible approach to "consumer beware" -- that is, trying to prevent incidents that the policyholders may have to subject themselves to through a lesson learned by bad service. But I think it would be more than happy
D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for the offer, and I will look into it.
One other subject I want to bring up is something that I probably get more calls on than any other aspect with regard to ICBC, and that is the crash responsibility charge. Before we get into the philosophy of it, I understand that the minister has said that she's not in favour of it. But I would like to know, first of all, how much revenue has been generated since it was introduced and how much in 1999. Does this money go into the general revenue of the company or
I want to say that it's amazing. This is a program that's been around for several years now. Not one person that I've run into has ever said that they've heard of it before, and yet ICBC says that it did a lot of advertising. So I looked into it a bit. A year and a half ago or two years ago ICBC sent out this little sheet here, in small print, with every notice to a policyholder. They said: "Important coverage charge." Well, I'll tell you, people just don't read; they don't know about it. They just feel that this is an irresponsible, additional, hypocritical charge re bad drivers -- that you're hiding behind the fact that you're now charging bad drivers for their losses. Actually, it is a hidden deductible on your PLPD. You really don't have the guts -- well, I was going to say guts, but that's not true -- to get out and admit that you're trying to change your coverage in a roundabout way. But it's strictly a cash cow as far as I'm concerned.
I want to read a little letter here from a lady by the name of Susan Small in North Vancouver: "After 24 years of accident-free driving, I was recently in a minor parking lot fender-bender." Then she was charged $250 for the crash responsibility charge. In the ICBC literature, the crash responsibility is there to crack down on dangerous driving. That's what your literature says. And she says: "I do not feel thatafter 24 years of driving I am a dangerous driver, that I should be considered or categorized as a dangerous driver." And I have to agree with that. After 24 years of safe driving -- RoadStar -- she bumps into a car in a parking lot, causes some
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, let me begin by saying that I too am aware of the great level of anxiety and angst there is about the crash responsibility charge, and I would agree with the member that it has a level of unpopularity that perhaps we haven't experienced before. It attracts a level of unpopularity. So we do agree that something needs to be done.
[1125]
The original intent of the crash responsibility charge advocated by a huge range of road safety advocates was as a safety measure, a road safety measure -- that those who are in accidents should contribute to the cost of those accidents. That was the original intent. It was a program put forward by the road safety advocates, and the corporation said okay, because it was so widely advocated.
The member asked about the amount of money that's been collected on the crash responsibility charge. Well, since it was implemented in 1998, a net total of $24 million has been billed, and as of December of last year, $18.6 million of that had actually been collected.
However, you may have read
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Right, yes. Okay. Sorry, I had trouble hearing.
The president of the corporation and I agree that this crash responsibility charge needs to be reviewed. I would probably go as far as to say that I'll be advocating change -- not just review to keep the status quo, but review it to be changed. I'll be bringing forward to government a request to change that in the very, very near future to make it what it was originally intended for, which is to reward safe drivers. The biggest nature of the complaint is that safe drivers with one little slip get treated the same as a chronically bad driver, and that brings out the anxiety around the unfairness of its applications.
I might also say, on behalf of the staff of ICBC, that the adjusters have the same concerns that the member and I do.
D. Jarvis: Well, then we can only assume that it was the CEO's idea. He's responsible for it, I guess. He might as well take the blame.
I'm glad to hear the minister saying that she's going to take a direct involvement in this situation. I agree to some
[ Page 16790 ]
degree that the bad drivers should pay for their bad driving. But in a lot of cases there are people who have a minor little accident, and they're charged the CRC. If that's the case, then why doesn't the company just put out a deductible on their PLPD at different levels and let the people pay for it on that premise? That's essentially what it is; it is a deductible on that end of it. So I am pleased that the minister is going to do something on it, and I thank her for it.
The next subject I had was with regards to ICBC polling. Could she tell me how much was spent on public opinion polling in 1999?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- you said IBC, but I think you mean ICBC, don't you?
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. There's the Insurance Bureau of Canada polling as well, which we don't contribute to, actually.
D. Jarvis: It's ICBC. That's who
[1130]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Most of the opinion research is around marketing and road safety. The breakdown here is $1.3 million in research, mainly marketing research and road safety programs.
D. Jarvis: In that $1.3 million of polling, I sort of got the feeling that that alluded to the road safety for like
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, this is a corporation that does $2.6 billion in business a year. It's a customer-based business. Any corporation of that size spends money on making sure that it's meeting the needs of its customers. That's what this is about. Also, it is important that the customer be approached to see what their views are on programs like CounterAttack, which the corporation sponsors, that directly contribute to a reduction in claims -- whether the customer sees and supports the link.
D. Jarvis: Did ICBC do a poll on photo radar? If you could give me the results on that
Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation, in its regular tracking of customer satisfaction and knowledge about products, tests on photo radar. It's not a separate poll by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, is the consumer aware of photo radar? Have they had interaction with photo radar? What do they think of it? Do they think it works, etc.? It's the same way as other safety programs. It's part of regular tracking. It's my understanding that polling can be available under the FOIPP law, which doesn't interfere with the competitive nature of a commercial corporation. Otherwise, it's available.
D. Jarvis: Excluding the polling, can the minister tell us how much ICBC spent on total advertising in 1999?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It was $11,866,838.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister please tell us how much the budget is to be spent on advertising in the year 2000?
Hon. J. MacPhail: About the same.
D. Jarvis: When the minister says about the same, is that more than last year or less than last year? Do they not have a figure in their budget with regards to advertising? I would assume that a large corporation like that, which does so much advertising, would have a budget for it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm told it's about the same, so if you want the exact line amount, we'll get that. It doesn't mean more or less; it means about the same.
D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for that, and I'll look forward to seeing that in the next few days.
One other thing, minister. I have a couple of small items here, as the time goes before
[1135]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are criminal record checks done now. The corporation is also setting up internal processes to examine and deal with the issue of internal fraud as well.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chair, again through you to the minister, I wanted to ask her some questions about the agents' software program. One little item here, back in early January in the Kamloops Daily News story: on a visual statement, a Kamloops company claimed ICBC stole their software program. I was wondering if the minister could tell me about this and what has progressed at this point.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This case is before the courts, so it's not appropriate for me to comment on it.
D. Jarvis: I was just wondering. Down in Oregon there is a program called 55 Alive, a maturing driving program. That certainly includes me. It's helping older drivers improve skills, avoid accidents and traffic violations. Has the corporation given any consideration to that problem that may be occurring? What are they doing on that aspect?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Under the Motor Vehicle Act there are requirements for testing based on progression in age, and of course there's full compliance with that. But as the population is aging, it could be that this could become more of an issue. It's not really an issue now in terms of
D. Jarvis: In Oregon they have successfully had a program going there in which anyone 55 or older is eligible to receive a multi-year discount on their auto premiums. They've
[ Page 16791 ]
had over six million people complete this course, and evidently it has reduced accidents considerably. So it might be something that you may want to consider, but not on a compulsory, maybe a voluntary, you know
[1140]
Now, a question that I want to ask -- another one, Mr. Chair -- is: when you have an underage party who's been injured in an accident and the moneys that are payable to them go to a public trustee, do you report all of the settlements to the public trustee? Or is there a dollar limit that you stick to -- anything above or below? Or is the whole amount reported to the public trustee?
Hon. J. MacPhail: To the best of my knowledge, it's all reported. But I'll double-check, because sometimes settlements are kept open while the child
D. Jarvis: If the minister would. I've had it said to me that under a certain limit it's not given to the trustee. Therefore it could result in problems down the line when that child reaches maturity.
