Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 10 -- Tuesday, March 26, 2002

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of Supply		2097
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. T. Nebbeling Hon. G. Abbott

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2110
	Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply in Section A. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, followed by the Ministry of Attorney General. In Committee B, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services yet again, followed by the Ministry of Advanced Education.

J. MacPhail: It's so embarrassing when one's on TV and one has to act out one's personal habits on TV, but I may have to ask for a recess in a little while to deal with a vision thing. I beg you to bear with me. Actually, it would go easier if I were not in pain from anything other than the minister.

J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to be able to join the estimates, particularly in dealing first with the community charter and the 2010 Olympic bid. I know that the minister responsible for the Olympic bid has had some in-depth discussion with my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I thought that debate was very useful.

I want to just inform and perhaps assure the minister of my point of view on this in joining with my colleague. There's no question that everyone in the province should rally around the bid for the 2010 Olympics. I was disappointed that I had to cancel an appointment with the president of the Olympic bid, Mr. Jack Poole. I have committed to reschedule that at the earliest opportunity.

I have been doing some research on Olympics, though, both as a fan and supporter and also as a person who will live within the community that will be at least as affected by it as the community of Whistler. I live in Vancouver.

What I have found is that Olympic bids come to fruition successfully, and Olympic games are successful, when politics are set aside and when community interests — whether that be interests of the people who live in the community, the athletes themselves, the business community, governments, people who care deeply about the liveable region — all come together and their interests are entwined rather than pitted against one another. I say that in support of the Olympic bid, not as a threat.

I think we have much to learn in British Columbia from big events. I know that many of us try to cast our minds back to Expo 86, but frankly, there's a whole generation who were still in diapers then who now have the right to vote. They don't have that recollection.

There are other events in Whistler. That community is very good at hosting major events. Vancouver itself has been a host to major events. I'm thinking particularly of the Molson Indy and the PNE, for instance. I know the Olympics are on a much, much larger world-class scale, but even those events, which are spectacles, work better when all of the communities come together.

Those are the points that I'll be making with Mr. Jack Poole. I know he's very receptive to those points. I know he is doing his best — an admirable job in balancing all of the interests, even at this early stage.

This is a cautionary note. What will hurt or hinder a successful Olympic bid is fighting amongst levels of either bureaucracy or politicians. The community loses out then. The athletes lose out then. The business community loses out for sure. My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is doing an extremely diligent, helpful job in making sure that the community interests, the interests of the people who live around the proposed Olympic site, are protected. I will be ensuring that the broader interests of the well-being of our economy, our livable region and also any legacy that should be left behind….

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me first of all say that I really appreciate the words of support for what we as British Columbians are doing. That is totally inclusive. I think that point has been raised by the member opposite, and I think it is a very important point — that working together as politicians in this House, we can achieve a better result in bringing the Winter Olympics to this part of the world is unquestionable. I look forward to that working relationship. I know that it was the former government that started to work together with the bid people to lay the foundation of what today

is a very successful bid group. That bid group has been able to bring into the fray the support of a large segment of our business community. Working together with business, we will certainly work much better to achieve our goal to succeed in being the chosen site come July next year during the IOC meeting in Prague.

As the member opposite recognizes, we do have in this part of British Columbia tremendous expertise in hosting major events. Like the member recognized, Whistler with the World Cup and other major ski events, Vancouver with the Indy and, to keep it a little bit in the Olympic spirit, what we experienced last year in Vancouver with the world championship figure skating was just tremendous testimony that we can host events of that magnitude and quality.

When the president of the figure skating association, who is of course a representative on the IOC, left this city, he went back to Europe and talked about the very best world championship experience he had ever had. This was not just because of the facilities, but because of how the city incorporated a strong welcome, how the organization put things together to the point that this was one of the very few world championships in figure skating that actually made a profit for the organization.

We recognize in British Columbia that we can do tremendous things. As important, that recognition is also a known fact in the international sport federations. That will help us to bring the Winter Olympics to this part of the world in the year 2010. I'm really pleased to hear — and I expected this to happen, anyhow — that the member opposite is having meetings with the CEO of the bid group. It is important that the support the member has expressed is recognized by the bid group and also that the member opposite has an opportunity to indeed deal with some of the issues she feels we have to address to make this an event that is to the benefit of all British Columbians, regardless of where they live.

I think the member represents an area where there certainly is hardship, where there are people who should under no circumstances become victims of a winter games but would be participants in the enjoyment of hosting this. That is clearly the goal of this provincial government as well. We as the provincial government certainly give the message to the bid corp that social issues are as important as the infrastructure issues and that we have to find the middle ground where everybody can feel a level of comfort that we are not undermining other people's well-being.

That is my response to the member's statement — my assurance that the concerns her colleague expressed last night and that the member will no doubt express either today or to the bid corp directly are our concerns as well and our commitment to deal with them in the right way.

J. MacPhail: For the minister's benefit, let me put on a checklist. It's entirely up to the minister whether he wants to respond to this checklist. But it's a checklist I'll be using to monitor the Olympic bid and, with great hope, then moving toward preparing for the Olympics. It is a checklist. I don't expect the minister to have answers to these questions now, unless he does in certain areas. It's a follow-up to the discussion he and I have been having already, Mr. Chair.

I begin with recognizing the success of the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics because of the incredible recognition given to first nations. It was unbelievable. I wasn't there, but I'll tell you: I had no idea that Salt Lake City was going to give such recognition to, I think, five nations.

Of course, we're as diverse in the first nations here as Salt Lake City could possibly imagine or hope to match. Diversity amongst recognition of our first nations is something that I think will provide a very successful bid following up on Salt Lake City.

In terms of the environment, I said the livable region, making sure that we enhance the livable region. Air and water quality should be enhanced with the Olympic bid, and the reason for that is that the bid is going to be ensconced between the ocean and the mountains, with hundreds of thousands of people living in between and tens of thousands of people moving around for months, stretching our capacity in the livable region.

These are goals to set. There should be a positive effect on our air and water quality, public transportation should be expanded, and the guidelines set by the oversight committee should have very clear goals that all of the planning and design should be done with environmentally sound underpinnings.

Now, I do this only because who knows what will be the order of the day in terms of international politics in the year 2010. But who would have expected September 11 affecting the Olympics of 2002? I hope we can make sure that civil liberties are protected around the Olympic Games of 2010 and that security be our highest goal but that we have security without having to sacrifice civil liberties.

Along with the recognition of first nations, I think the difference between Salt Lake City and here is our multicultural diversity and that it be recognized by the bid corporation.

Lastly — and I know that the minister has met with groups who have articulated this point of view much better than I — that the public financing of the Olympic Games not come at the expense of social programs, environmental programs, public transportation and housing.

There are many other issues, but those are the ones that I will be monitoring throughout the coming years.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I can briefly address the areas that the member opposite has seen as very important issues to be watchful of in getting to 2010.

The aboriginal participation issue. Let me say to the member opposite that yes, in Salt Lake City it was a very important component, and it made the games very special. The same thing happened in Sydney, if the member remembers, where much was focused on

how the aboriginal communities in Australia — New Zealand, actually, was participating as well — were part of the bid and enriched it to a certain extent. They were clearly partners.

What we have done so far is…. From the beginning of the bid corp being established, we've had two members from aboriginal communities on the board of directors: one from the Lillooet community and the other one from the Squamish nation. I can say truthfully that both members have been very constructive participants in the discussions related to the Olympic event and the planning of the Olympic event. I know — and I'm not speaking for other people here — that they are really feeling that they are a part of this, as they should. These two members have been very productive and contributing partners representing their communities in that event.

We have also invited the Musqueam band to take on directorship, and we have done the same with the Burrard band, because these are the four nations that are really impacted by what happens in Whistler and in Vancouver. That is in place, and the working relationship is excellent. The aboriginal communities see great opportunities to better their communities. Together with the bid group, we'll be pursuing all these options that I bring to the table to showcase at the 2010 event the role that aboriginal communities play in British Columbia. I think that is very important.

We intend to have these games recognized as games focused on the environment. We call them the Green Games. The environmental sustainability, community sustainability, is a top priority on the list of goals we want to achieve here. In that area, the member will watch what we are doing, but at the end of the day I think she's going to be really pleased by how much emphasis will be put on protection of the environment and the sustainability aspects of the environment.

Public transportation. All kinds of initiatives are underway right now to assess exactly how we can better public transportation not just to accommodate the games but far beyond. That has been recognized as a very important component of the Olympics not only to convince the International Olympic Committee that we have the right transportation to host these events but, as important, recognizing that in the future transportation is going to be a very important component for British Columbians overall. We'll be looking at water transportation. We'll be looking at road transportation with buses and at improvement of road infrastructure. I think we're going to do a good job there to the satisfaction not only of the International Olympic Committee but of British Columbians.

The planning and design. Again we have all the environmental considerations up front when we plan our facilities. When we design our facilities, we try to incorporate new technology for cooling or heating to reflect our desire to make this an environmentally responsive and responsible project, as an event goes.

Civil liberties and security. Yes, of course strict security measures will be necessary to protect visitors, residents and participants, but civil liberty standards should never be violated. That is a personal belief that I share with the member opposite.

Multiculturalism. We see this as a tremendous opportunity to showcase the diversity of British Columbia's people and all their backgrounds. The member will see, for example, that much of the arts fund created to fund events related to the Olympics will focus on giving creative and performing artists opportunities to showcase their heritage, their multicultural background. That's a very important component of showcasing what British Columbia is all about. I think that particular area that the member will be watching will give her some good satisfaction that we are indeed taking advantage of the Olympics as a tool to show the world how our multiculturalism and diversity are actually a strength in this province. That's certainly a priority.

The costs. It's not at the price of other social areas or such. That is just something that is up front. We believe the Olympic event, prior and past, will create an economic benefit to this province for all British Columbians. It will create jobs in the magnitude of 220,000 in total — prior, during and past the Olympic event. That by itself is again the strengthening of our social infrastructure, our social structure as a province, and will benefit all sectors of our community at large.

This is just a quick follow-up on the points made by the member. I think the areas that she is watching…. Her checklist is very much the checklist we share as the government.

J. MacPhail: It's good. Then the minister and I can monitor that together. That's good news.

I came across this curious statistic or survey, and I was surprised by it. There may be an explanation. It's only out of curiosity, no other agenda, that I ask the minister — because it's his home community, Whistler, as well — about the Ipsos-Reid poll that while overall support for the Olympic bid is 87 percent, Whistler support was about 74 percent. I guess some of the concerns that were raised in that was the strain it might place on local facilities, infrastructure and transportation services.

Of course, Whistler is absolutely key to this bid. It would be my view that we would need Whistler's support so much because there's only one way in. Actually, that's not true. There's two ways in. But for us city folk, there's one way in. What's the minister's view on that? Does he have an explanation for that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There's a couple of reasons for that number. First of all, I think the poll you refer to is about a year old. At that time there were a lot of questions in the community of Whistler on the impact — financial impact, infrastructure impact, development impact and everything. A segment of the community basically said: "Listen, I need some answers before I'm

going to put my support behind it, because if I put my support behind it, it will be 100 percent. I will volunteer and everything." That comment was strong, because I heard it at a number of speaking engagements I had in Whistler.

Since that time, of course, the community has been given a lot more information. It's interesting that about two weeks ago a document was presented to the council of Whistler, to the community of Whistler, of a layout of all the infrastructure that will be developed for the Olympic Games: the bobsled and luge track; the new centre in the Callaghan Valley, which will be used for certain activities during the games. It will also be a legacy in the long run for young athletes in British Columbia to have a training opportunity in that facility and in that area.

One of the concerns — and when that poll happened, there really was no answer available — was that people said: "Okay, that's great to put that facility there, but what happens after the games? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to pay for the maintenance, its upkeep, its running?" Since that time, as part of the presentations made recently, it has been explained to the community that the facility will be funded in perpetuity through the legacy we will derive from the Olympics. There is no cost to the community per se for maintenance and running of the facility after the games.

We still have to do work there. The sample size taken during that poll was 100 people. For a community of 7,500, clearly that is not the right number, but that was part of the formula used at that time. I personally continue to talk to my community members in Whistler when I'm there. I know there is a lot of enthusiasm for the games.

We have recently opened a centre in the village where people can get more pertinent information on how the games will come to fruition and what the impact will be on Whistler. I can say it will be a very positive impact not only to have the games there but to have the legacy that will be left behind in Whistler. It is a place where people can sign up for volunteer work during the games. It's overwhelming how many people come in. They constantly run out of registration forms, so we have to make sure there are more there.

Overall, now that the community is being better informed of the impact — and clearly the impact is a positive one — more and more people who have said in the past, "Before I endorse it, I want to know the facts," are coming on board. I think that trend will continue.

J. MacPhail: My last question on the Olympics is just to clarify the number of jobs that the minister is predicting will be generated throughout the process, up to and including hosting. I've heard three figures: 180,000, 240,000 or 280,000. What is the figure that the minister's actually working with?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are three scenarios. First of all, I should also say to the member opposite that the job projection goes beyond the Olympics as well. The impact, for example, of having the convention centre expansion included in it will be tremendous in terms of the long-term job requirements and job benefits that will be derived from the total package of Olympics and convention business.

We looked at three scenarios: a low-impact scenario, a moderate tourism and delegate impact scenario, and then a high tourism and delegate impact scenario. The low-impact was 118,000 jobs; the moderate was 182,000 jobs; the high tourism and delegate impact was 228,000 jobs.

J. MacPhail: I'm moving on. Has anyone else questions about the Olympics? No? Okay.

I'm moving on to the community charter now. My first question is: can the minister perhaps outline the status of where we're at in terms of the province's community charter consultation?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Maybe the best thing I can do is give a quick overview of what we have done over the last five months in relation to building an input relationship with local governments throughout the province.

As we committed to, as part of creating a community charter that is focused on empowering local government and building a new relationship between provincial and local governments, we have done two things. The first thing we did was create a Community Charter Council. The Community Charter Council was given a mandate to create, in cooperation with local governments, the tools that local governments are comfortable with and that will not only be the foundation of that new relationship but also set out how that relationship will develop over time.

What the Charter Council did, as one if its first acts, was visit all five regions of the province. Municipal organizations organized workshops in these regions. The Community Charter Council members and I went to these meetings. We did a presentation of what we thought would be the best way to indeed achieve that goal of empowering local governments and giving them more autonomy.

Having done that, we learned by meeting over 800 local elected officials, administrators, clerks and finance treasurers. They gave us tremendous input on what they as elected people thought they needed.

All that information was put together by staff here in Victoria, and then the Charter Council met for approximately 20 days over the following three- or four-month period to go through all these issues. At the end of the day they created a draft of a charter that we believe reflects much of what local governments gave us as input and at the same time also guarantees that other interests are represented in the deliberations, including, of course, provincial interests.

The Community Charter Council has given direction to staff on what, at the end of the day, they would like to see as a draft charter. That work has been finalized. Right

now it is ready for presentation to the cabinet, which will happen in the next two and a half to three weeks.

Once that is done, we will introduce this draft with a White Paper, giving an executive summary of why we're doing this and what we have done to accomplish the draft of a community charter. That will be tabled in the House soon after cabinet's approval.

Then we're going to go into another two or three months of consultation. That consultation will be based on local governments actually seeing the document, so they can read it, analyze it and provide further input to the provincial government. That input that makes sense and that will fit into the overall objective will be considered. Then, once that work is done, we will deliver the final bill to this House in the fall session.

That has been the process up until now, and those are the next steps we foresee to indeed bring the charter into effect. It is the new tool for local governments and provincial governments to work together towards a brighter future for all communities, based on autonomy and the power to make decisions as elected officials that are of importance to communities without having to go to Victoria for their decisions to be second-guessed. That's briefly where we are today.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. That has answered a few of my questions. The minister says he'll be tabling phase 1 of the community charter legislation and a White Paper on the community charter phase 1, both of which he made a commitment to. The minister's website still says that will be tabled in February 2002, so I take it from the minister's own comments that that deadline can't be met, clearly, because it's passed. What is the new deadline now?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That's a good question. I've had other people asking the same question. The intent was to bring it in during the session starting in February '02, and of course we are in that session. If that was not clear, then that was wrongly communicated.

We always knew that it was going to take time to create a document, because we had given local governments the opportunity to participate. The enormous amount of information we were getting was clearly dictating the Community Charter Council to take more time to come up with the draft than originally was intended.

I don't see it as a delay. There may have been a misunderstanding about the date. I always intended that it was to be delivered in that period starting with the February 15 opening of this particular session. We are there. The draft is finished. It's now cabinet's prerogative to peruse it. Once that is done, it will be here in the House immediately following.

J. MacPhail: The minister said there were about 800 people who presented during the consultations. Were any of those consultations in the form of public meetings?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: All these meetings were public. At some meetings the press was listening in. It was not advertised in a public paper; it was organized by the municipal associations throughout British Columbia. They notified their members. Their members were given the material that was going to be used during these workshops. At no time have I, at least, witnessed a situation where somebody who was not with local government wanted to get in and was not allowed into it.

J. MacPhail: It's the minister's view that everyone had access to discussion during this period of time.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said, the municipal organizations throughout the province organized these meetings. They notified their members. At no time have I personally witnessed that a person was denied access to the room. I know that the press has asked me for comments during these sessions, and I've always addressed them and given them time to do interviews. Personally, I feel very comfortable that it was open. If it was different, it was certainly not something that the provincial government created. We came in to do a presentation. We made presentations to whoever was in the room.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister outline the time line for when the community charter will actually be passed and implemented?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The way I see it happening is that by July, we will have the second round of information. Staff will need some time to go through it. The Community Charter Council will come together again. We will discuss the new suggestions made by local governments. The guarantee I can give is that the charter will be presented as a bill during the fall session. I expect it to pass during that session.

There is some ongoing discussion about when to enact the new bill, in part because, as we know, in November we're going to have local elections. Some are of the view that we should not confuse local candidates by introducing a new charter that is fundamentally different from the Local Government Act that we work with today. Suggestions have been made to enact it on January 1. I haven't made up my mind, because I really want to do this together with local governments.

I will be on the road in the coming months talking with local governments. I will attend the municipal association meetings in the regions in the next two months. It's going to be one of the questions I will ask: how do you want this? Do you want it enacted immediately, which we can do, or would you like to see it passed and enacted January 1, 2003, so that it comes after the next election, and new council members will have a new tool to work with and the time to get used to it?

J. MacPhail: That actually leads into a question that I wanted to explore with the minister, and that is the upcoming civic elections. I assume that the community

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In part, yes. The Local Government Act today includes not only local governments but also regional district government boards. At this stage we are not dealing with regional district issues. Our commitment from day one has been the first part of the charter. It's for communities. They will work with the new tools — the community charter. The regional district will continue to work with the Local Government Act. There will most likely be five or six different areas where we may have to make some amendments immediately to ensure that the relationship and the way local councils work on the boards go parallel. They work with the same tools when they sit on the boards as when they sit on the municipal council.

Once the community charter is in place, we have committed to start a new round of discussions with regional districts. I foresee this to be quite lengthy, especially with the regional districts. Each regional district has different problems. We want to recognize that. We want to work together with regional boards to recognize these differences or the problems they have that may well be unique to their area.

Not only are we looking to hear and learn about the problems regional districts have in fulfilling their mandate, we also want to hear from regional districts about what they think the solutions are. We're going to go through that process of consultation, and then once the regional districts have their charter, the Local Government Act will no longer exist.

J. MacPhail: Good. Well, that's interesting, because I'm concerned about the way the elections are conducted in November. Perhaps the minister can give reassurances now on this. The Local Government Act actually governs municipal elections, and there are certain aspects of conduct of those elections which I think it would be folly to change this year. I'm thinking particularly around the requirement to disclose election campaign donations. Have we set in motion the fact that the local government elections are going to be conducted under the rules that exist now?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Yes, we are on purpose not tinkering with the municipal election part of the Local Government Act primarily, because at this stage we don't want to confuse…. In the period in which we get so close to local elections we don't want to tinker with that to confuse not only candidates but also people that will have to work with the rules and regulations and monitor them. We have made no changes at this point to the municipal election sections that the member was concerned about.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the time line for the community charter then, even given that it may be up to nine months to a year from now, are there any changes to the staff and the ministry section that this minister is responsible for that have occurred as a result of downsizing or that are anticipated to change in the three-year plan as a result of the implementation of the community charter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are no changes in staff due to the community charter. What the future holds, I really cannot speculate on. The thing is that one of the reasons the charter is such an important tool for local governments to see introduced and passed and become the new tool to work with is that much of the work that local governments do and much of the decisions that local governments make often have to be second-guessed by Victoria. With this charter you will see that there will be true empowerment of local governments in many of the areas where today they have to get the blessing from Victoria or scrutiny by Victoria, which will no longer be possible.

What the impact of that will be on staffing, I can't tell you. I think today, already within the ministry, it is a pretty tight workload type of situation. That situation will maybe change, but I'm only speculating. What I can say is that during the process the charter will be introduced, and local governments will adjust. During that period we will certainly use our staff to assist local governments in getting a level of comfort with the charter. When we work for the next year and a half after that — two years, maybe — on creating the district charter, again it's driven by an enormous amount of work by staff. That to me says that people who are in the system today and want to be in the system in the future will certainly be part of creating that second phase of the community charter. That's where I have to leave it.

J. MacPhail: What is the budget? What expenditures have been made on the community charter consultation, and who actually staffs the Community Charter Council? Who are they?

J. MacPhail: Who actually staffs the Community Charter Council? Who are they? Are they contract employees? Are they ministry employees?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The total budget is approximately $250,000 up to today. The majority of staff members have been from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and UBCM. We have had one contracted staff member to give us the legal advice that was needed to make sure what we do as changes to the community charter was indeed not only proper but worked within the constitution of Canada. For that reason, we hired a lawyer who is known as the top expert in Canada when it comes to municipal law.

His name is Mr. Lidstone. He is not unknown to the member opposite, as the former government has used his services on a number of occasions as well. Mr. Lid-

stone has advised us on the constitutional impact. He has advised us, together with the drafting people, how to formulate the sections. I can just say that without his input, it would have been a lot more difficult and most likely not as effective as what we have been able to do.

I should say that the Local Government Act that is used today took three years to be developed, as the member well knows of course. The community charter draft as it is now was done in seven months. Where the Local Government Act consisted of 1,130 sections, this community charter, with all the work that's done, will be under 300 sections. In making all these changes and harmonizing sections and so on, we really felt the need for an expert to deal with it.

We're very fortunate in this province that we have Mr. Lidstone, as the member recognized by hiring him in the process as well. He certainly has assisted us to make a charter that will be an enormous tool for local governments to make decisions that are of importance to the citizens and at the same time also recognizes the provincial interests in certain areas that have to be upheld as well.

J. MacPhail: I firmly believe this is not a process that should be rushed at all. I thought the time lines were unrealistic initially, so I encourage the governments, both at the provincial and the local levels, to take all the time they need to get this right.

This may be for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services just to take note. I have some questions that I need to discuss on the issue of changes that are now being introduced by the provincial government, which have an impact either on the community charter or on municipal governments. The ministers themselves can determine who answers the questions.

One is on the changes to the liquor laws, which have happened subsequent to the community charter consultations, and the other is on the gaming revenue and the absence of any agreement on gaming revenue. If the reference is going to be to Bill 6, I'll just put the minister on notice about this. If the reference is that this should be discussed under Bill 6, there's nothing under Bill 6 to discuss, because it's gone. The previous memorandum of agreement isn't included in Bill 6, so a procedural elbow won't work. The ministers can just decide among themselves who's going to answer those questions.

In the questions on certain issues I have for the minister, in terms of issues to be resolved by the community charter, one of the areas I heard that received quite a bit of discussion was in the area of making sure local governments have enough control to settle bylaw disputes with citizens. It was something that had been pursued fairly vigorously through the changes to the Local Government Act. What are the discussions from the Community Charter Council? Where's the direction going on that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One of the things that was always in the front of my mind was to recognize that with the stronger empowerment of local governments, we also had to make sure that accountability was strengthened as well. There are in the charter draft — and the member will see it soon — a couple of provisions that deal with the accountability of local governments toward their citizens. I think that in regard to the disputes, it will be explained in the draft.

J. MacPhail: The other issue that I know received a lot of discussion was the issue about the relationship between a community charter and the Vancouver Charter. What's the status of that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Vancouver has had the Vancouver Charter for about 40 or 50 years now, and there is no intent whatsoever — and we have made that statement a number of times — to tell the city of Vancouver they cannot have their city charter. That stands. I should also say I have had discussions with the administrator of the city, who is truly dying to see a copy of the draft. I have not been willing to give it to her, because I feel that when we release it, it should be available for all.

I think the city of Vancouver may well look at the community charter we are creating right now and actually figure out that this is better than what the Vancouver Charter is all about. If they choose to join and adopt the community charter as their tool for future decision-making power, that would be great, but it will be their decision. Like I said, the community charter, in my opinion, is stronger, more empowering and also more demanding in the area of accountability, so that is what the city council of Vancouver will have to make up its mind about. Time will tell how they react to that.

J. MacPhail: Has Vancouver not been part of the community charter discussions? Is that what I take from the minister's comments?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No, they have not been part of it. If you look at the Community Charter Council that clearly was mandated to create the new tools, there was no representation from the city of Vancouver on there. In part the reason was that they have their own charter, and we are talking about the charter for every other community. I felt other communities had to be represented on the Community Charter Council, and that's how it has been.