On another subject -- one of the minister's favourites, photo radar -- I guess we've committed ourselves that we are going to get rid of photo radar. But there's a real problem out there with regards to photo radar, as you know. The CEO had me in his office with an RCMP officer explaining the original concept of photo radar, and everything they said to me turned out not to be true. So we can only assume that the purpose of photo radar is more towards a cash cow than anything else.
The fact is that the cost of photo radar, the capital costs, were paid by the drivers through their insurance premiums, but all the revenue coming in has gone to the government, into their general revenue. So the people out there who are subject to photo radar are the ones that have paid the whole bill, and the government has received the benefits of all the revenue. And that has basically gone into such things as fast ferries and all the rest of it. I knew I'd get that in eventually.
An Hon. Member: Reduced accidents. Reduced premiums.
D. Jarvis: No. I hear a previous minister, who handled ICBC at one time, state that it went into reducing premiums. Well, she has not been paying attention, because the only aspect of reduced premiums is from the reserves. It's not from the reserves of photo radar. They have taken it out of the claims reserves.
I was wondering if the minister
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chair, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to ask the minister a question -- if they could tell us about the photo radar costs. Could they tell us the total amount collected so far from photo radar? I assume it's gone into general revenue.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to take a little bit
Photo radar. The revenue collected in 1999 was $20 million. The ICBC costs were about $17.656 million -- oh, savings, in savings -- and in claims savings, $30 million. So ICBC invested $17.6 million to save $30 million. Sounds like a good deal to me.
[1145]
D. Jarvis: It sounds like it, but it doesn't necessarily hold true that that is the sole reason for the photo radar savings claims.
I had an unfortunate incident a couple of weekends ago, when I was taking my grandson fishing up around the Squamish Highway. I was doing just slightly over the speed limit, and I got a ticket. It was in an area where all the rest of the traffic was going and the photo radar was having just one hell of a day. It was just clicking away like nobody's business.
I have never been involved in an accident. Now, how does the fact that I got a photo radar ticket stop me from having an accident? That's a philosophy that's so wild that it's impossible to even imagine.
When you say that $30 million in savings for ICBC can be directly attributed to photo radar, that's pie-in-the-sky stuff. You know that it is. The whole economy is so bad, in fact, that there are fewer cars on the road. They're driving slower. The economy of B.C., which you have destroyed through your socialist leanings and philosophy, has completely destroyed this province. You've gone ahead and you've spent millions and billions of dollars, such as on the fast ferries, continually without consideration as to where this money should have been actually directed.
In any event, after I've answered that rant, I'd like to ask the minister if she could tell me the total revenue to date of photo radar and how much has not been collected.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think this is a very interesting area, and I would just like to note a couple of facts for the Liberal opposition. The spurious claim that the economy is affecting ICBC and that there are fewer cars on the road
It really isn't helpful at all. I know that the Liberal opposition has an ideological hatred for this public corporation that delivers a good service. But it would be better to just have us deal with the facts.
Secondly, I would note that the Liberal opposition supported moving to a safety program as opposed to a no-fault system. We had a very rigorous, open and transparent public debate around that in 1996 and into 1997. The Liberal opposition abhorred no-fault insurance and supported vigorously safety programs. So it is a little bit ironic today that you would have the opposition critic stand up and make a bold-faced statement saying that there's no link -- no link whatsoever -- between him getting a photo radar ticket and the ever-increasing safety record in British Columbia.
[ Page 16792 ]
[1150]
The actual amount collected for photo radar since 1996 has been $64.626 million cumulative. That's the number collected. I'll have to find for you the amount billed.
D. Symons: Just carrying on in this business of the money collected, I gather that when a fine is assessed, it goes into general revenue in the province. In most businesses, when the business operates and they have income and expenses, the expenses come out of the income before the money is distributed to shareholders or whatever.
So in this case, I can't understand -- even though you say there are some savings to ICBC in the fact that we have a lesser number of claims, because we're slowing traffic down through using photo radar -- why would it not be appropriate that the costs of operating that photo radar program be deducted from the revenues from the photo radar program before the rest of the money goes to the province in general. It's not quite fair that the policyholders pay for the policing and the operating of that program. The operating costs should come out of the revenue from the program, and then you'll have even greater savings for ICBC.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The real objective of photo radar is to have zero revenue -- so let's be clear on that -- and reduce claims. The perfect world is: people obey the law, and there is zero revenue from photo radar. Obeying the law means reduced claims. That's the perfect world. I look forward to that day.
However, what the hon. member is suggesting is somehow
The Chair: Member continues, noting the time.
D. Symons: Either the minister is intentionally avoiding the question I asked or missed the question. The fact is that you are operating a photo radar program, and the total revenues from that appear to flow into general revenue of the province, not to the costs of the program that you're operating through ICBC. What I'm suggesting is that there have been savings. I'll agree with you on that -- that because of the photo radar program, we're reducing accidents and therefore reducing claims.
But the costs of operating that photo radar program should come out of the revenues derived from the photo radar program. They shouldn't all flow -- costs included -- to the province. You're making your bottom line, the province, look better, but you're doing it at the cost of the premium holders of ICBC, the general public who are insured by ICBC. That program brings down the costs of your claims; that's true. But the cost of that program to bring them down should also come out of the revenues received from the photo radar program. That way, you'll be able to pass those savings -- those extra savings, beyond what you are now -- on to the policyholders as well.
You're giving the policyholders half a glass of water in this case, rather than a full glass. The costs of operating that program don't come out of the revenues. They go to the province of British Columbia, not to the policyholders of ICBC.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What the member is suggesting is a user-pay program. If that's what the Liberals would like to consider, I'd be happy to discuss that with them -- if that's the Liberal policy. It's an interesting concept. Certainly there would be implications of that; probably fines would have to substantially increase. But if that's the case, and if that means that the Liberal opposition would support photo radar, let's have the discussion.
Noting the hour
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry.
[1155]
The Chair: Member continues.
D. Symons: I'll just leave it at that. And maybe I'll say: noting the hour, I move the House do now adjourn. Sorry, the committee. What's the wording?
Interjections.
D. Symons: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:13 a.m.
[ Page 16793 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES
(continued)
On vote 22: ministry operations, $1,500,955,000 (continued).
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I might at this time introduce the folks who are with me: the deputy minister, Mike Corbeil; financial wizard Les Foster; Vaughan Dowie, who is the regional director; Janice Aull, who copes with all the corporate work that has to happen; and Laurie Duncan, who is specialized in all sorts of good things. Those are our staff that I have with me today.
The Chair: I forgot to say good morning to the committee. With that I recognize the hon. member for Richmond East on this glorious day. Happy birthday, member.
L. Reid: Thank you.
It is a gift to be able to talk about children and families today. I began my remarks yesterday intending to give the committee a sense of where we would be headed as an opposition in terms of the issues we wish to canvass. I want to spend maybe another ten minutes or so just putting a few remarks on the record. I thank you all for joining us today. I look forward to working with you as we proceed through this debate.
One of the comments I made yesterday evening was regarding my belief that it's the kids' turn for funding in this province, not that they continue to fall behind all the other megaprojects of government but that we somehow craft a sentiment -- a philosophy, if you will -- that says kids are the priority. I spoke specifically of the zero-to-six initiative.
I trust that this government will come to grips with putting in place programs that treat fairly and equitably all children today who are waiting for services, whether it be speech language service, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, behavioral interventions -- that we agree as a province that those early years are the most critical times of brain development, neurodevelopment, for children and that we collectively come together. Hopefully this minister will take the bit and run with it when it comes to an all-party committee that will look at some of these issues, because I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the estimates debate.