J. MacPhail: That makes sense, given that they will be unaffected by this, but one of the comments as I was doing my research for these estimates…. It may be stale now, and that's fair enough. The mayor of Surrey, Doug McCallum, was saying he would prefer a model based on the Vancouver Charter rather than the community charter. Has the minister had any update on Mr. McCallum's views in the last months?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I don't think it's right to say that Mayor McCallum from Surrey doesn't want a

community charter. He would like to have the model of the Vancouver Charter. What he has said is: "When you do the community charter" — and he is a supporter of the concept — "make sure the components the Vancouver Charter has that enable the city of Vancouver to do things other communities cannot are also entrenched in the community charter." He was asking for some of the Vancouver Charter components to be harmonized into the community charter.

Many of the things Vancouver can do will be in there. There's one area where we have to be very cautious. The city of Vancouver has the right to do its own borrowing, for example. Other communities get their borrowing through the MFA, the Municipal Finance Authority. That has certain consequences. The Municipal Finance Authority is recognized as one of the top borrowing agencies for local governments in North America. It is the only finance authority that has a triple-A rating. We want to make sure that whatever we do, that triple-A rating is not going to be undermined, because having a triple-A rating has horrendous cost savings for local governments if they have to borrow. The city of Vancouver has its own borrowing authority, and the charter will not replicate that.

The city of Vancouver has its own borrowing authority, and the charter will not replicate that. In most of the other areas, the empowerment is very much like what the city of Vancouver is doing. The empowering is not just that they are allowed to do certain things. What I think is critical is that we also change the rules. If a community wants to do something where in the past they had to get approval from Victoria, that approval will not be necessary in almost all cases.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to move now to the area of local government taxation powers. Earlier this year the minister said that the community charter would enable municipalities to create new parking taxes — well, that was one example — and new taxes like parking, resort and specified-area taxes as a result of the community charter. That was actually how it was reported at a Vancouver Board of Trade luncheon in January of this year. Then the minister also said, which of course is part of the New Era document, that the charter will prevent the province from downloading to local governments.

Given that discussion occurred in a public forum like the Vancouver Board of Trade, the minister must have some very clear idea about the direction the community charter is taking in that area. It did create a little bit of a stir. What direction is the provincial government heading in this area?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me first of all state that when I spoke to the board of trade, I made it very clear that I could not reveal any detail of the community charter. What I could talk about were suggestions which had been made during the consultation process in regard to taxation. We had an enormous amount of suggestions by local government where they believed they had to have some control over the power to tax in certain areas.

During that speech I gave a number of examples, including the parking tax, and that's how it was presented. It was not, "This is what we will do," but: "This is what people would like to see in the charter." Some of the elements I'd like to see in the charter…. It will be up to cabinet to make that decision. When the charter comes out with the White Paper, there is a lot of attention on new taxation powers for local governments. Again, in a questioning way, is this what you want, or are there still other areas? The list of taxation empowerment that will be part of the community charter will truly be dictated by this last round of information.

J. MacPhail: The context in which I'm having this discussion with the government, Mr. Chair, is the New Era document, which says: "…to give local governments greater autonomy and better planning tools to reduce pressure on property taxes." That's the direction in which I'm heading to discuss taxation powers generally at the local government level. It's based on a concept that we all know as individuals — I used to always hear, when I was on that side of the House, from the then Finance critic — that there is only one taxpayer. We hear that each and every day now, increasingly.

Is the discussion around taxation powers…? Is there some sort of principle of zero sum or that local government's ability to tax has to be constrained by the introduction of new service? Are there any constraints on local taxation powers being considered in the community charter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I should say to the member opposite that the sentiment of only one taxpayer is at the end of the day shared by many, many local government members. At the same time local government members face tremendous pressure in providing a sound fiscal strategy for the community because of the needs of the community, be it infrastructure, social projects or recreational projects.

Unfortunately, the only tool that local governments have today is property tax. For local governments, property tax has become not unlike driftwood for men and women drowning. They are hanging onto it. Many communities today are having pressing financial needs they can only fulfil if indeed they again go back to increased property taxes.

Local governments have said: "Give us the tools to do that." We in return have said: "Okay, be part of making these tools. Tell us what you think will work." That process is still ongoing, as I said. In the White Paper there is a substantial amount of discussion created for local governments to respond to again. At the end of the day, I believe what will be in the charter as the new tools will not only reflect what local governments see as a way of reducing property tax pressure but at the same time keeping in mind we have one taxpayer alone. That list of empowerment tools will be dictated to a large extent by local governments.

J. MacPhail: I've always been curious about it being framed in the context that the government has to reduce the pressure on property tax, because a taxpayer is a taxpayer. Do the local governments, in the minister's view, distinguish to say that a tax increase that isn't a property tax increase would be more welcome by taxpayers?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm not second-guessing what the taxpayer thinks. I think I know, but I'm not going to second-guess. I think the input I'm going to get from local governments is the message they receive from their constituents, their citizens, in regards to the taxation. That message will dictate how they respond to the White Paper and the questions asked in the White Paper. When that all comes together, we will have a much clearer picture of where they want to go and how they want to get to a more realistic taxation system on a local level that does, at the end of the day, reduce property taxation.

One of the things we have to recognize is that over time local governments have only had that one tool. Communities are growing. There is more demand for infrastructure. At the same time, they do not get more income unless they increase property taxes. The provincial government has got income tax and the provincial sales tax. The federal government has income tax and the GST. When business grows, the income to the provincial government increases. When business grows, more people get jobs. That means more income tax. Local governments don't have that. They are stuck in that one very square box.

The pressures put onto the citizens are getting such that through circumstances, a lot of people can't afford to live anymore in the communities where they have been living for years. They move to areas where there are lower taxes. Property values have risen dramatically. There are people today living in homes they occupied or built 40 years ago, senior citizens that paid $28,000 for the land 40 years ago and then built a home on it. Today this property is maybe worth $400,000 or $500,000. They don't qualify for a homeowner's grant anymore. Their income is not based on the value of their property; it's driven by other factors. A lot of these people today can't even afford living there anymore. They have to move out of their comfort zone, their home where they have lived, where they have brought up their family.

Property tax is becoming a social burden as well, more than just a financial burden. If local governments see opportunities to lift that burden and make it more doable to stay in their homes, and they give us the message that's what they want, then we are willing to consider these tools.

J. MacPhail: I live in a city where that pressure is probably the greatest on property values increasing, next to Whistler. We do have a property tax deferral system that is incredibly effective for seniors. It's one of the best in the country. I urge the government to reinstate the advertising of that to let seniors know it's available and that their houses are not at risk with their right to have property tax deferral.

One of the things I've heard in speculation — and it's become an increasingly loud speculation — is that the portion of school taxes paid in the form of property taxes will be separated out and treated differently. Is that being contemplated?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No, that's not part of what the direction of the discussion with local governments is all about. Like I said before, we have been listening to what local government thinks are the tools. That is one that I have not heard during these discussions. In other areas there may be discussions ongoing, but it's certainly not part of this discussion or the community charter.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm pleased to hear that. I'll just put my view on the record. If somehow the government were to move toward allowing a school-district-by-school-district taxation level, an independent ability to tax, it would undermine severely the universality of our education system, and the most vulnerable would be severely harmed by that.

When that speculation is raised with me, I'll put it to rest. The government isn't considering that. That's good news.

If indeed the government is looking at providing other revenue sources for the municipalities, why is it that, either through legislation or consultation, the government chose not to renew the memorandum of agreement about the sharing of gaming revenue?

Hon. G. Abbott: First, around the issue the member raised with respect to school taxes, the minister made it very clear that it is not our area of jurisdiction. The member should canvass this issue with the Minister of Finance. It is not within our purview, neither the Minister of State for Community Charter nor the minister responsible for municipal affairs, to set tax policy. That's an issue she should raise with the Minister of Finance. I do want to have that on the record.

Secondly, I know the member earlier mentioned the areas of liquor laws and gaming and the particular application of those to municipalities. I'm happy to be as helpful as I can be with respect to those issues as well. What I can't be, nor can the Minister of State for Community Charter, is a surrogate Solicitor General.

As the member well knows, both liquor and gaming are clearly responsibilities of the Solicitor General. The opposition had an opportunity, which they didn't avail themselves of, to peruse these issues with the Solicitor General in his estimates. Further, as the member herself noted, Bill 6 provides an opportunity for the opposition, as well, to look at the details of the new proposed Gaming Control Act.

I'm not saying this to be provocative. We will attempt to provide answers in consultation with staff around the issues the member raises, but — this has become a bit of a pattern in estimates — we are not going to attempt to be surrogate Solicitors General here.

J. MacPhail: As always, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services' interventions are less than helpful. In a dialogue that has been continuing here in a very civilized way, he stands up and is actually less than helpful to his government as well. Now I will have to go out and say: "Well, gee, it turns out that they may be considering separating out school taxes and allowing for individual taxation on a school district basis." That's on the basis of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services's intervention.

Secondly, the cheap shots about two members of the opposition not availing themselves of opportunities to participate in a half-hour of estimates of the Solicitor General while other work was being done are completely unwarranted and less than helpful.

Lastly, on that issue, the matters of the liquor law changes and Bill 6 weren't even introduced before his estimates skated through the process in this chamber. The minister completely disrespects the point of view of people who don't kowtow to his government — less than helpful. I'm sorry that he made those interventions, Mr. Chair. They were less than helpful.

My last point on both liquor laws and gaming revenue: it is this minister's responsibility. It's about relationships with municipal councils. My own municipal council has put on the record here, through motions, that they're very upset that the government didn't consult on this change in revenue-sharing — very upset. It's a matter of revenue-sharing. That is exactly the topic that we're discussing. The community charter is supposed to reorganize the ability of municipalities to raise revenue outside of property taxes. That's what we're discussing here.

Gaming revenue. The fact that the government has removed the gaming revenue-sharing agreement between the UBCM and the provincial government is going to mean, I think, an annual reduction in revenue to my city council, Vancouver, in the millions of dollars. I have this information right here. I'll find it for the minister. It's to the tune of at least $3 million to $4 million. I think it's perfectly appropriate that this matter be discussed now.

Hon. G. Abbott: There was a reason why the Solicitor General's estimates lasted half an hour, and that was because there were questions from private members on the government's side with respect to the Solicitor General's programs, revenues and so on. There was not, I repeat, a single question or intervention from the opposition with respect to the Solicitor General and his issues. They may have the best of reasons why they didn't participate in those debates, but they did not. Ever since the opposition didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to debate directly with the Solicitor General, they've been attempting in a variety of estimates to create surrogate Solicitors General. It's just not going to happen.

If the estimates of the Solicitor General skated through, the member should look at herself as the reason for that. If they had compelling issues and questions around the Solicitor General, I'm frankly amazed that they didn't avail themselves of the completely open and unrestricted opportunity to have at the Solicitor General. They did not. We cannot become the surrogate Solicitor General.

On the member's point with respect to the distribution of gaming revenue and those issues, there was not a protocol with UBCM around the distribution of gaming revenue. There may have been with respect to facilities, but not with respect to gaming revenue. Further, how gaming revenue is distributed is purely within the realm of the Solicitor General and, perhaps to some extent, the Ministry of Finance. I don't know. It certainly doesn't rest with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

J. MacPhail: The arrogance of that member continues to be noted. I have absolutely no idea what that minister's agenda is in trying to provoke such feelings of distaste for his government in those who oppose him. I honestly don't know.

We were having a completely reasonable discussion here, and he stands up in his arrogant fashion — it really is quite amazing to me — and makes no point or movement forward on behalf of his government — none whatsoever. Somehow suggesting that the memorandum signed in 1999 between the UBCM and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs is something for which he is not responsible just goes to show the municipalities that their issues have completely disappeared into the ether.

In my city, Vancouver, the revenue-sharing was a result of a signed memorandum of agreement between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the UBCM. It did allocate a formula for revenue-sharing on a municipality-by-municipality basis. Is the minister not aware of that memorandum of agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this is useful to the member. The protocol does go to the issue of revenue from new facilities. The provisions with respect to the protocol…. To our knowledge, within our ministry the protocol remains in effect. The protocol also deals with intermunicipal disputes. As I understand from, I think, section 21 of Bill 6, there may be some additional clarity around that point. That's our understanding of that issue.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to read into the record the administrative report of the city of Vancouver dealing specifically with this issue. I expect that the city of Vancouver is not alone in this deep concern they have around no acknowledgment of the continuation of the memorandum of agreement with the UBCM.

Again, matters that are being dealt with under the community charter right now. I do accept the Minister of State for Community Charter's view that the Vancouver Charter is unaffected by this; however, other municipalities are. To continue:

This was a White Paper that had been introduced in the spring of that year. In Vancouver this means that 10 percent of the net income from local casinos goes to the city. This agreement clearly satisfied many of the concerns expressed by municipalities and particularly by Vancouver city council in its response to the provincial White Paper on gaming of 1999. Most importantly, traditional municipal powers over land use and bylaw-making were recognized and supported.