It's not the debate in isolation that can make some changes here that need to happen. It has to be an issue that's advanced for more than two or three or four days. It has to be an issue that we need to carry forward over the next number of months, so then indeed these little guys can receive some service.
[1015]
I have tremendous admiration for the individuals who work on the front line, both for the Ministry for Children and Families as contracted service providers and for the individuals who, day to day, stay in touch with those families and those kids and provide them with some kind of continuity.
I absolutely support the individuals who try and marry what happens with government and the front line so that it makes sense for kids. There's lots of information today that doesn't make any sense to a whole bunch of folks, particularly the children. They have all kinds of questions. And if we can agree that children will be brought into the process, that their views will be considered, that their views will matter, that indeed they have some input that is critical, salient to the exercise
My experience in this area goes back to including special needs teens when I was working as a school administrator in the Richmond school district, where you actually had the child present at the meeting. Everybody who worked with that child was present. The little person was present, whether or not it was a child or youth, and that person's family was present. They all had something to contribute. I would like to see this government move in that direction when it comes to seeking the input, the guidance, the thoughts of young people in terms of the programs that are offered to them -- about how, indeed, those programs affect them. They know best what will work for them in many, many respects. We simply haven't taken the opportunity, and in my view, we haven't exercised the obligation to ask them to participate, to include their participation in the discussion.
The outside agencies that currently work with government, whether it be the Children's Commission or the child, youth and family advocate
I think the building blocks are there. I think the advocate's office, in terms of being the voice for children in this province, does some amazing work. I think the Children's Commission office does some amazing work. I think there are aspects in the Ministry for Children and Families that do amazing work. I think the front-line service providers have some excellent, excellent resources that they can bring to bear in these discussions. The ability to weave all that together, frankly, rests with this minister and this government. It has to be a priority, or we will continue to have fragmented service, where communication continues to allow for terrible decisions as a result of miscommunication, from misinformation.
The challenge is enormous, and I would never diminish the challenge in terms of this ministry taking the lead on technology, taking the lead on communication, taking the lead on case management, on integrated approaches, to ensure that young people are part of the decisions that affect their lives. Those three or four objectives alone are an enormous amount of work for this ministry. But for me those are the most salient issues, the most important issues in terms of how those dollars are spent.
We will go into a very detailed analysis of the budget. But it's the overarching principle of what this ministry intends to accomplish that I hope is the thrust of this debate, because the theoretical underpinnings are critical. We can continue to have isolated discussions about it -- $9 million here, $2 million here, $1 million there. But unless it weaves a reasonable fabric that allows children to feel that they are part of the process, we will have accomplished very little, and we'll continue to have children who feel disconnected from the process. So that, in
[ Page 16794 ]
terms of an overview, is where I'm headed in the discussion today. I certainly made the point yesterday in terms of our commitment as a caucus to the early intervention piece.
Another piece that we feel very strongly about is young parents. How do we as a society support very young women and very young men today, 13, 14 and 15 years of age, who find themselves as parents? Again, there are some isolated pockets of excellence around this province. But have we woven a fabric that allows a support system to be in place for not just the young parents but these brand-new babies that come into the world? I don't believe we have. I believe it should be a priority, because those very young moms and very young dads will have more than one child, more than likely. We will not have crafted the best building block for those little guys who will come after. So indeed a focus on young parents is something that I would like to see this government spend some time on as we move forward.
One of the most interesting comments I heard recently -- and it was almost a cry for help -- was a comment made by a social worker. It was: "Serving the kids of the kids I served 20 years ago
And what we've always been crippled by in this province is the five-year or four-year plan. The bottom line is that kids born today are going to live a whole lot longer than the term of the next government and the term of the government after that. There has to be a long-term commitment to what their lives should and would look like, indeed, if we can put in place some decent building blocks today.
[1020]
The UN convention on the rights of the child -- we all believe those things, and we've all talked about those things. Again, the comment of the service providers I met with last week
I, for one, firmly believe in the notion that it takes a village to educate a child. I support that contention. I was delighted when the ministry moved to support the SOS Children's Village. It's a really good option, because it's part of building a continuum. In my view, what we haven't had is a strong continuum. We've had pockets of excellence.
It's time to build the pathway that makes sense for folks. Not every service is going to match the needs of every single child. Frankly, we hope that it's the case. We hope that there is enough individuality out there that not everyone will be pigeonholed, if you will, boxed into little tiny programs that may or may not meet their needs, but that there's a range of choice along the continuum. I hope that's the goal for this government. It's certainly the goal for the opposition in terms of understanding, acknowledging and recognizing that kids deserve reasonable choices.
I think we're well beyond the discussion of adequacy versus inadequacy. "Is it a good program? Would it be good enough for my child?" should be the measure, should be the benchmark, if we're going to put in programs that make sense for kids, where they can actually believe in some tomorrows, have some hope for what they would wish for their lives.
Today we have a disconnected group of kids, probably 10,000 -- it's probably a low estimate, certainly, for the number of kids in care -- a whole raft of young people today who are making what we would consider to be terrible choices, some very unsavoury choices. A lot of them will suggest that it's out of sheer hopelessness. They don't know what the future holds for them.
Again, my drive will be some reasonable sense of building blocks, what the government's doing across the system, building the continuum across the province of British Columbia.
I thank you, hon. minister, for your attention. I will turn it over to my hon. colleague.
A. Sanders: I thank my colleague from Richmond East for giving me her time this morning. A couple of issues I'd like to discuss with the minister
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Yes and no.
A. Sanders: Could the minister elaborate?
The Chair: Member, I think the Chair has to catch up with the debate here.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I hear sometimes -- advice gets given -- that short and sweet is a very good thing. So I tried that out once, and I probably won't do it again. I wouldn't want anybody to get alarmed.
Eating disorders is clearly an issue that I know has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions -- brought forward by the hon. member and others. I know that the House and the work that it's done in the ministry is the better for it, for those discussions. Members come from a real knowledge base, and I think this is really important to all of us. There are services to youth with eating disorders in the ministry as part of mental health and children's mental health. In the year coming up, 2000-01, the budget will contain $39.1 million for the whole range
Interjection.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: It suggests eating disorders -- child and youth mental health budget, included in the larger mental health budget.
Okay, $39.1 million is there. The services are primarily funded, though, and offered by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors and local health authorities.
The Ministry for Children and Families funds community-based teams to provide services in 21 locations throughout the province, including Kelowna, Penticton and Vernon -- in the member's general area. Community teams provide services in conjunction with physicians, hospitals,
[ Page 16795 ]
contracted agencies and adult mental health centres and through other MCF programs. St. Paul's and British Columbia's Children's Hospital provide coordinated provincial outreach support and consultation, in-patient care and day treatment and residential programs for adult and youth patients with chronic and complicated illnesses.
This is, I guess, the bigger picture. Older youth and adults have access through other programs that are available. I'm sure the member has other, more specific questions.
[1025]
A. Sanders: The question was used to illustrate sometimes what can appear to be cross purposes in mandate for any ministry. In a ministry such as the Ministry for Children and Families I understand the original intent was to bring everything that deals with children and families under the ministerial umbrella of that particular ministry. However, there are areas that, when we look at one size fitting all and not fitting all, do not fit well under the auspices of the Ministry for Children and Families. Joyce Preston has clearly pointed out that adolescent mental health is one of those issues.