That's my city's view of the importance of the memorandum of agreement. They also go on to say that there are many concerns with the fact that there is no recognition by this government of the continuation of the memorandum of agreement because it may mean that the city now bears all of the costs associated with casinos being located in their jurisdiction and being exposed to all of those costs, with a loss of the revenue to support those costs. What is the future of the memorandum of agreement on this matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor any member of the staff of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is aware of any letter, any brief or any intervention on the part of the city of Vancouver with respect to this. If the city of Vancouver has concerns — and I don't doubt that they do — they have not advised the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services about that. I do not know, not being the Solicitor General, whether there has been a change with respect to those issues. Those issues haven't been raised with us.

I fully expect the city may have raised those issues with the Solicitor General, but they have not with us. It is the first time we have heard of those concerns. If she feels a compelling need to get a knowledgable answer, she should raise the issue with the Solicitor General. I'm sure he would be more than pleased to discuss the matter with the member.

J. MacPhail: The reason I said that the government shouldn't try a procedural elbow here is because that minister is famous for doing that. It's not unlike the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, who says: "I'm just here to help the economy; I'm not here to protect the environment." This minister isn't here to protect the interests of municipalities, I guess. Indeed, this issue is exactly about what the community charter is supposed to do, which is to diversify the revenue base away from property taxes. That's exactly what the New Era document says. That's exactly what it does.

Here, instead, what we have now is a government that has shut down or put at risk a revenue source beyond property taxes. The Vancouver city council has raised this concern. The fact that the minister is unaware of it shows that he's not doing his job — completely not doing his job.

I will again suggest that it's the responsibility of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to advocate on behalf of municipalities who are deeply concerned about this issue — deeply concerned. My particular city council was surprised that the government did not consult at all in proposed changes around the revenue-sharing agreement and has passed motions to that effect.

There is a substantial administrative report and council meeting minutes on this issue. Frankly, I am greatly concerned about the matter as well, because if this revenue-sharing arrangement is not perpetuated in legislation, then services in my city are at risk.

Hon. G. Abbott: One thing I am not is a mind reader. If the city of Vancouver has concerns with respect to this issue, and they didn't feel they were being satisfactorily heard by the Solicitor General, of course they would avail themselves of the opportunity to contact me as the minister responsible for municipal affairs to discuss it. I want to again emphasize that they have never forwarded by letter or any other form of communication a concern around this point. There's a probable explanation for this. Unlike the member opposite, the city of Vancouver has probably figured out that the Solicitor General is responsible for gaming in British Columbia. I'm sure they have taken up their concerns with him.

While the member would like us to go and speculate in other people's areas of responsibility, we're not going to do that.

J. MacPhail: I don't want to pursue anything more with this minister. His comments are completely unhelpful. In fact, I'm hoping that someone other than this minister can actually provide answers. He continues to be incredibly provocative on a matter that is of his government's own creation, and he stands there and just says it's the city of Vancouver's fault.

It's not unlike when he says to municipal councils that are concerned about cuts his government has made to them in the downloading: "Well, cry me a river." I guess this is his version. Maybe it's the rap,

hip-hop version of Cry Me A River to the city of Vancouver: "Not my job. It's not my job to worry about your interests."

J. MacPhail: The minister stands there and says it's somehow not his responsibility. I take my job incredibly responsibly. If there's an issue that faces my city, I raise it here with the minister responsible, and there is the answer of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Perhaps the minister responsible for the community charter and I can continue our dialogue, which was proving to be very fruitful.

On the issue of liquor laws — just as an aside, Mr. Chair — if the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services suggests somehow that that's not his responsibility either, then perhaps he needs to look at the new-era promise of saying there wouldn't be any downloading onto the municipalities. It's his responsibility to protect in that, and there are many who view it that the changes to the liquor laws are downloading onto the municipalities.

He can be prepared, I guess, maybe to shuffle off his responsibility in that area. Maybe he's got a waltz version of Cry Me A River on that matter, but those questions will be pursued, Mr. Chair, probably in the afternoon. My apologies to the Minister of State for Community Charter for that completely unhelpful intervention by his colleague.

The Minister of State for Community Charter has also said that municipalities will get 75 percent of all traffic fine revenues. Are those discussions ongoing?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: During the meetings I've had in the province with local governments over the last five or six months, that question has been coming up pretty well in all the meetings. I have explained that it is a new-era commitment that this government has made. It is a commitment we have to deliver on during this term, and that is still fully the intent of this government. There were commitments made for the first 90 days. We have delivered in the first 90 days all the new-era commitments we put in the booklet.

The police revenue…. It's not police revenue-sharing. It is the 75 percent return of all traffic fines collected. It is not part of the 90-day commitment. It's part of our commitment for this term, and we will honour it.

J. MacPhail: I understand that. I'm just asking whether those discussions are ongoing. One of the issues facing all of us in British Columbia is the issue of deaths related to speed. I understand that the issue of speed on our roads is not part of the municipal charter discussions. In terms of the traffic fine revenue-sharing, as I recall, the discussions that occurred back when I was on that side of the House were that there was some movement toward the police having goals to reach in terms of road safety outcomes.

Then they would be able to enforce…. As long as they met those goals, those performance measures, it was up to them to decide how to meet those goals, and they could use whatever tools were available to them. Is the minister aware whether there are any ongoing discussions in that area along with revenue-sharing?

The only reason I ask this is that it would be tempting to the police — and I say this with respect to the police; they have a very tough job — to invoke traffic fines in the most voluminous way possible — i.e., the easiest way to ticket people may not be the best way to promote road safety. Are there any discussions going on in terms of revenue-sharing where revenue-sharing is based on road safety outcomes?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: On the issue of the 75 percent of all traffic fines being returned to communities, that is indeed an ongoing issue. It is not only an ongoing issue between myself and the Solicitor General, but communities bring up that issue on a regular basis, so there is a fair amount of dialogue going on.

On the second part, I have never, ever been advised or asked an opinion on that particular point that the member has raised. I have not heard about performance levels and compatibility levels. It's just something that is not on my radar screen at all.

J. MacPhail: Well, as those revenue-sharing discussions go on, I just ask the minister maybe to make note in his mind that that is one way of dealing with the communities' concerns around speed right now — road speed, traffic speed. I think British Columbia has one of the best records of road safety in North America, but we want to maintain that record of road safety. The police at all jurisdictions — municipal jurisdictions and the RCMP — have contributed to improved road safety in this province.

I could be recalling this out of context, but as I recall, one of the issues with municipalities around revenue-sharing of traffic fines was that they are responsible for road safety, yet they don't always have the resources available to maintain that good record of road safety. It was an allegation. Fair or not, it was an allegation that stood the test of time — that it was a form of downloading from the provincial government when we were in government, the downloading onto the municipal police forces and the RCMP of road safety enforcement without the proper revenue sources.

I just ask the minister to keep in mind, as he has these discussions on revenue-sharing, that there are also opportunities to have performance-based outcomes that actually enhance our road safety. This idea didn't come from our government. It came from the police themselves.

I want to talk a little bit about the principles of a community charter. We have a couple of minutes before we rise. One is the issue that arose out of discussions that occurred at the provincial congress held last month. That was the issue around the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the TNAC discussions. Are

there any discussions in the community charter where there are principles that would either complement or impinge upon treaties?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are no formal discussions — at least not by me — in relation to the community charter and the connection to aboriginal communities. I should, however, say to the member that during the meetings that we have held in the province, a number of members from the aboriginal communities participated.

One individual in particular, who is a member of the Sechelt band, has been coming to a number of meetings because he's really interested in the concept of the charter. I shouldn't speak for him, but I can quote him as saying that he sees this as maybe a tool to add to the package once treaty negotiations are going on, that within the charter there are elements that could help in establishing the form of government that would be acceptable to aboriginal communities. I think the empowerment component of the charter itself is something that is attractive to some of the aboriginal community members, but they certainly are not speaking for their band elders. They're not speaking for their leadership. It is just their personal opinion.

I keep encouraging these individuals who come forward and say that this is good. Maybe there's something we can do for aboriginal communities like this. I always encourage them to stay in touch with me and give me some input. I actually have some dialogue with individual members, but as I say, they do not represent aboriginal communities that they're from. They clearly express their recognition of the community charter and its principles and its ideas and some of the aspirations that have come through the consultation process with local governments — that it may be part of finding a solution to how aboriginal communities are going to be able to take care of their communities in a way that they feel they have control.

J. MacPhail: One of the issues, though, in terms of a chain reaction is the referendum on treaties, where there is one question about whether treaty-making should be done…. I'm not quoting it exactly. I looked it up. I can't find the actual resolution the House passed — that, as I recall, aboriginal self-government should be based on a municipal governance model. If the community charter changes that governance model, what impact does that have on the referendum question?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I have never, Mr. Chair, had discussions with anybody about the charter being per se created for the purposes of finding common ground with aboriginal communities. I think that's as far as I can go. The referendum is obviously not something I can discuss. That is the Attorney General, but I think if at the end of the day the charter will empower local governments to a level that will allow them to take care of their own communities and make decisions that are important to their community, it may well be something that aboriginal communities want to look at. But that will be something in the future.

It would be great if this could be a tool that would help aboriginal communities feel comfortable with the type of local government that truly gives local governments the power to do the things that are important for them. That goes for all communities throughout British Columbia, including aboriginal communities.

J. MacPhail: Well, I respect the minister's point of view, but I do caution him this, and perhaps it's something he wants to discuss with his government. One of the challenges people are facing in this referendum is that particular question about aboriginal self-government being negotiated in a way that is municipal style of government. There's not agreement at all amongst first nations. Sorry, there is agreement amongst first nations that that matter has already been decided in court and that aboriginal title confers a much greater self-government than just municipal style.

It does seem to me that if this provincial government is looking for certainty in terms of negotiating strategies for future treaty-making, the answer to that question becomes almost irrelevant if the government down the road, within months, changes what a municipal order of government has the ability to do. I base that on the Premier's comment that the community charter would be creating a new level of government in B.C. I think he used the word "level," not "order." So that would throw open, in what is a pretty…. So far, in the discussions I've had with people who are contemplating how they're going to respond to these questions, it's the most troubling of all questions amongst the eight questions in the referendum.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Without going into the referendum questions, I should say that I've lived in British Columbia for 25 years, and during my 25 years I've been involved with local government for about 15 or 16 years, and things have always changed when it comes to local government. Things have progressed; things have been simplified. I think it's almost like an evolutionary process that's happening here as well. How it will impact the treaty negotiations in the future, I can't judge. I have a silent hope that what we're doing here will actually make it easier for aboriginal communities to embrace a new concept of what local government means in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I leave it on the record for the minister to contemplate in terms of discussions as the issues heat up. As the ballots are mailed out on April 2, it's my view that that is the one question that will provoke…. I think all of the questions will provoke a huge amount of discussion, but that one in particular will provoke a huge amount of discussion. The government perhaps has to be prepared to answer the question as I articulated it.

I have some questions about the community charter discussion paper. They will take about half an hour, and then I think that's it for me in terms of the community charter. I expect we can do that at the next sitting.

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

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. M. Coell: I'll begin by introducing my staff. On my right is Robin Ciceri, the deputy minister. Behind Robin is Randy McDonald, the director of financial services, and Andrew Wharton, assistant deputy minister of the policy and research division. I'd like to thank these members of the executive for their role in preparing the budget and their staff and my staff as well. I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the hundreds of other ministry employees who provide excellent service to our clients throughout the province. Together we are embarking on some fundamental changes to the ministry.

I'll say more about the new direction in a moment, but first I would like to give the committee a quick snapshot of where the ministry is now. The Ministry of Human Resources serves a quarter of a million people each month. Our mission is to provide services that move people to sustainable employment and assist individuals and families in need. We currently operate under B.C. Benefits legislation to provide employment services, income assistance, assistance for persons with disabilities, health care and dental services for low-income British Columbians, and other services that protect the well-being of people in need.

Today nearly 6 percent of the British Columbia population receives income assistance. That's a statistic that troubles me. It represents people whose potential is being wasted as they wait for their next income assistance cheque and who risk being trapped by welfare dependency. People have gone too long without financial security, a sense of accomplishment and the dignity that a job can bring — people who may have started to give up on themselves as well.

We know that the economy is going to turn around and that it's vital for all British Columbians to get ready for it. That's why we are committed to helping people get the direction and the training they need to find and keep a job.

This emphasis on employment is part of a fundamental change that I mentioned a few months ago. Getting and keeping a job makes all the difference. Having a job that gives a sense of accomplishment builds hope and self-esteem and provides economic security for the individual and the family.

Even in this economic downturn there are jobs changing hands every day in British Columbia, but getting a job is not what it used to be. Things have changed. The economy is in transition. Well-paying resource industry jobs that could be found without a high school diploma are disappearing. There's increasing demand for more skills and training. The correlation between education and employment is clear, as is the correlation between a solid income in one family generation and the well-being of the next.

The change. As a result of the core services review, my minister is redefining the B.C. income assistance system based on seven guiding principles: personal responsibility versus a culture of entitlement; active participation by clients; innovative partnerships between the ministry, the private sector and communities; citizen confidence in the income assistance system; fairness and transparency with less red tape; clear outcomes, whereby we measure our success by the success of the people we serve; accountability for the results that we achieve.

We also identified five core business areas. They are employment programs, temporary assistance, continuous assistance, supplementary assistance, and corporate services and service delivery. Under legislation we will introduce this spring, we will deliver these services under a new program called B.C. employment and assistance. We're going to leave no doubt that the emphasis will be on employment for those who are not on continuous assistance.

Employment requirements. Income assistance applicants will spend three weeks doing their own job search before they will be eligible for assistance. If they haven't been successful finding work, they may be eligible for temporary assistance. Temporary assistance is

not intended to be long term. People who receive temporary assistance will be required to enter into an employment assistance agreement. An employment plan will direct the client into job search and job placement programs or specific training and employment.

Most people getting temporary assistance will be required to look for work. I've heard the argument that this requirement is too harsh. I don't believe it. The best safety net is a job — and, yes, there are jobs. More than 500,000 jobs change hands in British Columbia every year. With the right training and motivation, there's no reason that income assistance clients can't compete for these jobs. With the minimum wage now at $8 an hour, a full-time job will pay twice as much as a single person will get on welfare, and even an entry-level job can open the door for a better career and a better life. That's why we will be committing $300 million over the next three years to job programs.

People with disabilities. The rate of unemployment for persons with disabilities is nearly twice that of the non-disabled population. The strain on families and the loss of the opportunity for people with disabilities to contribute within their communities and to be self-reliant are not acceptable. People with disabilities have told us they need better access to employment and training programs that recognize their special and distinct needs. We are all responding to that call.

The employment strategy for persons with disabilities will provide employment programs and services to all persons with disabilities who want and who are able to work. My ministry will work with partnerships, the community, the private sector and with other ministries to develop this strategy over the coming months. People with disabilities will have access to a continuum of service that will help them to prepare for employment. This will include access to both mainstream job placement and training for job programs, as well as to the specialized programs that I mentioned.

Our partnership with the private sector will be a key to success of these programs. The disability community has told us that support from employers is vital. Our strategy will involve leaders from business, non-profits and labour in the development of appropriate and effective employment services and supports.

We recognize that not everyone with a disability is able to work. Continuous assistance will be available for them. We will continue to provide supplementary assistance such as medical equipment and dental services. We will also encourage people on continuous assistance to participate in employment programs if and when they choose to.

The budget. As you know, the government is committed to addressing B.C.'s structural deficit and balancing the books by the year 2005. Our goal is a sustainable framework to return to economic growth and job creation.

My ministry will fulfil its responsibility to the taxpayer by making our programs cost-effective and efficient. Our proposed budget for the year 2002-2003 represents a decrease of $147.5 million from last year. That's a 7.6 percent drop. While providing services for those most in need, we are reducing our workforce by 15 percent over three years, and we are closing 36 offices.

We will be looking at alternative models of service delivery so that staff can spend more time working with clients instead of doing paperwork, and so clients can use technology to have more convenient access to the ministry.

We are changing some eligibility requirements to refocus our clients on employment, such as requiring single parents to seek work when their youngest child turns three instead of seven.

We are eliminating some programs, such as homemaker services, that are not part of the ministry's core mandate and are available elsewhere.

We are maintaining income assistance rates for the vast majority of our clients, including people with disabilities.

We are also introducing stiffer penalties for income assistance fraud, including a lifetime ban for the most serious cases, involving convictions under the Criminal Code, in order to ensure that the help goes to those who truly need it.

We will ensure that our employment programs are performance based, with payments to service providers linked to their success in helping our clients get jobs.

We are restructuring our community services programs to better reflect the ministry's mandate and concentrate our resources on individuals and families in need.

We are streamlining our appeal system to reduce delays and increase accountability.

In conclusion, the estimates discussion comes on the eve of a period of great change for this ministry. I'm looking forward to the challenges ahead, and I am confident we will succeed in helping British Columbians fulfil their potential and find the opportunities in the economic upturn ahead.

J. Kwan: I have a number of questions to ask the minister. Let me first begin with this letter. It was actually found in the website called www.bcwhistleblower.ca. I'm going to read part of the letter because it's filled with questions that I think members of the public themselves are asking of the government in terms of these changes.

From a single mum who's wondering whether or not she's going to be eligible. What is the future for her? How's she going to support her son? Can she continue on her upgrades? What is the minister's response to this single mother?

Hon. M. Coell: In British Columbia over the last, I would think, 12 years the rate for single parents returning to work has gone from six months in the late eighties to 19 years in the mid-nineties to 12 years to seven years. We chose three years for return to work for two reasons. First, the eligibility for child care at three is much easier and better to find. It's also allowing three years for a single parent to get their life in order. At the end of three years we would require a single parent to look for work or to be training for two years. That's a total of five years. At that point there would be a reduction of 11 percent, I believe, in the single person's income assistance.

During that five years all of the training programs will be available for that person, if they wish. You're really looking at a three-year time period where it's not necessary for a single parent caring for a child to look for work or to be in training programs and two years where we ask that they be involved in training programs or seek work. At the end of that five-year period the reduction would happen in the single person's income assistance.

I believe that if we work closely with people over that period of time, we will find them jobs, and they will achieve a greater satisfaction and a greater potential with their lives.

The training programs that we will be unveiling over the next year are an offshoot, as I think the member knows, of some of the training programs that the previous government put in place. We're redefining them to hopefully be more accountable.

I would give some credit that there was a great deal of success in those. As a matter of fact, over the period of the last 3½ years, since those training programs have been in place, there are now 65,000 fewer people on income assistance. Many of those people found jobs; many of those people are single parents. So there is hope for jobs for people. We're optimistic that those training programs that this person would be eligible for will help. As I say, they would have the better part of five years before any kind of change to their income assistance will take place.

I understand the letter. I am optimistic that the changes we're making will go a long way to helping that person achieve the goals they've set out for themselves.

J. Kwan: Actually, I'm not as optimistic as the minister. This person, who will have to undergo training, who is in the process of doing that, waiting to go to North Island College in September to do an upgrade, is interested in becoming a counsellor for abuse survivors, and she's wondering whether or not she and her son are going to be cut off the system and whether the funding will be there for the upgrading. According to the minister's new information and the new government's eligibility, parents with dependent children — in this instance, a single parent with a dependent child — will receive full income assistance for a maximum of two years out of the five, after which their rates will be reduced by an average of 11 percent.

I don't know how long the training is going to take her to go through to get her upgrade and then complete, but if her training goes beyond two years…. I don't know how old her son is, but let's just assume her son is more than three years old. I don't want to get into that other discussion about whether or not the son is three years old. Assuming the son is more than three years old and assuming the training takes more than two years, and she's going to go through the process, this woman's going to be faced, with her family, with a reduction of 11 percent after their second year. How will the person be able to survive with her income assistance rates reduced while she's doing training, trying to gain a better opportunity for herself?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm in the same boat as the member, not knowing the exact details. There are two avenues that someone would go, not too dissimilar to B.C.

Benefits now. They would be exempt, during the training, of the time limits under our new proposal. There would also be the student assistance programs that are available if someone chose that route. Some do. That would be the choice of the individual, I think.

The other thing that might be of some interest to that person would be doing the training part-time. That allows you to be exempt and still continue to have income assistance.

J. Kwan: So when the individual's under training, they are exempt from the period in which to be counted towards when they are on income assistance, and that's for any individual when they are doing some sort of training. They could be in training for five years. As long as they are under a training period, then they're exempted from the period of the time limitation that the minister has put out as a guideline for eligibility.

Hon. M. Coell: It would be under the programs we're producing. If someone chose to go and do a bachelor's degree, they would have to go the student assistance route, but in the programs offered by the ministry, such as the ones that have been offered, you would be exempt.

J. Kwan: So on the training, it's only ministry-provided training programs which a person could gain access to, and if they are under that program, then they'd be exempt for that period of time to be counted towards their limitation for being on income assistance. Any other training opportunities that are out there, which could be provided by the private sector, the public sector or any other sector, for that matter…. None of that training would be recognized, then, by government.

Hon. M. Coell: As per B.C. Benefits, that's the same as it is now if someone's involved in our training programs. We are going to initiate some more that will be longer-term, upwards of a year. Under B.C. Benefits right now — and we're not deviating from that — if a person goes into university or college, they would qualify for student assistance. There's no difference in the previous legislation than there is in the legislation we will be presenting.

J. Kwan: There are some other training programs that are not necessarily ministry-provided training programs. If a recipient engages in those training programs — not necessarily college or university but some other training program — those would not be recognized by the government as a component towards training.

Hon. M. Coell: The proposal would be that they would be signed off as part of the employment plan. We want to make sure that we get good outcomes — that people are not just taking courses that don't have an outcome of a job for them. The training programs that would be signed off, working with clients and our staff, would be ones that we would approve that would have part of the employment plan and an accountable outcome. That's what we're hoping to do.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, then: for a person who would engage in training outside of ministry programs, they could be counted towards the training period that the minister has stipulated, as long as the FAW in the office approves of that course of training that the individual is embarking on.

Hon. M. Coell: That's the intent: that the approved employment plan would include some training that was signed off by the ministry and the client as the agreed course of action. They would be exempt during that time.

J. Kwan: Is there a time limitation on the period of training which a person can engage in?

Hon. M. Coell: It's a good question. That hasn't been defined as yet. What we're looking for is outcomes, so if someone was involved in a program or a certificate that led to a job, that would be something that we would be able to sign off on.

J. Kwan: In this instance, with the single mom who is looking to be retrained at North Island College as a counsellor, assuming she needs, let's say, a two-year certificate program, would she be qualified for the training assistance from government? For that period of time where she's being trained for two or three years, let's say, to get her certificate, will she be able to apply and still be on income assistance in that instance?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess it's a two-pronged approach. As I said, it's not any different than B.C. Benefits at this point. If she was attending part-time and it was part of our employment plan, she would be exempt and continue to receive benefits. If she decided to go full-time, then as in B.C. Benefits now, she would roll over into the student assistance program, and those funds would pay for the program as well the living expenses during that time.

J. Kwan: I'm not quite sure I get the logic behind that. If she did it part-time, then she would be eligible. In theory, if she did it part-time, maybe it'll take her twice as long to actually graduate. She'll be on income assistance for twice the time, whereas if she did it full-time, she can halve that period of time and actually get through her courses. In that instance, she'd be penalized for it and she would be sent to apply for a student loan in that process. I'm not quite sure I understand. If the intent is actually trying to get people off as quickly as possible and if the person is motivated to get through that system as quickly as possible and have the capacity, wouldn't the government in its evaluation of the training program for this individual determine

that gee, that makes sense? It would halve the time of the person being on income assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the easy answer is: sure, it could be. The training program that someone enters into that is part of a job employment program is the important part. We felt that, in looking at how B.C. Benefits was working, if someone wanted to take a longer-term course that wasn't necessarily part of an employment plan, they would roll from B.C. Benefits into student assistance. That might cover things like English as a second language. It might cover a whole broad range of costs. That would allow someone to take the training programs they want and not be on income assistance, so there wouldn't be a time frame involved there whatsoever.

There are really two avenues someone could go. We haven't changed the B.C. Benefits initiative very much there at all, because we felt that in some instances it was working — that if someone wants to get off income assistance and they decide they want to make a change in their lives, there is the ability to get the educational funds from another source. Then they would come off income assistance for that period of time. That has actually worked fairly well and will continue to be part of the programs.

J. Kwan: In this instance, I think that if the person is to be required to work full-time and the person is going to do the training full-time and by virtue of that, she's going to be cut off income assistance, there's actually less incentive for her to do the studies full-time. She may then want to split it up into part-time and, therefore, double the length of time she would be on income assistance otherwise. If she was able to get income assistance while she's going through this retraining, perhaps in half the period of time she'll actually complete her program. Now the alternative that the minister has offered to this person would be an incentive for her to stay on income assistance for a longer period of time and to do her studies on a part-time basis.

I actually don't understand the logic. If the intent is actually to move income assistance recipients more quickly off of the assistance dependency roll, as the government defines it, then it would be wiser to approve the person to go get the retraining and then in a shorter period of time, on a full-time basis, that person would be off income assistance. That would be the logic I would follow. The logic the minister has offered seems to be defeating this purpose of trying to get people off income assistance in a shorter period of time. It doesn't actually make any sense to me around that.

I'm going to leave this question around this particular individual for the time being. I'm going to move on to a range of areas around changes to the eligibility requirements. It actually ties into this, but there's a whole host of questions I want to ask around that.

Let me first begin with the question around employment requirements. Will people undergoing a three-week self-directed job search be provided with any assistance during the three-week period? I understand that the rules now are such that when a person goes to the office to apply for income assistance…. Most people that I know, when they are at that stage, are absolutely desperate. They've got nothing else. They have exhausted their EI. They have exhausted all their personal savings and probably exhausted all of their friends' support and family support and so on. Then they go to the office for assistance.