Other issues in the past that have been pointed out are those issues that have to do with apprehension of youth and then probation of youth. How can those two completely diametrically opposite functioning bodies be under the control of one organization? Again, my appeal to the minister this year -- as I have in the past -- is to look at some of those areas that used to be under Health that do not fit with the mandate particularly of child advocacy and apprehension and some of the other more aggressive modes of looking after kids. These are issues that have best to do with Health and are a continuum.
I'd like to illustrate with an example. When children have eating disorder problems and they go to Children's Hospital, they are under the Ministry for Children and Families. When they then become 18 and are still occupied with an eating disorder, they now are under the Ministry of Health. There is lack of continuity in those two areas that can cause some incredible personal problems for individuals who celebrate a birthday, basically.
What kind of flexibility does the minister have to look at issues that would best be controlled, based not on my opinion but on the opinion of Joyce Preston and many of the other experts? What kind of flexibility does she have to move services out of the Ministry for Children and Families back into areas such as the Ministry of Health, where they might be better suited in terms of delivery of service?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Indeed the ministry does have flexibility and exercises that flexibility in a number of different areas, particularly the ability to contract with the local regional health authorities to provide some of the services in a number of areas. That's how the services are delivered. So we contract with those agencies, with the local health authority, to deliver the service.
A. Sanders: I think the message the minister needs to recognize is that a lot of these aren't working. I would urge her to look at these services, perhaps with an assertive point of view, to recognize that there are services that are being delivered under her ministry that would best be delivered under the Ministry of Health. The lens through which the Ministry for Children and Families looks at issues is not the same lens that the Ministry of Health looks through. And sometimes, because of that, the vision through that lens will be blurred with respect to what is right, what is wrong, what should be expedited, what should not.
I'll give an example of how these two ministries come together, because, to me, it's the most shocking example of the interface of the two ministries that I've dealt with.
[1030]
I had a woman come to the MLA office. Her husband works. They are not below the poverty line, but they are what we call the working poor. She is my age and has one child. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She had advanced cervical cancer and could not have surgery and required radiation. She required radium implants, which are put into the vaginal vault. She was better for a year and then had a recurrence, a much more aggressive tumour, which required surgery.
She had removal of part of her intestine, part of her bladder, her uterus and ovaries. A year later, she developed a very rare complication of radium implants, and that was a tumour in the bone of her hip, for which she required a hemipelvectomy, meaning that half her pelvis and her leg were removed. She's a 44-year-old woman with a 13-year-old daughter who had to go to the Ministry for Children and Families on several occasions to get a wheelchair. She was denied the first time, and she said: "I can pay for my pills. We are not looking for handouts. But I can't walk. I have to crawl around when I'm making meals and doing things that I'd like to do for my family."
I do not fault specifically the workers on the case. I think that they were looking at this case through the mandate of the Ministry for Children and Families and the kinds of criteria that their decisions are based on, which are different from the criteria that are used to decide whether someone is physically disabled and necessitating the services from the community or from the government to overcome that physical disability. But I feel that it was very unfortunate that that woman had to come to the MLA office to have her problems solved.
I do not use that example to demean the minister. I use an example of how looking at something from a different perspective, the five blind men looking at the elephant and describing it in a very different way
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the member for her story and for her example. I know that that does happen from time to time in my constituency and my office as well. It's of course to be regretted that the service isn't instantaneous. We all work to achieve those kinds of goals so that the services that people need are there. The flexibility that the ministry has, as I described earlier, allows some contracting services to the local health authorities. Ongoing talks happen on a regular basis between the ministries on some of these.
But I think we need to keep in mind, also, that the whole setup of Children and Families came about as a result of Gove and the transition teams that were put in place to determine how that service
[ Page 16796 ]
children -- and that included, to some extent, their families -- should be in one ministry. By and large that's what has happened. Yes, it has created some unsettlement for a number of folks in the system and for the community. We're trying to work very hard to alleviate those and to find the best way to provide the services that the community needs. As I say, in some cases, contract work goes to the local health authority, and others are worked out differently.
A. Sanders: I am certainly aware of the Gove report. I am also aware that Judge Gove had no preceding models on which to build his suggestions and that his suggestions were built on the best practices that he could find. Nevertheless, when we put things into actuality, we often find that there are bugs in the system. The thing to do, then, is to be proactive and look at the bugs and exterminate them, as opposed to saying: "That's the way we were told to do it." I would urge the minister to recognize that there are a number of bugs in the system, which, now that we have had some ability to look retrospectively, need to be removed, with the purpose of providing better service to people.
[1035]
One of the other bees in my bonnet, I suppose, would be the supported child care model. I am aware of the fact that the ministry has been working towards this for a number of years and that there were many reports on which to base the supported child care model. I still will recognize to the minister that the supported child care model does not provide for families the support that many of the other kinds of organizations do.
The one in my area that has been under fire recently and that the ministry has helped to bail out, so to speak, is the North Okanagan Neurological Association, otherwise known as NONA, so you don't have to say all of those words in a row. I have already discussed with the minister some of the issues from NONA. The ones that I would like to bring forward are some of the case examples of, again, how the supported child care model has left some families in the dust when it came to transitioning over from models such as NONA to supported child care.
I'll just give the minister an example. We have a family in Vernon with a child in an electric wheelchair. They registered their child at the community preschool and applied for a supported child care subsidy as well as an assistant to facilitate the child's participation in the preschool. When the financial assessment was done, the family was $10 a month over the limit. They were turned down. The family has extreme extraordinary expenses that they've incurred in moving to the community. They have a ramp for the house and a new van with a lift; they need to remodel their bathroom for wheelchair accessibility. The mother was pregnant with their second child, and the father worked at a clothing store. They would be categorized as working poor, but they were not poor enough to qualify for the subsidy. As a result of the refusal, their child did not attend the preschool and is entering kindergarten this year without any early childhood experience.
If we look at whether it's sensible or not, there is some room for deciding whether that process is
When the Ministry for Children and Families began the process of planning for transition to the supported child care model in the early nineties, families with children with special needs were told that their children would be able to go their community preschool and day care and receive all of the support they would need. Concern was expressed by the then Health-funded therapy services -- occupational therapy or physiotherapy -- that the amount of travel time involved in going to many centres, as well as the time needed to work with a variety of early childhood educators and still keep contact with the families, would strain an already limited resource to the point that it would become ineffective or enormous wait-lists would develop. This is a situation that has occurred in our community.
When you have a community in the lower mainland and you have a supported child care model where children are integrated into regular day cares, and the physiotherapists and the occupational therapists move, that may work great. You just walk across Burrard Street and go to the other day care. It does not work when you have communities that are an hour and a half apart and you're taking valuable physiotherapists and OTs and sticking them in a car to drive to the child's location. We have certainly found from everyone I have talked to that this model has been very strained in the environment that we have in the Okanagan.
I want to make sure that that's brought to the minister's attention. She lives in an urban area where delivery of services is vastly different from Cherryville or from Lumby. I want to understand that the minister is aware of this problem for our non-urban areas.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Just a couple of comments in response. I am aware. It's been drawn to my attention that much of this issue was canvassed in last year's estimates as well. I would refer the member to that area for some of the responses.
We also work together with a couple of other ministries. I think particularly of MESDES, as you call it, I guess. And in the example that was used by the member
[1040]
The ministry was also very pleased to be able to help NONA to work out the physical building situation that they had, and I gather that's going well. Probably on the topic of the particular model of supported child care versus block funding, I think there will always be a debate about which is better. But in fact the suggestion and the philosophy we're working on is that both models offer something and offer some important aspects and that, in this case, supported child care is one that has been widely requested, and we're pleased to put it in place.