Then the office, I understand, under the new rules now, will tell them: "You've got to go and look for work for three weeks before you come back for consideration of your application." Will the people who are undergoing the three-week self-directed job search be provided with any assistance during that three-week period?

Hon. M. Coell: If a person is in an emergency need — an assessment, or leaving an abusive relationship — they would bypass the three-week job search and go onto income assistance. If someone comes who's capable of work, they will be shown the orientation process, a three-week job search program, given the labour market information and a pilot job search program for them to look at. I think it's important to know that if someone comes who's in an emergency, in a crisis, leaving an abusive relationship, they skip that three-week wait process.

J. Kwan: The way in which the minister defines "emergency," it would only apply if there was an issue of abuse.

Hon. M. Coell: No, it could be medical or financial circumstances, leaving an abusive relationship, a number of areas. What we want to make sure is that if someone is in need, they get the services they need. If someone's capable of work, we want to help them take that one last chance at looking for work and show them what opportunities we have, what job programs we have, and to get that last opportunity for job search. If people are in need, they will be able to bypass that three-week job search.

J. Kwan: So a person could show up at a welfare office, and their EI would have, let's say, run out. Let's say a forest worker. Their EI ran out, they have a mortgage, they have a huge debt load, they have no more savings to be had, they've exhausted all of their assets, and they're absolutely in a financial crisis. They have no other resource to go to. If they show up, in that instance, at the welfare office…. Yes, the person is capable of working, in that instance, but doesn't have work. They have been looking for work, because that's part of the EI requirement — while you are on EI, you have to look for work as well — but are unable to secure employment for a variety of reasons. Would that person be required to do the three-week waiting period to get income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: There would be an emergency needs assessment, not too different from what there is now, and then they would be given the assistance they need for food and shelter immediately.

Hon. M. Coell: The new platform is that it wouldn't been seen as a crisis grant or a hardship grant. It would be designed as an emergency service, and the moneys necessary for food and shelter would begin at that time. You wouldn't wait and go through the job search process. If someone presented in that condition — and many do — then there would be an emergency assessment done, very similar to what's done today, and income would be available at that point.

J. Kwan: Then would that person be deemed to be eligible for income assistance for an ongoing period of time, or just for that one-time assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: They'd actually fill out the application, as they do today, at that point and wouldn't go through the three-week job search. They would fill out the application, and their assistance would start from that date.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have it available publicly so that people would know under what circumstances they would be deemed to be in an emergency situation? The minister mentioned abusive situations, financial crisis, medical issues, and so on. Is there a list of criteria that people would actually be able to understand, so they know that if they're in desperate need and in a crisis situation, they can show up at an income assistance office and get support from government?

Hon. M. Coell: We actually have FAQ sheets up on the website, and the financial aid workers will have that information.

J. Kwan: The information, at least that I have seen so far, does not clearly define who would be eligible in those circumstances. It makes you think that a person has to wait for a three-week period before they can apply. I have actually had individuals come to my office who have been advised of that. They are in desperate need of assistance and they have nowhere to turn.

Is the minister planning on sending out a letter to people, then, so that they know, or posting it in a bulletin that says: "Under these circumstances, you would be eligible"? That information is not widely known.

Hon. M. Coell: That will become part of the policy manual and will be on the website. It will done by April, so people will have that information.

One of the problems we're probably going to have with doing estimates so close to new legislation is we're going to go back and forth into what the new legislation will have in it and what's in the estimates for this year. I'll try and do the best I can at answering the questions of the member.

I think you'll find that very shortly that information will be available to everyone.

J. Kwan: The other question that relates to this is: should people be advised? Let's say you were on EI. Three weeks before your EI runs out, you should really go and apply, because you have to go through this process. The last day in which they get funding, should people be advised that they should actually keep that three-week period in mind? Is the interpretation of the policies that are going to be in place such that people wouldn't have to worry about that? When they have financial need and when they show up at the welfare office, they would be able to gain assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: I think that's actually how people will, in that instance, treat it. They'll realize that when their last cheque is due from another source, they would go in and make application for that appointment and start the job search. In some instances that will take place; in others it won't.

I'm comfortable that people will have the information. Our websites will have that information. They can make that judgement themselves, whether it suits or fits their circumstances.

J. Kwan: If a person runs into problems with that in his application even after the policy's in place, who should people go to? I get calls all the time, and not just from my riding, from everywhere now. Everybody's phoning me with problems. In this instance, at this stage, literally people just come in and sit in my office, and they cry. They're sick with worry in terms of what the impacts are, and I don't know what to tell them. When they run into problems, I don't know what to tell them.

Is there a person within the ministry who could troubleshoot this kind of stuff that the person can go to? Is there a number that the individuals can dial that I could give out?

I hope the minister's is not just going to give me back the answer that says: "Go to the FAW or the supervisor in that office." I hope that's not the answer. Well, we've tried that too. Sometimes it helps, and sometimes it doesn't.

I hope there's a troubleshooting group of people that would provide assistance to these individuals immediately.

Hon. M. Coell: The member makes a good point. What we've tried to do — because there are a number of changes — is set up a troubleshooting office and a number, and I can give you the number. The number is 1-800-668-2800 for callers outside the Vancouver area. The metropolitan Vancouver callers can call 604-775-2800. The information line is open Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. What we've done is put people there who can answer the questions directly.

I know a lot of clients do go directly back to their financial aid worker who does have that information. This is actually set up because of the changes that we've made. We want people to have access to questions and to get answers right away.

J. Kwan: Is it just to get questions and answers, or is it also to assist them to overcome difficulties? As an example, if a person actually ran into problems…. They're at the end of their rope, they've no other resources, and they were told: "You ought to go and do this training for three weeks before you can come back for any assistance." In that instance I'm hoping that there's a number which a person could phone and say: "Look, this has happened to me. Can you help me solve this problem?"

Hon. M. Coell: The question the member mentions would be more on an individual basis, and I would direct them to go back to their financial aid worker or to a supervisor in the office. For calls regarding any of the changes, that information is readily available and very detailed information as well. For individuals, I think the person is still better directed back to the people that they know. Their financial aid worker would be the point of entry for that person. I think that would be best.

J. Kwan: What process would a person follow if they've gone back to the FAW, they've gone to the supervisor, and the answer is, "No, I'm sorry. This is how it's going to be," and the person is still in a crisis situation? Who do they go to then, after that?

Hon. M. Coell: I would think it would be no different than B.C. Benefits, and they'd go to the regional executive officer, the REO.

J. Kwan: What if the people have actually gone through all of those steps with all the different supervisors. Do they then go directly to the ministry? Do they phone the minister himself and say: "Look, I have this situation?"

I'm asking this because I actually get a lot of calls. I can't tell you how many calls I get from all over, not just in Mount Pleasant. My staff are just beside themselves trying to figure out how to deal with this stuff. Sometimes you phone the FAW, and it's not that they don't want to assist, it's that they're so swamped that it takes them a long time to even get back to us. Then you have to go through the FAW, then to the supervisor and the regional person. It's a week later, and the person is still without food or shelter. It creates a huge problem, especially on long weekends. We literally get really stuck with this situation and are desperate for assistance for people, and we have nowhere to go.

I'd like to get some information from the minister. Can the minister tell me who I go to when I'm dealing with a constituent or constituents from other ridings who are in that situation. Who do we go to?

Hon. M. Coell: The system of BC Benefits had a number of appeals: the ability to go to a district supervisor, or to the regional executive officer. Because of the three-week waiting period, they're not a client. There is no other appeal, because they're not seen to be a client until they're accepted. Someone who's come in, as we were just talking about, with an emergency medical abusive situation becomes a client right away. Someone who comes in and who we feel has the assets and the ability to look for work is not a client until they come back three weeks later.

There isn't an appeal process, but what I'm hearing is that some of the people who have spoken to the member are already clients. They're able to go back to the financial aid worker, the district supervisor or the REO for a review of their case. Someone who is new to the system or is on the system and wants to know how the changes are made has those two separate phone numbers and the groups of people who are there to give advice and to explain the changes and how they would affect either someone who's a client or someone who's not a client. That's what we're offering at this point for people who are either clients or wanting to be assessed to be a client of the programs.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll give this example. This is a live situation in my office. It's not my constituent but a constituent from Vancouver-Kingsway, actually, who phoned the MLA's office and actually spoke with the MLA and didn't get any assistance. This is a person who is applying to be on income assistance for the first time and whose UI has run out. He is a single parent. He was engaged in retraining courses to upgrade himself. The day on which he was asked to go to the office to do the training was the day on which he also had an exam. He had advised the welfare worker that this individual could not go to the office to meet that requirement at that time because he had an exam that day.

Anyway, the day came; he missed his appointment, so his file was closed. He was not considered for income assistance. The person was desperate. He phoned the MLA. The MLA was of no assistance, so the individual phoned my office. I was in the office that day, so my staff said: "Is there anything that we could do?" I said, "Well, then, we should follow up in this instance with the person who's applied," because it seemed unreasonable to me. He had explained that he couldn't make the appointment that day, and somehow now he's cut off. He's a single dad, and his UI is running out.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that we did eventually get through the system and got him back on the application, but that was one of the lucky times when we were able to actually assist and get the person back on track. I'm saying that in the instances where we are not able to help the person get back on track immediately, who can we go to? If the minister is saying that person is not on the income assistance payroll yet and therefore that individual is not a client and therefore there is no appeal system for them…. What if

you go and apply and you have an emergency situation, and someone's interpretation of that emergency is such that it disqualifies you for application for income assistance? Who do they go to then?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the issue that the member raises is really under the BC Benefits Act at this point. Ours aren't implemented until April 1. This is something that happened under the previous act and how the staff responded to it. One of the things I've noticed — and I was the opposition critic for this ministry at one point, too — is that when you've got a quarter of a million people on income assistance and you've got 3,000 staff personalities and hundreds of advocates and an appeal process, things don't always run smoothly. I think that the way the system was set out — and we're keeping it in place — is that you've got those checks and balance in the office.

I know MLAs' offices do get a lot of calls. Mine does too, and has done for the previous six years, and I suspect will continue to get many calls. It's important, I think, to have a working relationship with your staff in your constituency office and our local offices. That, I find, has always been an assistance in the last six years.

What would be different now and in April…. I think that the contact between an MLA, especially your constituency assistant or mine, and the local office — the ability to have dialogue there — is very important to build up, and that won't change with the two new acts we bring in. As an MLA, I think that through dealing with a financial aid worker, a district supervisor or the REO, you just have to be diligent if you're asked to do something on behalf of a constituent. I know the member would be, as I think all members would try and be. That's the system that's in place now. It will not change significantly under the new act. As I say, when you have a quarter of a million people on income assistance, things do not always run smoothly.

J. Kwan: So the minister doesn't have sort of a hotline which people can phone to get assistance if they were turned down and they're in a crisis situation. It doesn't sound to me as if there is a direct number which people can phone to get that kind of assistance. Is the after-hours assistance hotline — there used to be one — still in place?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, it is. It's an important part of the system, and it will still be part of the system.

J. Kwan: The answer the minister gave about individuals who would have no appeals system — because they would not yet be clients if they had contacted the income assistance office to apply and were turned down — causes me great worries. It really does. I anticipate that with the changes — the drastic impacts on the resource sector economy and the softwood lumber disaster going on right now impacting many workers and families — there will be more people who will be in need of income assistance, not because they want to and not because they are lazy or anything like that, but because of the economic circumstances in which they find themselves, especially those in the resource sector. I'm particularly worried for them and their families in terms of their being able to access income assistance and getting support for their family members. I am still very worried about it.

I guess the approach that I’ll have to take is that if these individuals show up in my office and they get turned down — they're not able to assist…. I guess I'll have to phone the minister and ask for assistance and say, "What do I do? How do I deal with this person?" and go down that road.

Does the minister have any statistics on the types of employment activities that people are engaged in when they first apply for income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: No. The previous government didn't keep those records, and we haven't started to as yet.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the difference — and it's not great — between the previous job placement programs…. We're going to be doing outcome surveys. When someone takes part in a training program they will have a responsibility to do an outcome survey and follow those persons for a number of years to see whether the program they were in was successful: whether they achieved employment, whether they kept employment, and then what jobs they moved to. If they come back again to income assistance, then we would have that information, but it's a long process.

I'll give the previous government some credit. They may not have had time to do that when they instituted the B.C. Benefits program. It's going to become part of the system, and we will have that information. I suspect it will take between two and three years to get that information, though.

J. Kwan: The three-week search period necessary for applicants — would that still apply for people who have already been looking for work before they show up at the income assistance office? In other words, they've been searching for work for more than three weeks or for a three-week period, and they have had no luck, and they show up at the income assistance office. Would they still have to do the three-week job search?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, it would. That allows us a point of entry for someone who comes in and says they feel that they're going to need income assistance. We make the assessment of whether you have an emergent need — a medical emergency, an abusive situation. They would come on to income assistance.