Not all the bits are necessarily always there in all situations. Again, providing services across this vast province requires a balancing act that is sometimes a tricky one. But we're trying to provide all the services we can in the communities, and I have some familiarity with some of the areas up in the Okanagan and North Okanagan. I've travelled a bit there, although I haven't lived there.
But it's important that we hear and I know about -- I as the minister and the ministry -- and am aware of the regional interests and the regional concerns.
[ Page 16797 ]
A. Sanders: As with many situations, perhaps it is that the model for the urban centre is a different model than for the regions -- something we might have found out with respect to health care if we hadn't just regionalized the whole province and then had to suffer the consequences. This is perhaps another example of learning from your mistakes and being proactive.
I know that there are wait-lists for children with special needs everywhere and that these have increased over the last ten years. Thirty-five years ago families banded together in our area to develop child development centres, because their children could not be given the services they needed in the community settings. The supported child care initiative was supposed to address that need both from the early childhood development aspect and from the therapy services. It is not working; it is failing miserably in our area.
I'm aware that it's failing in other areas as well. We recently had a child in Vernon whose family had their child on a wait-list for preschool and had waited six months and had not got on to the preschool list. They then, through family circumstances, were moving to Victoria, so NONA called Victoria to connect the family who was moving there with the Victoria community. The supported child care consultant said there were 90 children on the wait-list in Victoria, and if this child needed extra support in a preschool, she had absolutely no hope of getting it.
So there are some problems in the system. And here we are looking at the kids who would most benefit from having a preschool experience because they are handicapped and therefore are going to be better integrated into a grade 1 classroom if they have had lots of help prior to getting to school.
One of the other concerns I had about the new direction for supported child care was priority to families where the mother is returning to work, and I'd like the minister to comment on that.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the member for the question, and I think we'll have to take this one on notice. There's some information that we need to gather that we don't have with us today. We'll get it back to you as soon as we can.
A. Sanders: I just want to tell the minister what I want to look for so that she can provide the information as best she can. My understanding in my community is that families with children having special needs
His mother is a nurse with a B.Sc. and had worked all of her life, prior to her child, going back
She is an example of someone that the ministry would be giving supported child care to, to help her return to work. But the reality for many of the families who have these children is that one of the parents does not want to return to work, because of the extreme medical limitations of their children.
[1045]
I have another woman whose son has Schwachman-Diamond syndrome, which is a heart, kidney and liver disease. She is a hairdresser but has not returned to work, because she cannot find any kind of care where people have the medical expertise that she has developed as a parent in order to deal with the problems this child has on a daily basis. Therefore she chooses to stay home to provide that care.
When we're looking at this policy with these kinds of families, the children who may have the greatest need for early intervention services are the lowest priority for getting the programs. If their mothers have decided to stay home because of the trauma that they have had as a parent of a young child
I need the minister to tell me, when she reports to me, what the commitment is for early intervention services for these children and whether this particular priority has been completely thought out. Again, it is something that I see from the practical point of view of knowing these parents and why they stay at home. They would much rather have the income of two working parents, but they are staying home for an entirely different reason. The ministry needs to be aware of that, and I would be very pleased to have information that the minister has relating to this issue.
L. Stephens: I have some questions for the minister today. First of all, I want to start with a couple that revolve around the Women's Equality area -- for which I am the critic -- which come up continually no matter where I go around the province and which relate to the Ministry for Children and Families. The one thing that women tell me is that the family support services of the ministry are virtually nonexistent. It doesn't matter which part of the province I travel to. This is what I'm told, time after time. The women also tell me that they're very reluctant to go to the ministry asking for these family support services. It's been their experience or the experience of other women that, first, the help isn't there and, second, that the child protection side of the ministry is in many cases activated by the requests of these women who are looking for family support services to assist them with their children.
I wonder if the minister would comment on that. This is an issue that comes up time and time again and from all around the province -- the lack of family support services.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the member for Langley for the questions and the observations, and I certainly am concerned about any suggestion that somehow an approach to MCF on one topic leads into something else. That certainly is not a happy thought or a happy notion, but I appreciate the point that she's made: that it is valid because people believe that it is, and they believe that that's happened to them. Meanwhile, we would be working to have that not happen, obviously, and continuing to work towards a continuum of
[ Page 16798 ]
family support services. To that end there has been an increase in the budget for prevention and family supports from $77 million last year to $98 million this year. That increase of nearly $20 million will be, of course, around the province and all areas to assist families to acquire some of the skills that they need to achieve specific goals and address factors that affect their capacity to parent.
[1050]
We know, and I think fundamentally believe, that with supports available, many more families can cope with the situations in which they find themselves. And the effort is to reduce the risk levels. If we can put supports in, then that is a better way to go. That's the aim and the goal.
L. Stephens: I was just looking for my notes on that particular issue. I thought the ministry had spent $55 million in '98, and last year it was $107 million or thereabouts. Those were the numbers that I saw in the news release from the ministry. But I don't have it at the moment; I will find it.
Before I leave that, I just want to say that I have spoken to a number of employees from the ministry, and they have acknowledged that this in fact is the case in a number of areas, and that they have been working hard to try to address this issue. But I want the minister to know that it appears to still be an issue, particularly with single moms, who feel particularly vulnerable to the ministry. I'm sure that comes as no surprise to the minister as well. Many, many single-parent moms feel that they are victimized -- and that's not too strong a word to use about the Ministry for Children and Families.
The other area that I want to talk about is the voluntary care agreements. This is an issue that comes up time and again. Just in the last couple of weeks there's been an incident in my constituency of a nine-year-old boy who is no longer able to go to school. Everyone acknowledges that he does need to have some health assessments, psychiatric assessments of some kind, done to determine just what kind of services that he needs. He did go to a children's hospital on an emergency basis. They were able to keep him for three days. However, the waiting list for treatment assessment is five months, and he is now No. 13 on the wait-list. He can't return home. He is to the point where he's violent, and this is a nine-year-old boy.
He's going to be going into foster care. Those are the arrangements that are being made for him. Now the mother is being asked to sign a voluntary care agreement. And this isn't the first time that I have been told that parents are being forced to sign voluntary care agreements in order for their kids to get government services. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to add -- which probably feeds into this as well -- a piece of information for the member and all members: this year a hundred new non-protection social workers are being added to the MCF staff complement, so that there will be more workers in the field who are non-protection workers who can help in these situations.
[1055]
Regarding voluntary agreements, of course, we don't know the total specifics other than what the member has told us on this particular case. But as the child and the family come to the attention of the ministry and a plan is developed for the child, it may mean that foster care is the best way to go. I'm also aware of a case in Victoria where that was deemed to be the best way to go. That was the plan, and presumably everybody has signed on with the plan. Part of that is that the parent or parents would be required to sign an agreement saying: "Yes, this is fine. This is the period of time when the agreement will be in place, and we have certain expectations of what will happen in the course of that agreement."
If there are supports available in that neighbourhood, in that community, then that's what we prefer to do. That may be what the plan suggests, and that may be possible to put into effect. So they have their place. There's no question that these agreements have their place.
L. Stephens: The critic for Children and Families has just informed me that voluntary care agreements are usually those that the youth agree to, and the continuing-care agreements are the ones that we've just been talking about. I'm presuming that's the case.
Whatever the continuing-care agreement is called, let me just say that requesting a parent to sign a continuing-care agreement for their child which means that they're going to go to a foster care setting is wrong until a complete evaluation is done on that child and
In this particular case, that was not done. In this particular case, this child is waiting to be assessed on what that appropriate treatment of care will be. Still the mother is being asked to sign her child into the ministry's care before there has been an assessment done on what his needs are and what services he requires from the province. This is an issue that is happening all over the province, and it's wrong.
Many of these parents are finding that after they've signed this agreement, it's almost impossible to get their children back unless they go to court. That's what a number of parents are reduced to doing: going to court to try and get their children back.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Perhaps we need to have a further discussion out of this setting, to be absolutely clear about voluntary care and continuing care. The continuing-care process is a court-ordered process. Voluntary care, as I suggested, is where a parent is likely to say yes. In the case I know about, the parent said: "This child needs care; I can't provide it. In fact, I'm afraid of this child that is mine, and he needs to be someplace else for a period of time. I as a parent agree with that." So that's when you sign it.
There are specific limits on that. It has nothing to do with a court-ordered situation. There must be something else going on in this situation that perhaps we can talk about separately from this forum, to see where we can iron out what the details are. But that's my understanding.
L. Stephens: Then my understanding was correct about a voluntary care agreement.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: You agree.
L. Stephens: Yes. However, now that we've got the terminology correct on which is which, I'm still saying that parents are telling me that they are not comfortable with either of the two. They find that the ministry is acting, in many cases, very arbitrarily. Some parents are not informed of their rights
[ Page 16799 ]
and what those agreements mean, and many of the parents are finding that what they thought they were agreeing to is in fact not what is happening. So whether or not there needs to be a better process of making sure that people understand what their rights and responsibilities are and exactly what they're doing and what it means to them down the road
[1100]
Most parents want to do what is best for their children. When they come to two, three or four months down the road and they say, "Let's talk about this now. I have either gotten help as a parent or the child appears to be doing better. We have this diagnosis made and the child is getting the care that it needs
The other area that I hear about all the time is the sexual assault of girls. I've got some statistics here. This is the 1999 report that was done by the FREDA Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children. I know the minister knows that this is one of the five research centres on violence around the country. They do quite good work, and I just want to give the minister some statistics from this particular paper.
Sixty-three percent of all sexual assaults reported to police involve girls under 18. Girls are two to three times more likely to experience sexual abuse than boys. Up to 75 percent of victims of sex crimes in aboriginal communities are females under 18 years of age; 50 percent of those are under 14, and almost 25 percent are younger than seven years of age.
I want to know what the minister is doing to address this particular issue, either through public education programs or through early intervention.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: On the issue of general knowledge and public awareness, as the member knows, the Ministry of Women's Equality has undertaken in the past, and is about to launch, their public awareness campaign about these issues and the prevention of sexual assault and attacks on women of all ages, but particularly the young ones. I remind the member that in terms of one part of all of this, last year we passed an amendment to our act about the sex trade recruitment -- and that set of ideas. And Children and Families funds part of the public health operations in Health to provide some of that public awareness and some services. We also fund some organizations that are involved in dealing with the services required for sexually intrusive behaviours on the part of children under 12.
L. Stephens: I guess what I'd like to know is: who has the primary responsibility for this area? It would seem to me that it would be the Ministry for Children and Families. So that's one question: who has the primary responsibility? And which ministry has the responsibility to develop a strategic plan -- or a long-term plan or whatever you want to call it -- to deal with this particular issue? How much of that involves the aboriginal communities?
[1105]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The responsibility rests in a couple of areas, given the responsibilities that each of them have. The Ministry of Education has the major responsibility for the education of children, so that kind of work comes through the education system. Through MCF we do prevention and education services as well -- and offering services. On the issue of the aboriginal, there's nothing specific, because the programs that are in existence reach all of them. It's an interesting question.
There is also in existence -- and I'm sure the member is aware of this -- an ADM interministerial committee on the sexual exploitation of youth, through the Attorney General's ministry. That's another part of this whole picture that requires the legal aspects and sexual exploitation and that kind of thing. Those are all part of that. So it's another one of these issues that crosses ministries and gets handled with each part of that.
L. Stephens: I want to move on and talk a little bit about the Campbell Valley Women's Centre. This is an issue that the minister is very familiar with. I want to say that the recent agreement to fund the four beds there is very much appreciated. This allows the centre to continue on and to do the good work that it does. I understand that it's the aboriginal beds that are being funded through the justice system. So on behalf of Mr. Stroh, the staff there, certainly myself and the people of Langley and, I'm sure, the parents whose children have access to this particular centre and service, I do want to thank the minister for continuing this valuable service.
I know the minister is aware that teen youth addiction is a huge problem for us all. So I'd just like to get a few stats and numbers and so on. How many detox beds are there for girls in the province? I'm just talking about girls, now. How many detox beds are there in the province -- the total number -- for girls? What is the total number by region?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I know the member would like the information right now, but it's in a number of different spots, and in some cases it's not divided up by male and female. So I think we'd better get the material and the information back to the member, and then we'll have it all in one place.
[1110]
L. Stephens: That'll be fine. I'll add another request, which was going to be my next question. That is: how many drug and alcohol treatment beds are available for girls in the province? What's the total? And then what is the total by region? That's the second question.
Last year the ministry made some changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The minister alluded to this a few moments ago. The changes were designed to do a few things, but the one I'm particularly interested in is protecting sexually exploited children. This was a long time overdue, and it has been a long time coming. We've had some time to put in place some of the changes that the amendments to this act allowed. I'd like to ask the minister: how many protective intervention orders were applied by social service workers?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Since December 3, 1999 approximately 15 protective intervention orders and approximately 29 restraining orders -- which may well be the member's next question -- have been granted under the act. Of these orders, two were prostitution-related.
[ Page 16800 ]
L. Stephens: Two were prostitution-related. It seemed to me that the focus or the raison d'être for these changes to happen in the first place was to protect young people from sexual exploitation. Could the minister explain what the other restraining orders and the protective intervention orders were for?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: We've just about got the information. Perhaps the member would go on with her next question, and then we will get that information. I have some of it here, but we just need to be absolutely sure this is what it's about.
L. Stephens: The next question was going to be: how many people were charged with breaching either the protective intervention order or the restraining orders? And how many people paid the fines or went to jail?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Sorry. With apologies, we don't actually have that number. We'll have to see if we can find them somewhere else than with our materials here and get back to the member. In general, we think that the non-prostitution issues were probably violence- and drug-related. But we'll get back with more specifics about that for the member.
[1115]
L. Stephens: I'll look forward to the information. The other question I have, this is the last one, just a very brief one. I know the minister is aware of the Kaiser report that was released a short time ago. Along with the public health officer, various organizations that work on the downtown east side and in other parts of the province, various non-profit agencies and virtually every organization that deals with youth and drug and alcohol addictions have been calling for a comprehensive strategy for quite some time. The Kaiser report is the last, so far, in a long list. There have been many studies done, and there have been many solutions pointed out to the minister. First I would like to ask her what her response is to the Kaiser report and the call for an independent substance abuse prevention and addictions commission, setting up a commission to develop an overall strategy for youth and adult drug addictions and alcohol addictions in the province.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The government and this ministry and other ministries were obviously very interested and pleased to receive the Kaiser report, with its observations. The officials in a number of ministries that have involvement in this, led a bit by this ministry, are having ongoing meetings with the Kaiser folks and others who are involved in this issue and have some concerns about this. We're still working out where we go next with this.
What's been interesting is that everyone involved in this has agreed that an integrated process is a very important way to go with all of this, as opposed to anything sectoral. Involved with my ministry is the Attorney General and the ministries of Health and Education, working to develop the action plan that will really help to work with British Columbians with these addictions.