If we feel the person should and may need the help of the ministry to look for a job, we will show them…. We'll have an employment plan, a job-search plan

ready for them to take with them, brochures — all the agencies from HRDC to the programs that we have to other programs that are in the community — and say: "We would like you to do this. Come back for your intake interview."

J. Kwan: Let me just get back to this for one minute. With a person who is, let's say, on EI right now and whose EI runs out in three weeks' time — they're anticipating that their last cheque is going to be in three weeks — they should really be advised that they need to go and apply for income assistance three weeks before their EI runs out. They have to go through this additional job search, even though they've been searching for work while they've been on EI. They would have to go through another three weeks in order to qualify for income assistance.

When that person shows up — because that person at that time was still having income, at least for a three-week period, and some financial assets because of that three-week period; they still have some money in their pocket — would that person be turned away and told they're not eligible because they haven't exhausted all of their assets?

Hon. M. Coell: That would be what we would call the pre-applicant stage. We wouldn't take that information down.

We were talking about this earlier, and I said that's what I expect some people will do. They'll come and say: "I would like to be considered for income assistance." We do the check to make sure it's not an emergency situation. If it's not, then we're not going to take information from them. We're going to give them the job search and let them go and do their job search and complete that and then come back.

That's why I said to the member that I think anyone thinking about those things will plan that in advance. Not everyone will fall into that category because not everyone is on employment insurance.

J. Kwan: For that person who's applying, if they show up at the office, they'll be told that they're not eligible to apply. It's called a pre-application process. The person would not be eligible.

What you're saying is that people have to exhaust all of their resources. Their UI would have to have run out. Then when they show up at the office, you're going to say to them that they have to have a three-week period of training before they get any assistance. Is that the implication then?

Hon. M. Coell: We don't take any information other than if it's an emergency — if someone is fleeing an abusive situation or if it's a medical or a financial emergency. That assessment is made by the financial aid worker.

What we're saying is that we want someone…. Anyone can come and do the three-week job search. They may have many more assets than makes them eligible. What we want to do, the primary, is to help people get employment. We're going to outline a plan for someone to do a job search and give them the tools they need to do that job search before they come back and actually make an application for income assistance.

I think one of the things that we've found through B.C. Benefits is that some people don't even get on income assistance. They actually get into a program right away and find employment right away. Right now we do have 5,000 jobs in a job bank. There are people who come to our offices right now and make an application, and we send them to an orientation meeting. They go down to Job Wave or Destinations or an ASPECT group, and they get a job. They've never become a client, and we've never found out a great deal about them.

The member asked if we keep records. Well, we didn't in the past, and we're going to attempt to do that because it would be nice to know how long that person had been looking for work, what their last job was. I look at some of the success the job placement programs have had, and that's why we're putting more money into them, because they have been successful. We're finding that those people don't even become income assistance recipients. They just get employment.

J. Kwan: If I follow the logic of the minister, then, if you are on EI and come into the office to apply before your EI runs out, you're considered to be in a pre-application period, in which case then you are sent off, with a package of information, to go look for work for three more weeks before you come back. That would be fine if the person is actually not at the last leg, if you will, in terms of their ability to support themselves for food, for shelter, etc.

If a person comes in at the end of their EI, let's say…. I'm using EI as an example. I understand that's not the only example, but it's just for the sake of understanding the process. If you are on EI and have just exhausted all your EI, you have no more assets and you show up at the welfare office, presumably they'll say: "You are absolutely in a crisis situation. You have no more financial means; therefore, we're going to forego the three-week job training requirement. You will then be entitled to receive assistance now because you're in a crisis situation." That's the logic that I'm following.

Then, presumably, the person will carry on to look for work, because all people I know on income assistance want to get off, and they continue to look for work. They will sort of carry on that way.

If you're turned down for whatever reason — it's determined that you're not in a crisis situation, and you are turned down — then you have no other avenue of appeal. You have nowhere to go, I guess, except to phone the minister. Am I understanding this process correctly?

Hon. M. Coell: In that case, you would have the district supervisor to ask for a review. You would have

the REO, and you'd also have the assistant deputy minister to interface with for someone who had been turned down at that level. There isn't going to be the lengthy appeal process that has been taking up to eight months. That would be done internally quite quickly.

J. Kwan: The person will go to the FAW, and then if there is no resolution of the situation, they go to the supervisor, the district supervisor, the regional office supervisor, to the assistant deputy, and then, I guess, on up to the deputy and to the minister, ultimately, if there's no resolution. Okay. Good. Now I've got that process sorted out.

Like I said, I'm not as optimistic as the minister that there wouldn't be problems and that people wouldn't be turned away who are in a crisis situation. I've seen, far too often, those kind of situations surfacing.

Can the minister tell us how eligibility will be determined? Who will be determined eligible for income assistance? Let me just start with that.

Hon. M. Coell: It will be the same as the process that we use for the B.C. Benefits legislation. The screening is initially done by the FAW. The criteria will be in the regulations of the new legislation that will come in. When that comes in, we can talk about it at that point. I don't see the screening and that process as any different than the system that was set up through B.C. Benefits.

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, there are criteria now. The new legislation that comes in will have a fairly complex set of regulations, as it is now, that define who will be eligible. The process now has a list of eligibility criteria that's met in regulations that was done after the legislation. That would be how we would proceed with bringing in the legislation. The regulations that would allow eligibility for people will be achieved through that means.

J. Kwan: Will the employable category that exists now differ beginning April 1?

Hon. M. Coell: Just speaking with my staff, it will not significantly differ from what's employable now between 19 and 64. Similar criteria will be used for employability.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned 19 to 64 on, I think, Black Thursday, when it was announced that young people, if they're coming onto income assistance, have to show themselves to be independent for two years prior to becoming eligible for income assistance. I worry in that instance, because a lot of the young people may be in a situation where they're faced with abuse, as an example. Staying at home or staying at wherever they're staying is not an option, so they're seeking support. The only place for many young people to seek support is through the income assistance office. If they're not eligible and they are not able to show they are independent for two years, what happens to that group of young people?

Hon. M. Coell: Again, that will be done through legislation and regulations. It's our intention to have exemptions so that if someone comes in, in that age group — maybe a single parent — they would be exempt from that two-year time period. Or if they came in fleeing an abusive situation, those sorts of things will be taken care of. We don't want a system that leaves someone out. We want someone, if they have a need, to get into the system right away.

Basically, what we're looking at is two categories. You've got continuous assistance for people with disabilities and multiple barriers to employment, and then temporary assistance where we work with people to get them into employment. That two-year independence one will have, as the member is asking for, an escape valve or an exemption for single parents or people with abuse problems. That criteria will be outlined in the legislation and then outlined again in the regulations. The purpose is to make sure that if people have needs, those needs are met.

J. Kwan: The people who are in the younger categories — right? We're talking about younger people who have to be independent for two years. That's not necessarily the case. It will be assessed on a case-by-case basis with respect to that. Then, when the legislation comes out, the policy guidelines or regulations will spell out who will be exempt.

Sometimes it's difficult for a recipient. I've run across this myself, where a woman may well be abused, but they have a difficult time going to the court system, as an example. They want to mask it, but they need to get out. They need to leave that environment to be in a safer place, as an example. The same thing happens with young people. They may well be in an abuse situation, but they don't want to come right out and say they're in an abuse situation. What kind of approach will the ministry be taking in determining those kinds of issues? What's the burden of proof on the applicants to come forward with the information to illustrate that they are in an untenable situation so that they need assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: My experience has been, and it may also be the experience of the member, that the interaction between the financial aid worker and that initial interview most often gets to those sorts of issues. We also deal with Children and Family Development and the recommendations from social workers, who work quite closely, so that if someone has identified there's a problem, they're in contact with this ministry to initiate that first meeting.

I don't see that changing. I think that's something our staff are very capable of doing and will continue to

do. That issue does appear now, as well, when people come to the office. I think the initial screening interview with the financial aid worker quite often accomplishes what the member was saying. I don't discount that it can be a problem.

J. Kwan: Would a young person be turned away or, let's say, given the option for a foster parent situation? Would the person be told, "You have to go to a foster parent," versus being independent on income assistance on their own? Would the person be forced to make that decision, and if they chose not to go to a foster parent environment, would that person then be left without assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: I think there may be two issues here. One may be specifically Children and Families, where you have someone 15 to 19. We would be looking at 19 to 21 for that two-year independence. They may well have had some assistance from Children and Families but not any more when they hit 19.

J. Kwan: So then there are no circumstances in which, when a young person is 19 or under…? I'm not talking about a seven-year-old or a five-year-old or anything like that, but I've come across cases in my advocacy work where there was a person, 16 on up, where foster parenting option was not an option, going back home was not an option, and actually they were eligible for income assistance. We had to go through a whole, huge process around that, working it out and all of those kinds of things.

Is the minister saying, then, that there is no consideration whatsoever for young people who are 19 or younger to be eligible for income assistance under any circumstances?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, we actually have a small number of people who are on income assistance now at those younger ages that are being dealt with jointly with Children and Families. That will not change; they will still be eligible.

J. Kwan: Following through in my own mind on who is eligible and who is not eligible, the process around it all…. Just to recap for clarification: for the young person who may be 19 or under, there are instances where they could be eligible for income assistance, and they are not forced to make a choice of either foster parenting or nothing, as an example. People who are 19 to 64 who are applying for income assistance would be eligible, generally speaking, providing they meet a set of criteria around financial need — most of it centres around financial need, assets and all of those kind of things.

The minister advises that employable individuals would not change that much from what exists now. Let me ask the minister this question, then, because I guess the bigger question is the continuous benefits. The people who are deemed to be on DB-2 right now, disability 2 or disability 1, have some sort of short-term or continuous disability. Will the ministry be embarking on the process of reassessing all these individuals to see whether or not they fit into the continuous category that has now been set up?

Hon. M. Coell: The new eligibility criteria will deal with people coming on now. For people who have been on DB-2 for lengths of time, there really isn't a need to do a reassessment right now. As they come up for their assessment periods, DB-1, then they would be reassessed with the criteria at that point.

There are many people on DB-2 now who will just flow into continuous assistance. The ability to change the criteria through new legislation and regulation would be for those people coming onto the system now. If they're going to be reassessed for DB-1, and as people come up for reassessment for DB-2, they will be given plenty of notice for that as well.

J. Kwan: Will it be an annual assessment for individuals? How does that work for the people now on DB-2? When their assessment comes up, is it an annual assessment to determine whether or not they fit into the continuous category? Once they're eligible for the continuous category, will they be assessed on an ongoing basis, or is that it?

Hon. M. Coell: There wouldn't be an annual review of status for people on continuous.

J. Kwan: How often would it be? Is it that once they're eligible, then they're on? Would there be an assessment every two, three or five years? Or would people just know that once they qualify for continuous, they don't need to have this ongoing review?

Hon. M. Coell: Once a person comes onto continuous assistance and is defined as disabled, they would have a financial review every year, as they do now. If you came into some money, you wouldn't be eligible.

The review of the disabilities. I would think five years would probably be what we're looking at, but that again would be defined in the new legislation and new regulations. If you're defined as disabled and are on continuous assistance, the only important one would be the financial one, which is done now.

J. Kwan: That's an important point, because right now people who have disability challenges are very worried about whether or not they will be assessed and will have to prove they are eligible on a continuous basis.

With the DB-2 application, it seems to me that everybody eventually would be reassessed to determine whether or not they are eligible for the continuous category. That review would come up, and then it would be determined whether or not they are eligible for the continuous category.

Hon. M. Coell: The short answer is that there are many people who have been on disability 2, and GAIN before that, for 15 years. I can give an example of a quadriplegic who is going to be on continuous. They wouldn't be assessed for that period.

Hon. M. Coell: The DB-1 category, which is temporarily excused, would be reassessed to see whether they would fit into the continuous. I can give an example. There are many people with what we would consider multiple barriers to employment, which would be mental illness. They may be in DB-1 right now; they may flow into the continuous category after their initial review.

J. Kwan: Will they be reviewed right away? I assume, then. Will the minister also review those people now in the income assistance employable category? Will they all be reviewed on whether or not they're eligible?

Hon. M. Coell: For the most part, that's going to take place over time. Again, there are some people that we know have been excused — they're DB-1 but haven't qualified for DB-2 — that may, under the new criteria. We're just setting that up now as to how that review will take place.

A lot of people are at DB-1; they're excused for six months. So that review comes up in six months. Some are excused for a year. That will all fit into a sort of review process for DB-1.

J. Kwan: For a person who has substance misuse challenges and right now is under the DB-2 category — let's just use that as an example — would that person still qualify for the continuous category that the minister is going to be setting up?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the member brings up a good question. There are many people who are in the DB-1 category now and some in the DB-2 who have alcohol and drug problems. That sometimes is more of a symptom of a mental illness than it is a symptom of addiction. In many instances the criteria of a mental illness may take precedence over someone getting into continuous than having an alcohol and drug problem. If someone is identified as having an alcohol and drug problem, we do have funds available in the ministry — the previous government also had funds in the ministry — and we'll continue to do that to buy placements for alcohol and drug treatment.

I do realize that there are many people on whom that treatment has been tried many, many times, and they keep falling back. That may be a symptom, again, of a long-term mental illness, and there needs to be some intervention and medication as well. So it's not an easy answer to give: whether they would fit into continuous because of drug or alcohol addiction. My guess is that there are a lot of other problems that also go into that person's life that possibly would be assessed in the continuous category. As I say, a good example is multiple barriers: schizophrenia, mental illness — that broad range of impacts.

J. Kwan: It's true; there are a lot of people who are faced with substance misuse challenges who are multi-diagnosed. It may be a mental illness; it may be other things. In some of the cases it would be easier to identify those who have a clear diagnosis of a mental illness, and then presumably those individuals would qualify for continuous assistance.

Sometimes it's not as easy to identify, and sometimes an individual may well not have a mental illness attached to them. As an example, some people I know — I don't even know what the right word is; I actually call it childhood traumas — have experienced horrendous, horrendous traumas in their lives when they were young and throughout. As a result of that they've resorted to utilizing perhaps various different substances to assist their ability to survive. It literally becomes a survival game for them, and perhaps the substances help them at that moment in time to just get through the day or whatever the case may be.

In those not-as-clear-cut cases, where an identifiable mental illness or disability is highlighted, how would those individuals be treated? There are a lot of people who are in that grey area that I know of. I'd like, after these estimates, to go back and tell them: "You know what, guys? You don't need to worry. It's okay, because this minister, in spite of the changes that are coming…." We'll go into some of the other areas around rates and so on and so forth. "In spite of the changes, you're not going to be left out there on your own, on the streets, by yourself."

That ties into the two-year limitation as well. If they're classified as employable, the fact of the matter is that a lot of these individuals may be able to have sporadic employment. Actually, I'd like to see a system set up for them — in some cases, it has happened in the community — for low-threshold employment opportunities. We understand that there are moments in time when they're able to work, and there are moments in time when they're not — not because they're lazy or evil or anything like that; it just is. We have to find programs that will meet their needs as opposed to have programs that they need to meet and fit into.

In that instance, the grey-area people, what is the minister's strategy or approach within the ministry in dealing with this group of individuals?

Hon. M. Coell: The member poses a very good question. I think it's one that affects a lot of people.

The ability for someone to be temporarily excused from looking for work for alcohol or drug treatment is there now in B.C. Benefits. We would have that in place again, so that if someone…. I understand exactly what the member is saying. What we want to do is not

say: "It's great you've got this lifestyle that's causing you these problems." That lifestyle may be caused by mental illness, early childhood trauma, brain injury — many reasons. What we want to do is try and do the best for them so they can achieve a greater potential.

If we can assist with placements in alcohol treatment programs, give temporary assistance and the encouragement for people to succeed, they may be able, as the member says, to do some employment at some time. They may not be able to fit into a full-time mould. They could fall into the "persistent multiple barriers" category, which is consistent assistance. They may fall into "temporary" in that they are able to take treatment and succeed in the treatment. They would then come out of that into "employable." It's not an easy answer. It's very hard to generalize, but I understand what the problem is.

You have to try and layer it so there are a number of different options for people. Someone who is brain-damaged through alcohol and drug use is going to be in the "consistent" category. They're not going to be able to function. For someone who is 19 years old and dependent on cocaine right now, we want to see them in a treatment program before they do physical and mental damage. That will hopefully allow them to get into mainstream society, to work and achieve their greatest potential.

There is that continuum — and I know that the member understands as well as I do the barriers to employment, barriers to living — that we're going to try and achieve through this legislation, while recognizing that the bottom line is that we would like to see people do the best they possibly can. We would like to see them successful. We'd like to see them achieve their highest potential. It's not a cookie-cutter approach when you get into that level of multiple barriers that would be reflected by alcohol and drug abuse and addiction. I appreciate that.

I think there are a number of different areas, and I would give the member credit: her government also recognized it in B.C. Benefits, where you have the ability to have someone temporarily excused for medical or alcohol or drug treatment. We will be doing the same thing. At the same time, I would hope that we would expand the category for continuous assistance to bring in those people with multiple barriers who cannot gain permanent employment.

The other thing that we've tried to do with a continuous-assistance program is to allow them to earn up to $300 a month. If they're able to work that month, they're going to be able to earn another $300 and keep that on top of the money they would get through the "continuous" category. I know the member and other members probably want to talk about that at some greater length. I've rambled on a bit, but I'm trying to explain that I understand the problem and I understand there are some solutions. We're going to try to do that.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister's attempt to answer these questions. I really do. I'm really asking these questions just to get an understanding of what the changes are going to be, how they are going to impact the people in the community and, hopefully, to give some relief for the anxiety that is out there in the community right now in terms of these pending changes.

I have been in a situation, talking with community groups, where I couldn't offer any of these answers. I can just see the anxiety in the community escalating up and up. I want to bring it down, because I'm really worried about what the consequences are going to be at all levels. I'm very, very worried about that.

I appreciate the minister going through this in detail with me. I will be going through every piece of it in detail to get an understanding. I will get to the exemptions — earnings exemptions, family maintenance exemptions and all of those other pieces — as we go through. I assume that other members may well have questions too, because these are very important issues that impact all British Columbians.

Getting back to the eligibility question and the temporary assistance piece. A person then goes to treatment, let's say, and as we know, particularly with substance misuse, treatment is sometimes an evolving matter. Many people may well have to try it on numerous occasions and still are unable to rid themselves of the addiction challenges that they face. When a person fails in their treatment and then applies for income assistance or is on income assistance, would that person be cut off from income assistance because they failed in their treatment?

Hon. M. Coell: In short, no. I think one of the things with addiction is that there needs to be pressure applied. People generally don't address their addiction when things are going well. It's when things force them to address the issue. That doesn't happen all the time. You can see people succeed in treatment programs at any given stage through an addiction.

With late addiction — and I think this is where the member made her comments — where someone is actually doing severe brain damage and severe physical damage through hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver and all those sorts of things, they may at that point want to be drug- or alcohol-free. They may fail at that point but still be on continuous assistance because of the medical problems and the other problems.

In some respects, I think the alcohol and drug treatment portion of this ministry is to encourage people to take those programs, show them where they are and to fund them as we can. That may be part of continuous assistance or part of multiple barriers to employment. It's more of an issue that there are people out in the community…. I know the member's riding has many good programs in it, as does the Greater Victoria area, for people wanting to break away from addiction. We're going to make sure the financial aid workers assess that, know that and help people.

The other issue the member broaches is that of people who do not want to address the issue. I've been to the downtown east side and downtown here in Vic-

toria, where you have a number of people who aren't ready to address that issue. How do you help them? Are you just giving them a roof and food over their head but not actually meeting those other needs? That's a very difficult problem for British Columbia society and, indeed, for many cities and many individuals in Canada.

It's an issue that goes across ministries as well. It goes across this ministry, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Housing, and is one that doesn't seem to be getting any better in our society either. It's one we're aware of in this ministry. As for what this ministry can do to assist in alcohol and drug rehabilitation with our clients who need that service, we will do the best we can.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that usually when things are going well for an individual, then perhaps the motivation to enter into alcohol and drug rehab is less likely, and when things are pushed or when pressures are applied or if they have not enough money to survive, then perhaps they'd be more motivated to go into treatment. In my own personal experience, I actually find that when people are most ready and more likely to succeed with alcohol and drug treatment, as an example, is when all the pressures in their lives are dissipated or minimized. They're not worried about: are they're going to get kicked out of their room today; are they going to be homeless tomorrow; where are they going to get the money for food the next day? In fact, it's those stresses that escalate the need for the substance misuse. That's my experience.

In fact, when things are calm and they actually have stability in their lives, they start to think: "Gee, you know. It's time to get on. I need to do something beyond what I am doing right now." It's at those moments they are most keen in terms of trying to make a positive change in their lives in that way. That's when they are most likely to succeed. That's my own personal experience. I'm not saying that everybody's a cookie-cutter and will fit into that.

I hope that the minister and the ministry don't actually take that approach and say: "Let's cause people out there all kinds of stresses, and then when they're at the ends of their tethers, maybe they'll succeed in alcohol and drug rehab." I actually find that when the tensions and pressures escalate, not only do you have people less likely to succeed but you also find a situation where the environment in the broader community…. The violence issues and the crime issues and all those things escalate. You can actually see the tension in the community when those moments arise. It's actually quite scary. I hope the approach is not to say: "Let's push everybody into the corner and maybe then they will be forced to address their addiction challenges." I hope that's not the situation.

The minister says there aren't clear-cut answers for people who, in the minister's words, don't address the issue or don't want to address the issue or aren't ready to address the issue at this time. In those instances, what will happen to those people? Will they be deemed ineligible for income assistance? Will they be cut off then if they are in some way displaying they are unwilling to go through rehab? Another example would be that of a person who goes to a welfare office and the FAW says, "You need to go to rehab," and the person says: "No, I'm not ready for that; I don't want to do that." Would that mean the person is cut off?

Hon. M. Coell: No. That's not the case now, and it wouldn't be the case in the future. I don't disagree with the member's last statements.

Hon. David Anderson was in Victoria announcing some shelters for people who are homeless. You've got to have your basic needs taken care of if you're going to succeed in any kind of rehabilitation program.

What I was suggesting to the member is that there are many instances where one spouse leaves the other one because of an addiction problem that causes discomfort and change, health problems — hitting bottom, as they say. Those are the areas where things aren't going well.

I quite agree with what the member is saying. You have to have food, shelter and clothing — those basic needs taken care of — or any kind of addiction program isn't going to succeed. I think we've seen that all across Canada, where you have people who are homeless and addicted just going from area to area. I think that's one of the problems Canada has to address as a nation: how you deal with homelessness and people who are going from city to city not addressing any of the problems they have? At the same point, we as Canadians haven't set up…. Other than a shelter and a soup kitchen, how do you address that issue?

It's much bigger than this ministry. I wish it were something that one ministry could solve, but when you look at the broad spectrum of having a national drug and alcohol policy, a national drug strategy, it just isn't there. You're getting these large and larger groups of people who become addicted and are just maintained. From my perspective as a minister, I would like — what our success will be, I don't know — to encourage people who are on income assistance and who have addictions to do that. It's something that I think we can do a better job on than we've done. It's not an easy job. I'm not saying that people haven't tried. I think people have tried all across governments, all across this country.

As far as the question from the member, right now that's not the case. It saddens me, in some cases, that we see people just taking their cheques and giving them to dealers. The route to their success isn't cutting them off and setting them free. The route to their success is working with them and, when they're able to enter treatment, reinforcing that. I want to assure the member that that's the approach we're going to take.

J. Kwan: That's helpful. Thank you. I hope the intentions of the minister actually translate into action. No doubt we'll be hearing from the community if they don't. I'll be watching that very closely, too, because

there are a lot of people who are in very difficult situations out there, for a variety of reasons.

For the individuals, then, who are being assessed for their employability, particularly those who are in a grey area and so on and so forth, is the onus on them to come forward with the verification that they are qualified for the continuous benefits? What are the criteria for continuous benefits eligibility?

Hon. M. Coell: That information, actually, will be part of the legislation that's brought forward. Eligibility requirements, medical requirements, would then be given to individuals who wish to apply for continuous assistance. Again, that's not too dissimilar to what B.C. Benefits has.

J. Kwan: Will the person have to go through…? Do they go to their own doctor for that assessment? Do they go to a ministry-appointed doctor? How does that work?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that's probably better discussed once we table the legislation. The discussion so far has been a GP, whether it be their personal doctor or a GP. I think we'll probably get more detail out of that once the legislation's tabled and we're able to have a look at that.

J. Kwan: It sounds, though, like it's not the intent of government to have a government-appointed doctor to make all the assessments.

J. Kwan: I asked that question because that's been a high level of anxiety question out there. People have been wondering around that. Hopefully we can get the information so I can, again, alleviate some of the anxieties people might be experiencing in the broader community. Just to find ways to de-escalate as opposed to escalate, if we can give people answers, that would help.

On the question around employability and continuous categories. The person will be able to go their GP for that assessment. What if they get turned down? What is the process after that for continuous eligibility? What is the appeal process, and how does it differ from the existing process now?

Hon. M. Coell: The process will be different than the B.C. appeal process now. We would have someone who comes in, let's say, with the criteria all filled out. They're turned down. They would have the ability to ask for a review with the financial aid worker, then the district supervisor and then would go directly to a regional tribunal. This will be in the legislation as well. The tribunals will be regionally based with chairs and two other members appointed by the ministry.

I'm trying to think of the time frame for that. It would be the fall before there would be a change, and there would be a transition through the present appeal system into the new appeal system.

The Chair: Noting the hour, minister, I wonder if you would make the motion.

Hon. M. Coell: Noting the hour, I would move we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.