L. Stephens: One final question: is the minister saying that there is a committee within government that is working to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with drug and alcohol addictions, both children and adults? If so, how formalized is it, and does it include groups, organizations or individuals from the broad community?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: There are a number of levels happening, with an involvement of a number of different parts of the community. At one level we have the Vancouver agreement process, which is underway as we speak. It has three levels of government involved and a number of community agencies involved with the development of that and their particular aspect, specifically focused on the downtown east side but with implications for the rest of the province.
Then the provincial health officer and officials plus some outside organizations are also working on harm-reduction information and a strategy which will come forward at some point in the near future.
L. Stephens: I just want to say to the minister the same thing that I said to the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers: this is a particular issue that needs some leadership. It certainly needs some leadership from the ministers who are responsible. I know that if the minister is aware of those different organizations, she's aware that particularly in the downtown east side there's a lot of discussion over what kind of model should be used and what kinds of services should be provided. I don't expect that to change. I expect there to still be those kinds of differences of opinion that will go on and on and on. What is required, I think, is for everyone to understand the seriousness of the issue and for the ministers responsible to show some leadership, make some decisions and develop a plan of action. Thank you.
[1120]
I. Chong: I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the minister for allowing me to participate in these debates, notwithstanding that this is a small town and we've probably crossed paths many times, attended many events together and addressed many of the same groups. I know some of the issues that I raise with her she will already have some personal knowledge of. However, I still would like to canvass the minister on where we're headed with some of these cases that I wish to bring forward, in addition to perhaps reviewing what her ministry is doing in terms of interministerial cooperation and interagency cooperation -- which seems to continually surface, throughout the years that I've been elected.
The first case I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is a case with a Miss Cheryl Longridge. And I know the minister attended recently a town hall-type meeting at the Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health, I believe on June 8, and Miss Longridge attended and did express her concerns. Her concerns were dealing with her child, who was unable to get additional assistance, a child who is medically fragile due to cerebral palsy. The condition of the child required that a nurse be available to attend to the child while the child also attends school full-time. The nurse was previously available through a local nursing agency, ParaMed, and the Ministry for Children and Families had paid for that.
Unfortunately, due to a nursing shortage -- I guess ParaMed therefore had to allow its nurses to be pulled out elsewhere -- this was no longer available. But it also left no opportunity or backup plan available for Miss Longridge, a single parent, to deal with her son in terms of attending
[ Page 16801 ]
school. Unfortunately, he had regressed quite substantially, and Miss Longridge was in a situation where she was at her wit's end in terms of caring for her child.
My concern in this particular case is about the interministerial cooperation that should be taking place when something happening in another ministry or circumstances in another ministry, such as nursing shortages, impacts on those people being available for the Ministry for Children and Families. What kind of ongoing discussions are available or will continue to ensure that there is not a period of time that the child, who is in need of care, goes without this care? One week, one month or two months is much too long for a child who has developmental problems and who needs the attention of a nurse on a fairly full-time basis. So first of all, I'd like to ask the minister what she's doing with the other ministries in that respect and also if she would, then, again have some information as to where we are with this. The last I heard, there might be something available as late as September, but now I'm wondering if the ministry has been able to move that date up any sooner.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: There is a couple of points I want to make. One, that was an absolutely wonderful meeting that I was at, the occasion that we had, a town hall meeting. And it was very moving, the family situations that were described on that occasion. I certainly, personally, won't ever forget it. It was very valuable, very instructive and very important. Their situations are pretty crucial. And there were a number of issues that arose on that occasion. I don't want to go into too broad a response on the issue.
[1125]
The member has asked about whether this is an interministerial question, and in this situation it is not. The ministry does provide, in some cases, some nursing supports. In this case this is a regional issue for Victoria. One of the things we are doing is pursuing contract agencies other than the one that currently does it, which is ParaMed, if they can't provide and respond to the obligation. So we're working to find another agency to do that. So the funds are in budget to do it; we just need to find another agency to provide that. Given, still, the concern overall about the shortage of nurses, whether the Health ministry needs them or other areas of government, that is still an issue that we're all working on.
I. Chong: I would also like to comment that, notably, the meeting that the minister attended in June
With respect to comments made by the minister that there has not been an interministerial problem, unfortunately, that's not the perception that parents have. In this particular case it was identified that ParaMed was not able to provide it. And it was not relayed to the parent that it would be a matter of locating another agency to provide it. The answer that was given at the time was that it was more of a health issue and that health should fund it. And therefore MCF would not reallocate funds.
So even though the minister would like to believe that it's not interministerial, certainly once the parent hears that we're dealing with the Ministry of Health, and they're involved, and we've got a problem here, the perception becomes that it is an interministerial problem and that the two ministers aren't talking. I experience this throughout the entire government. Oftentimes when I come into the estimates debate, we're always finding that the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing. I will leave it at that. I just wanted to put it on the record.
However, I did also ask the minister whether or not there has been any further advancement on this case. As I say, I do understand that apparently there will be some assistance provided by September, which is still three months away, whether or not there has been any additional assistance provided to this family any sooner.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to make two comments. First, on the latter point, sooner would be better, of course. September is the beginning of the school year. So part of the issue is that the young lad gets to go to school; that's a really important part of all of this. So we're working very hard to make sure that at least for September there is one there.
I wanted to make another point, and that is that between ministries lots of consultation goes on. I know it's fashionable to suggest it and fun to say that nothing happens, and it's all chaos. That is not the case. There are lots of opportunities and lots of situations in which interministerial work does indeed happen and is indeed effective.
There is also an issue that happens about things over time. That comment at a public forum can be: "Ah, this is my understanding at the time." And then all of these issues stay with us. We go back, we have another look, we say what can we do here, and we find a solution. I think that's to be commended, as opposed to being suggested that it's not such a great idea.
I. Chong: I guess that at this point we'll just agree to disagree on a number of issues. As I say, I'm not suggesting that there isn't interministerial assistance in some areas. Sometimes it has to be brought to the attention of the ministers, and I've written several letters to the various ministries suggesting that that is the case. I've had ministers respond, saying: "Yes, sorrily, that is the case." It's still ongoing, and it's up to all of us as elected members to bring the more serious cases to the attention of the minister so that we can begin to address them. And certainly, with no disrespect to staff, who do work with other staff and other ministries, I know we are moving in that direction. We still have a long way to go, unfortunately.
[1130]
The other area that I would like to canvass is, again, an area of transition from child to adult care. This is as a result of the attendance last November at a meeting with parents. In this particular case the gentleman's name is Mr. Gao, a constituent of mine. He and his wife are working full-time as best they can. They have a child at home who has developmental disabilities. He was 17 and a half, back last year. I think he turns to the adult legal age of 19 next May. This has been consistently a problem, and I've raised this issue several times with other ministers. It seems that each and every year we still are at a point where there seems to be no answer or that it still requires more consultation.
I'm wondering if the minister can advise whether there is movement in this area. The problem is that parents who are
[ Page 16802 ]
concerned about their children becoming adults, knowing that they're going to transition into an adult care situation, are not able to plan for that a year and a half in advance or even a year in advance or even six months in advance. The situation is such that it becomes a crisis as soon as the child turns 19. A new program comes into place, and there isn't enough of a transition.
Parents are oftentimes forced to take time off work to deal with the situation and therefore become non-productive members of our society. Or what happens sometimes is that one parent, for fear of not knowing where their child will end up and not having had the opportunity to review the various facilities that are available, isn't prepared to have their child go into a facility that they're not yet comfortable with. One parent will choose to stay home and take care of the child until a facility arises.
In this case, Mr. Gao has been trying since his child Brendon turned 17 to help the ministry staff try to find a placement, so that when his son turns 19, there is a smooth transition. I know this case is not unique. I think all members perhaps have had similar cases. I'm just trying to find out whether or not there's been any movement in ministry policy or programs to allow for a better and smoother transition for when a child becomes an adult.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the member for the question and acknowledge that we haven't yet worked out a perfect planning process. It's one of those things that we will very much be continuing to work on. Both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Children and Families continue to renew their commitments to resolving all of these issues. We're working in a number of different areas on that. There are something like 600 new beds now in the system. When we closed the institutions, that was a good thing. That still requires now that we move to finding those community supports for the families.
[1135]
We are also balancing the issue of the transition from 19 to adult along with the elderly parents of children who are now in their forties, as was mentioned earlier. We've put more money into the budget for that, some $7.5 million, to help that transition, because that's another major shift for folks. The aging parents need care themselves. It's not just respite care. They may need to be going into long term care facilities themselves. Or in fact they die, and there are grown children. So that's another area that we're working very hard on, and we've put money in the budget to begin to work through how that might work.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for her answer, but unfortunately, what I'm hearing is that there is no solution at this point. The family still has to wait until the last minute. Until such time as we find a better way of managing this problem, we're going to see more and more of these cases. I realize there are more and more of these cases. When I was first elected, I had very few of these situations arise, and I'm seeing more and more of them arise. I suppose it's because children with developmental disabilities are now reaching their adult age. The demand is greater just as the aging population is creating a huge amount on our health care system.
I don't think any member on this side of the House would disagree with members on that side of the House. We know this is a problem. But not to have addressed this some years ago when we knew the institutions were being closed down
I'd like to move on very quickly, then, to another particular case as well again, for a parent of a 20-year-old son who is mentally disabled. This parent has cared for their child at home for many years. The child also, because of his age, receives MHR funds or B.C. disability benefits. The difficulty in the past was that the Ministry for Children and Families used to pay -- or pays -- $120 for the evening for the adult to be taken care of, but as I understand it, requires the family to pay out of that amount $21.50 for respite, as it is deemed to be. When families are already in a situation where they are depending on social assistance and also on disability benefits, $21.50 is a substantial amount of money.
I'm just wondering whether that policy has been reviewed. I understand that in severe cases there are appeal processes in place. But again, every time we look at these appeal processes, it takes a family through an enormous amount of family trauma and stresses -- energies that could be better used in other ways, quite frankly. I just wonder if the minister can comment on that.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: While there is a general issue there, what I think would be the best in this situation would also be to have a little more of the case information. We can then respond in a more specific way about the dollars and where they come from and how they are being allocated and what else might be possible. So if she would provide us with that, that would be helpful.
I. Chong: I will endeavour to provide the information.
It is a case of user fees implementation. That's what it really comes down to. Only in rare cases of extreme hardship is this policy in fact waived. And I was wondering whether there were any -- I wouldn't say easier way -- other criteria used to measure what extreme hardship would be. Again, every time a family member comes forward and says, "Well, we're under extreme hardship," it puts them even further in extreme financial hardship, in particular, to ask for an exemption. Really, a way of streamlining is what I was looking for -- whether this minister or ministry is working on any process that would streamline this particular policy.
If the minister would like to respond, I can wait for that. Otherwise, I can move on to another situation as well.
Another particular case -- as a result of meetings at the Queen Alexandra Centre -- is a parent with a child, a three-year-old son, with Leber's congenital amaurosis. It's a rare genetic disorder which affects the rods and cones in the retina. Therefore this child has experienced a delay in language skills and also in very practical skills. In addition, a child of that age needs to socialize with other children to develop those skills.
This parent applied for special aid, and the application was reviewed and eventually was approved. But again, due to limited resources, the child was placed on yet another wait-list. I think that at this time, again, we've been told that
[ Page 16803 ]
September 20 would be the time that would be available for some of this aid that's necessary; special needs aid is what it is. I'm just wondering what the ministry's policies are in terms of reviewing the kinds of wait-lists that are being attached to children with special needs in this area, especially those of such a young age. We're always talking about early intervention, and clearly this is an early intervention situation. But putting children on wait-lists ends up costing more at the end of the time, as we all know.
[1140]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: First of all, we know and the member is aware that in the budget there is some new money to begin to address the issues of wait-lists, some $6 million for the whole of the province. So that's a beginning to address that issue.
There also was begun a little while ago a special needs review of the wait-lists and the development then of a wait-list strategy and how best to prioritize some of the needs that come forward on wait-lists. That is coming forward by September, which we're very pleased about, because then we'll have some focus, a better focus, on what's happening. Also, that
I. Chong: Well, then I thank the minister for those clarifications. I appreciate that the ministry is reviewing a wait-list strategy. Unfortunately, I won't say it's come too late, but at least we can appreciate that this is being reviewed.
I know the minister is aware that Jim McDermott and Penny Kellett are only two of the thousands and thousands of frustrated parents who are constantly fighting to be heard, fighting to be acknowledged and fighting to better the lives of not only their children but other children who are also in the same situation as their children. Very few parents have the ability or the resources or the stamina to advocate so vehemently for their children requiring special needs. So while I would say that this wait-list strategy is long overdue, I can acknowledge my appreciation that it at least is happening. I also, though, question whether it would have come forward had it not been for the work of Mr. McDermott and Ms. Kellett having raised this awareness. We will see very shortly whether or not their initiative petition will be successful.
I know that September is still, in the minds of many parents, a long time away. But I would hope that once the review comes forward, we will not spend months and months reviewing the review or that it doesn't end up on a shelf collecting dust, as has happened so many times in other cases. This is an initiative or a situation that requires our attention if we are to save and better the quality of lives of our next generation. I know the minister would agree with that. I thank her and her staff for their response today.
[1145]
G. Abbott: I have some questions, hon. Chair, with respect to my constituent Judy Sims of Salmon Arm. Hopefully, the minister would be able to respond to those questions at this point in time. Judy Sims was a foster mother to Faith Cook, who was an infant at the time she first became her foster mother. Judy Sims was the foster mother to Faith Cook for most of the period from the baby's birth in October of '96 through to her transfer to the care of the Spallumcheen Indian band in June of 1998.
The transfer was one that Judy Sims opposed. She has, in common with her husband, appealed to the Ministry for Children and Families, to the courts and finally to an independent tribunal, which, as the minister knows, was assembled by the children's commissioner. The issue now has been ongoing for two years, and certainly those were two agonizing years for Judy Sims, who obviously had formed some very powerful bonds with the baby when she was in her care.
I ask these questions to try to determine some information that obviously Judy Sims would like to hear. Could the minister, first of all, review for my benefit when the tribunal heard the issues around this particular case, when those hearings were concluded and what the current status is of the deliberations of the independent tribunal?
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Mindful of the time, thank you. It's not too long.
I will comment on the process that's happening, because it's part of the Children's Commission process at the present time. I will give you some of the points to make around all that. The children's commissioner expects to receive a report from the director responding to the panel's orders and recommendations no later than July 5 this year. A substantive response to the panel's orders and recommendations is currently being prepared in consultation with legal services and the Indian band and will be submitted to the children's commissioner by the defined deadline. The children's commissioner then may make his report public within 30 days after the director's response if the commissioner is not satisfied with the director's response.
Apart from that, the ministry will make no further comment until the commission receives the director's response, which is July 5.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise
[1150]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Ms. Sims is a party to the deliberations and as such will receive a copy of the report on July 5, the same time as the others will receive the report. It is MCF's responsibility to get that to her and get that to them.
Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada