Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 11 -- 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

Introductions by Members		2125

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2125
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13) Hon. G. Collins

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)		2125

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2126
	Disabled skiing events W. McMahon U.S. government position on free trade R. Visser Softwood lumber exports to U.S. P. Bell

Oral Questions		2127
	Preventative health care services for children J. Kwan Hon. S. Hawkins Health care service levels J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins Hon. G. Campbell Bullying prevention L. Mayencourt Hon. R. Coleman Hon. C. Clark SkyTrain Millennium Line H. Bloy Hon. J. Reid Provision of extracurricular activities by teachers W. Cobb Hon. C. Clark

Second Reading of Bills		2130
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2) Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply		2134
	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		2153
	Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources (continued) S. Orr Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan M. Hunter I. Chong

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It's a great pleasure for me this afternoon to introduce Mr. Chuck MacDonald from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans 284 in Steveston and a number of his colleagues from the ANAF and members of the Royal Canadian Legion. Can members please make them welcome.

K. Manhas: It's my pleasure to rise and recognize a number of ex-service men and women and visitors who have come to Victoria from the Tri-Cities and all around the lower mainland. They met with the Solicitor General and myself earlier today to talk about issues of concern to service clubs and branches of the Royal Canadian Legion.

We have Donald Bone from the Port Coquitlam Legion; Mr. Ken Black and Mr. Alex Wilson from Legion branch 48, Vancouver; Mr. Robert Klempau and Mr. Mike Kirby, 100 Club in Vancouver; Mr. Beesh Wawrzasek; Madam Betty Jensen, chair of the New Horizons Community Drop-in Society; Mr. Derek Paget, branch 16, Coquitlam; Mr. Chuck McDonald of branch 284 in Steveston. And representing Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities and their diabolical president, Karon Fuson, we have Beatrice Kelly and Debbie Lloyd. Would the House please extend them a warm welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. Fred Sparkes today. He's a longtime New Westminster resident, a retired school administrator who contributed 35 years to our education system and our students. Mr. Sparkes is involved in many organizations in New Westminster as a director, as chair of the board or as president. Fred is a staunch defender of the well-being of our community in New Westminster, and I'd like everybody to please make him welcome.

W. McMahon: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to introduce to the House Maude Seleck, a Belgian Rotary exchange student hosted by the Revelstoke Rotary Club. She's here with her host family from Revelstoke, Barb Davidson with her children Peter and Roslyn, together with Barb's mom, Dorothy Johnstone from Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray: It's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today 26 very enthusiastic grade 6 and 7 students from Sir James Douglas. They're accompanied by five parents and their teacher, Ms. T. Hehn, and I'd ask that the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: Today in the gallery are representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who are working hard and diligently in attempting to get the province of British Columbia back on its feet again in an economic recovery. I know that the House would join with me in welcoming them all today to the House: Suromitra Sanatani, Don Adams, Kevin Evans, Phil Hochstein, Janet Marwick, Don Monsour, Glen Ringdal, Mark Startup, John Winter and Mark von Shellwitz. Would you please give them a nice, warm welcome.

R. Sultan: We have with us in the gallery today two distinguished citizens of the North Shore, Dale and Russell Bridges. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2002.

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

Hon. G. Collins: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for the fiscal year 2002-03 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill provides interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial two months of the 2002-03 fiscal year to take us to the end of May. The bill allows time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations expire on March 31, 2002.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. The bill seeks supply for 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for capital assets, expenditures, and loans and investments, and 100 percent of financing transactions for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted expropriations will expire on March 31, 2002.

I move that the bill be referred for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday morning, March 25, the Minister of Advanced Education moved

an amendment to Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The original motion reads as follows:

The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order submitting that the amendment was out of order because it constituted a direct negative of the motion under debate. The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment. The direct negative theory, as raised by the Leader of the Opposition, has in the past been successfully argued to rule amendments out of order. The question before me is whether or not the amendment falls into this category.

Perhaps the clearest statement dealing with this specific matter is contained in Erskine May's twenty-second edition, page 343, which reads as follows:

It is clear that the amendment is relevant to the subject of the original motion and that it substitutes an alternative proposition. Accordingly, the questioned amendment does not amount to a direct negative and is in order.

W. McMahon: It's a pleasure to rise today to talk about two very important groups, the Canadian disabled alpine ski team and the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers, and two events that have taken place this past month in Kimberley, British Columbia.

The Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers, together with the Kimberley Alpine Ski Resort, hosted the World Cup finals for the disabled from February 27 through March 3 this year. The finals were a three-event series which started in January in France and then moved to Austria and back to Canada and Kimberley. Canada's national team competed on all three race series.

The athletes compete in a three-category competition system: visually impaired, stand-up and sit skiers. The athletes' disabilities can be varying degrees of blindness. Stand-up includes arm and leg amputees, cerebral palsy and partial paralysis; while sitting includes leg amputees and varying degrees of paralysis in the lower body.

After competing in Kimberley, all teams left for Salt Lake City for the 2002 Paralympics on March 3. A week ago I had the privilege of welcoming the athletes back to Kimberley for the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers annual Ski Festival. The festival is for both recreational skiers and our national champions, and what an exciting evening it was. From the parade of flags by the athletes to actually meeting them individually, I can tell you how proud they were and how proud we were of them. What an exciting year they've had.

Learning a sport often requires an adventurous leap of faith, a strong commitment to yourself and to your goals, and an inner belief in what you are doing. It takes endurance and the ability to draw on deep reserves of energy when it is needed the most. These athletes showed us their commitment. I read somewhere once that everyone will compete in life in one way or another, but life is not a competition. It's a gift to be shared, and they shared it.

There are many volunteers involved in both events under the direction of Jerry and Annie Johnston of Kimberley. Jerry received the Order of Canada in 2000. For more than 30 years he has done what was once thought impossible: he taught skiing to persons with mobility impairments, and he founded the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers. So to our athletes who competed and to the staff and many volunteers who support them, thank you.

R. Visser: You know, it was a little more than a month ago that President Bush, ironically, on a trade mission to Asia, stopped in Alaska, where he said to an assembled crowd: "I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are here. I want to tell you something: we've got no better friends than Canada. They stand up with us on this incredibly important crusade to defend our freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren."

I think the President is right. The United States has no better friends, and our commitment to this crusade cannot be questioned. On September 20 of last year, a day after Indonesia offered its support for the war on terrorism, trade representative Robert B. Zoellick and the President met with President Megawati of Indonesia where, ironically, they lifted the tariff on 11 Indonesian products, including lumber. In a press release, Mr. Zoellick stated: "…expanding trade with Indonesia means new opportunities for American workers, consumers, farmers and entrepreneurs." Last May President Bush declared: "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity; it is a moral imperative."

The greatest irony of all, Mr. Speaker, is that during the final hours of the collapsing talks around softwood lumber, President Bush was in Monterrey, Mexico, and South America as a champion of free trade, where he said: "Trade brings new technology, new ideas and new habits.… When trade advances, there's no question but the fact that poverty retreats."

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you're sitting in a forest-dependent community like Campbell River, Terrace or Vanderhoof wondering about your future, you'll be asking how anyone could be so hypocritical. You're asking how on the one hand the U.S. administration can be so passionate about the need to remove trade barriers and create open world markets but on the other hand so brutally and outrageously close off borders to someone they continually trumpet as no better friend.

Those resolute Canadians and British Columbians are getting angry, and rightfully so. They see this U.S. government talk the talk of free trade around the world, but all the while forest-dependent communities and families in this country are forced to walk the plank.

March 21 was a sad day in the history of the relationship between our neighbours to the south and Canada. On that day the Americans clearly demonstrated that they are not true free traders but in fact are protectionists and lacking in vision. Mr. Speaker, this disagreement between Canada and the U.S. goes back many decades. We've travelled this road three times before and have been successful with the WTO. I find it frustrating that despite the ruling of international trade tribunals, the Americans refuse to admit that we do not subsidize our industry but that in fact we operate an efficient, state-of-the-art industry that they find difficult to compete with.

Mr. Speaker, just last week President Bush was in Mexico to advocate for free trade in Latin America while they refused to negotiate with us in good faith. Well, I say to Latin America: take a look at how the Americans have honoured the free trade agreement with Canada and specifically softwood. I believe that the rest of the world's notion of free trade and the Americans' notion of free trade are somewhat different.

I want to say today that British Columbians will not lie down and accept this ruling. We've fought similar decision in the past and won, and we'll do it again. The Americans need to know that when they need friends, they've turned to Canada. When they need resources, they've turned to Canada. The United States needs to know that British Columbians are united in taking the action necessary to have open and unfettered access, and we will succeed.

J. Kwan: Yesterday, once again, the lie was put to the government's promise to improve patient care. British Columbians found out that the government's planning to make deep cuts to patients services in Vancouver. These cuts include eliminating programs for children to detect and treat vision, hearing and dental problems. The health board admits these cuts will affect the growth and development of the children.

To the Minister of Health Planning: these proposed cuts are mean-spirited, and they're shameful. Will the minister quit the rhetoric of the new-era flexibility agenda and see to it that no cuts whatsoever are made to the vital health services to children?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The health authorities have been given the challenge of looking at their regions and deciding how they can best meet the needs of patients in their regions. Some of the documents the member has seen are working documents. There have been no decisions made. Frankly, every time this member gets up and is critical of the health care system, she should think back about the last ten years of her government and the decisions they made and think about what abject failures they were in managing the health care system and leaving it for this government to sort out and fix.

J. Kwan: No one wants to hear about how this minister is providing flexibility and how the regions are just developing working documents. All that means is that this minister is washing her hands of the broken health care promises.

Parents and children depend on preventative vision and hearing treatment. Eliminating these programs will mean that parents won't be able to detect the health problems before it's too late. We simply cannot let that happen. Again, to the minister: will she show some leadership as the Minister of Health Planning and step in, fund these programs now to ensure that preventative health care is there for the children of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, the health authorities know they are required to meet a certain standard in providing care to patients in their regions. They are working on plans. Yes, it's challenging. They are working with a system that is broken, thanks to the poor management and the poor planning of the last ten years of that government.

Choices. You know, it's about making choices. That's what that member's Leader of the Opposition used to say. The choices they made over the last ten years in funding fast ferries, in a convention centre that never materialized…. All those millions and millions of dollars have left the system in such a mess. Imagine what that money could have funded. Instead they

made choices to do that, and unfortunately we're left with a system that needs to be better managed, that needs to be better planned…

J. MacPhail: The difficulty for this minister is that this isn't an infomercial open cabinet meeting. It's actually the domain when real answers have to be provided. This is a real document with real cuts that are going to harm patient care. The Premier can't stand up and say: "We're putting patients first."

The document yesterday outlined substantial cuts in the area of prenatal classes to mental health and to alcohol and drug treatment. Just among hundreds of cuts, those are cuts that are a given here. It's clear that as a result of the cuts to hospital cleaning that are announced in here, as well, there's going to be an increased likelihood of infection. It's the minister's job to….

J. MacPhail: It's the minister's job to sign off on these planned cuts. Why doesn't she go back to the Vancouver health authority, tell them these cuts are unacceptable and order them now, today, to consult the public about what they see as best for health care in this province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We have put over a billion dollars into the health care system over the last year — over a billion. The health authorities for the first time have been given budgets on time, and they've been asked to manage within those budgets. The health authorities are going to have performance contracts for the first time and standards that they're going to have to meet for patient outcomes.

The member knows full well that there are standards, and there are policies. There are needs that are going to be expected to be met. We've asked the health authorities to do that without political interference, and we just want them to be able to do that. No plans have been finalized. We'll let the member know when they are.

J. MacPhail: Today of all days for this government to say they have no plans finalized and that they're open and accountable…. Here's how the public has to find out about what goes on in health care. Either they have to have a private chat with the Premier in his living room on the weekend, or they have to read secret documents.

They certainly can't get answers directly, in the public, from this government at all — from the Premier, the Minister of Health Planning or the Minister of Health Services. I actually don't believe the Minister of Health Services knows what's going on. Secretiveness is the problem. Every week — every day, actually — the public learns something new about deep cuts that this government is planning for patient services.

J. MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'll take the time the minister has for responding.

J. MacPhail: They actually have to read documents or be in the living room of the minister. Before she gives the green light to huge cuts…

J. MacPhail: …to patient services, will she do her job, come out of the backrooms or the living room and consult with the public on what her government's plans are to cut patient care?

Hon. G. Campbell: One of the challenges the opposition has is that they spend so little time actually doing their homework. The fact of the matter is that this government has added over $1 billion to health services so patients get the care they need in this province.

The fact is that after ten years with no plan, after ten years with no support to health care givers, after ten years of no support to nurses, no support to doctors, no support to health workers, this government is acting with the people of British Columbia and with health authorities to make sure we restore health care to meet the needs of patients in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to the Solicitor General. There have recently been some reports about school bullying. Last night when I watched the news and this morning when I opened my newspaper, I saw reports of Dawn-Marie Wesley and the recent case that took place, and it brought to mind a young man from Surrey by the name of Hamed Nastoh.

Both of these young, young children took their own lives because they were bullied incessantly in school. It seems to me that we must be able to do something much more to prevent bullying in schools, so I ask the Solicitor General what efforts he is making to curtail these incidents.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, under no circumstances, at any time, should anyone think that bullying is right, whether it be by a child, by a teen or by an adult to another person. We have taken steps, as we had last fall when we issued a document and information to the school system to help them deal with bullying within school yards, but outside the school yard it takes place as well.

This has to be a long-term public education commitment by all people. It requires a refocusing of resources till they get back down to the community level. This is what we're doing with our community programs now, so we can get them into the hands of the volunteers and the people who work within those communities so that they can have the greatest impact possible to get the message out there.

We'll continue with that. The message simply is that this is something that's not acceptable. We'll continue to educate and try to find new formulas on a regular basis to try to find long-term solutions.

L. Mayencourt: My supplementary is to the Minister of Education. The Solicitor General has indicated some of the programs he's instituting, and he's also mentioned that we need to direct resources to local communities. I wonder if the Minister of Education would tell us what she's doing about providing school districts with the proper resources and information to combat bullying.

Hon. C. Clark: It's hard to imagine what would drive a child to take her own life, the kind of environment a child would have to be in for that to happen. The issue with Dawn-Marie Wesley has brought to all of our attention that bullying is not a harmless activity. It's not just something kids do that doesn't affect anybody else. It certainly affects kids. For many, many kids, it scars them for the rest of their lives. The children who learn to be bullies in school carry that behaviour with them out into society at large.

The ministry has worked with the BCCPAC, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, to put together what I think is a marvellous resource on anti-bullying. We've distributed two to every secondary school in British Columbia. It's been acclaimed across the province. In addition to that, there are resources out there like those prepared by Cindi Seddon, one of the country's foremost leaders on anti-bullying activities.

Also, most importantly, this year we will be in a position to find out exactly how well schools are doing at providing a safe place for children. Through the student-parent survey, we will be asking children in three grades throughout high school how safe they feel in their schools. If we find out that children do not feel safe at their schools, we will be able to act on that information and ensure that school districts and schools take concrete measures to make sure that those children feel safe in schools, where they have a right to be able to learn in a safe place.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many of my constituents have been calling my office inquiring about the progress of the SkyTrain Millennium Line. The availability of public transportation is very important to the residents of my riding, particularly in light of the fact that we have one of the fastest-growing communities in the province. Can the Minister of Transportation tell me the status of the Millennium Line?

Hon. J. Reid: The Millennium Line is expected to be fully operational by fall of this year. As the member knows, that's one year later than the original date that was announced. We've been working very hard to contain the costs of the project.

H. Bloy: Under the previous government the mismanagement of this project, as you've just stated, resulted in massive overruns and delays. Can the Minis-

ter of Transportation tell me what action she's taking to control the budget on the SkyTrain Millennium Line?

Hon. J. Reid: The budget pressures on this project were a real concern to me. We have taken steps. We have cut the advertising budget for the project quite severely. We have also worked with the federal government very hard, and we've be able to obtain a positive GST ruling that has saved us millions and millions of dollars.

Finally, there was a very significant claim against the project by SAR that was of great concern. The project manager, Ross Gilmour, said there was no way…

Hon. J. Reid: …they would ever have settled with the NDP government. Thankfully, we're not the NDP government. We did settle, very favourably, this claim.

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Education. I have received calls and e-mails from parents who are concerned that some teachers are still refusing to provide extracurricular activities for their children. For instance, in some cases students are being denied the opportunity to participate in sports and field trips. Can the minister tell my constituents how this action can be justified?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member will know, we provided teachers with a 7.5 percent increase in the recent settlement that we made in Bill 27. Now teachers across the province, most of them, are providing extracurricular activities. In many, many districts, extracurricular activities have been restored completely, but extracurricular activities are a voluntary act for teachers.

I know that it's good for kids, and I know that many teachers provide it because it's good for teachers, too, to be involved in their children's education. I can remember many nights when my dad wasn't around the dining room table, because he was out coaching basketball for the kids in his school. I think that ultimately the minority of teachers who are continuing to withdraw extracurricular activities will recognize that extracurricular activities are good for kids, schools, teachers and communities, and we can get our schools back to normal as quickly as possible.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 2.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 2 amends two provincial statutes and repeals several others in order to implement the non-tax measures announced in the year 2002 provincial budget. Section 16(1) of the Emergency Program Act is amended to limit expenditures from the statutory appropriation of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to those that are a direct result of imminent or actual emergencies or disasters.

This bill also includes a technical amendment to the Financial Administration Act to transfer the authority to make prepaid capital advances to line ministers. The amendment supports the government's decision to devolve the administration of Treasury Board–approved capital projects to line ministries.

Bill 2 also provides for the elimination of two Crown corporations — namely, Forest Renewal B.C. and Fisheries Renewal B.C. The Forest Renewal Act and supplement are repealed to effect the dissolution of Forest Renewal B.C. In recognition of the importance of this natural resource sector, government has established a forest investment vote in the Ministry of Forests to provide for the operation and management of forest investments in international marketing.

The Fisheries Renewal Act is repealed to effect the dissolution of Fisheries Renewal B.C. The Natural Resource Community Fund Act is repealed. The purpose of the act was to assist resource-dependent communities to adjust to severe economic dislocations arising from industry closures. The fund has been inactive for several years, as other community adjustment and transition mechanisms have been utilized and evolved for impacted communities.

In keeping with this government's new-era commitment to eliminate business subsidies, Bill 2 repeals the Industrial Development Incentive Act, the Small Business Development Act and the Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act. The Science and Technology Fund Act is also repealed. The act established a special account which provided funding for science and technology initiatives. Funding for these types of initiatives is now incorporated into the annual budget for the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

J. MacPhail: I was just waiting to see if any of the people who made members' statements earlier were

going to get up and talk to this bill. The points that the members raise in their members' statements go to the heart of this bill, particularly in the area of Fisheries Renewal B.C. — the dissolution of that — and the repeal of FRBC, Forest Renewal B.C., as well.

The minister suggests that somehow everything's fine because there's been a separate vote set up under the Minister of Forests and all is well and that there's no need for any transition programs or extra support for forest-dependent communities. If ever there was a time for this government to show its support for resource-dependent communities it is now, yet this bill goes exactly contrary…. It's contradictory to this government's mouthing of support for forest-dependent communities.

The vote that exists under the Ministry of Forests is less than a third of the money that was for Forest Renewal B.C. Let's be clear about why FRBC was set up. FRBC was set up to assist communities — not only the industry, in terms of developing a better product that wasn't subject to countervailing duties — with the training for workers in the forest industry and to ensure that our companies stayed as modern, efficient and competitive as possible. All of that's gone now. All of that's gone.

In fact, when the previous government even hinted that their caucus was discussing directing money that should be going to Forest Renewal B.C. to anywhere else, the then opposition rose up and said: "Oh my god, that's a disaster." In fact, the then government caucus reached the same conclusion and didn't dare touch Forest Renewal B.C. money. It went into FRBC according to the law, and that's where it stayed until this government was elected — until today.

On the very day that we have government backbench members standing up and saying, "Isn't America awful? Isn't it awful how unfairly we're being treated by the Americans?" this government is repealing legislation, the Forest Renewal Act, that was there solely to help forest-dependent communities exactly in times such as this.

Of course, so it should have been set up. The Forest Renewal Act was funded from stumpage. It was money that came from the industry, came from those communities, came from our publicly owned resource and went to assist the industry — full stop.

I remember day after day the then Liberal opposition standing up and suggesting there were failings of Forest Renewal B.C. As is typical of this government, instead of trying to correct the failings, real or imagined, they end the whole program and replace it with nothing — replace it with absolutely nothing that's working today.

The industry is left with no support whatsoever from this government. In fact, because of the negotiating strategy of Canada — and, I must say, even this provincial government — we are left completely vulnerable on any changes made in the area of forestry — any changes to be challenged either in a negotiating process or in court.

A system that was there under Forest Renewal B.C. to assist forest-dependent communities is gone because of the actions of this government. Anything that now occurs is open to challenge as a new program.

I expect that the government isn't going to do much for forest-dependent communities anyway. I listened very carefully, wanting very much to hear a message of hope from this government yesterday on how they're going to resolve this softwood lumber, and, frankly, I heard nothing. I heard that a summit is going to be held. Well, a summit is a good idea only if a summit carries strategies with it that can help communities now — can help communities, can help the workers in those communities and, most importantly, their families. Instead, we're here debating a bill that denies that support for forest-dependent communities.

It's the same for the Fisheries Renewal Act. Fisheries Renewal B.C. is a very, very successful, acclaimed, non-controversial program, and yet this government puts an end to that. Fisheries Renewal B.C. was useful in terms of bridging those communities where our forests came right up to the edge of habitat and ensuring that our streams and rivers were enhanced, not hurt, by forestry operations. All of that now, of course, is gone. The program was completely community-based — sometimes volunteer, certainly supported by community organizations and clubs. Fisheries Renewal was supported in terms of its volunteer contribution. All of that's gone now, and forest-dependent, resource-dependent communities are at greater risk.

It's interesting. I'm surprised, frankly, at the industry. Why hasn't the industry said: "Hey, wait a minute. That money that was in Forest Renewal B.C. — why is it not being used for our sector now? Why is it, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of Forests, that we have fewer resources available to help our forest-dependent communities now than we did a year ago?" They're not asking those questions. I'm not quite sure why, because I know that the forest sector is very good at getting their due, getting their value out of government. Yet they're silent on this issue. It's curious to me.

The Coalition of B.C. Businesses is here today, all of whom — let me just be clear on this — I have a great deal of respect for. But they sit here as a government makes huge cuts to the very resource that earlier on it said was so crucial to us that it was willing to raise the rhetoric against the United States to a shrill hysteria. Yet what they could do in their own communities — literally in their own back yards — they not only refuse to do, but they've made massive cuts to. That's true of Fisheries Renewal B.C. and Forest Renewal B.C. as well.

This government's solution is to be thoughtless. They operate by a principle of throwing the baby out with the bathwater unless, of course, it's to pay for some sort of corporate contribution earlier on. Although, I must admit that I'm not even sure why that's happened here, because the forest companies have been very generous in political contributions to this government.

It is exactly the kind of programs that FRBC operated and supported with their own revenue source through superstumpage that could assist communities right now, as we speak. Frankly, the other programs that help communities in transition have been cut as well — cut substantially. I'm not referring to the fund that has been inactive for several years. I'm referring specifically to the community-based programs that assisted natural resource–dependent communities in their times like this.

I think it is ironic that this government chooses this day to debate Bill 2. I actually look forward to the same members who sat here and stood up just a few moments earlier and said how awful the softwood lumber dispute is and defined the Americans as the enemy standing up and questioning why, at a time like this, the B.C. Liberal government, who has an opportunity to support these communities, is choosing not to do so.

We are in very difficult times in our resource sector and our resource-dependent communities. They will be strong. They will survive this terrible challenge that we're facing in terms of the softwood lumber dispute and the failed negotiations with the United States, but in the meantime families are hurting. Families need support right now, as we speak, to assist them through a time when we will meet with success in resolving this softwood lumber dispute, but that time is not immediate. That time is months down the road. I'm hopeful that we can actually have a negotiating strategy that works before the second week in May, but until that time communities need assistance.

The passing of Bill 2 does exactly the opposite of giving assistance to communities. It denies them that assistance, and I think it's a very, very sad day. My colleague and I will be at committee stage exploring these issues thoroughly. At that time we will be registering through voting no on specific parts of Bill 2 at committee stage.

Hon. G. Collins: I found the exuberance of the comments by the member of the opposition interesting, given that the issues she talked about — the windup of the Forest Renewal and Fisheries Renewal B.C. Crown corporations — were announced, I believe, in the fall at open cabinet as part of government's restructuring of these issues and programs. As well, this bill was introduced on budget day on February 19. I don't recall there being any comment by the Leader of the Opposition on that day with regard to this issue, nor do I recall there being any comment with regard to the issue she just spoke about back in the fall in open cabinet.

I suppose I can draw the conclusion that the reason for her response today is her desire to try to use as a springboard the difficulty that communities around British Columbia are facing as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. She made reference to it a couple of times. I can only assume that that's her desire — to try to gain some sort of attention or coverage on an issue that, I think, has put a lot of people in great difficulty.

I want to take just a moment to talk a little bit in response to what the member said, because she made repeated references to the failed strategy of this government, the failed position of the federal and provincial governments in attempting to negotiate a softwood lumber settlement. I want to remind that member that when her government was in power and this party was in opposition, the critics for forestry worked extremely closely with the Ministers of Forests from the previous administration in an attempt to make sure that all opinions, advice and suggestions were taken to heart and included. I know that the current Minister of Forests has extended, I don't know how many times across the floor in this House, the willingness to have input from the now-members of the opposition but also to make sure that British Columbia spoke with one voice.

We've certainly heard from the Minister of Forests over the last number of days and the Premier, as well, on how what was a very fractured industry position in British Columbia — which was a very fractured national position on softwood lumber with each province or groups of provinces taking different positions — came together first of all here in British Columbia, I think, with the leadership of the Minister of Forests, the Premier, the unions, the IWA, as well as the corporations and businesses in the forest sector, to sort out their differences and say: "Here is our position as a province. This is the position we're going to take." Then they built on that. British Columbia is over half of the softwood lumber industry in the country. Half of the softwood lumber exports to the U.S. come from B.C. To take that leadership role and that sense of unity we've developed here in British Columbia and build on top of that by getting the other provinces on board, raising the level of this issue in Ottawa and in Washington, D.C., and getting the federal government to really pay attention to this as an issue and put the Minister of International Trade on it in a much more comprehensive, time-consuming way….

The strategy that we have tried to follow is one of bringing people together and getting people to work on the same page and the same song sheet and try and show some unity, because we are facing some very onerous opponents. The United States is a very powerful country, a very wealthy country. Clearly, for some reason, which I know that the Premier and the Minister of Forests have talked about at length — namely, the political issues down in the United States…. The member for North Island in his private member's statement at the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings made reference to the comments of President Bush and the conflict, the juxtaposition, between his position in Indonesia and his position with Canada. Both countries are supporting the United States and their war on terrorism in an active way. Yet, one country is rewarded with a freeing-up of lumber tariffs into the United States, that being Indonesia, and the other country, Canada, is being penalized with an extremely onerous — unnecessarily and unfairly onerous — softwood lumber tariff.

There is a real problem with that. It's a country that I think has lost its way on this file, anyway, or has subjected itself to really crass internal politics. I think the fact, though, that we've been working united has at least helped to present that case as well as we possibly can, to make sure we have the support of the federal government and the other ten provinces, and to get our message across.

You know, I'm a little disturbed by the behaviour and the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, over these last few months. I recall in question period her repeatedly rising and challenging and asking questions — that any reading and any understanding of the industry and what the softwood lumber issue was about would understand that the questions were extremely ill-informed, strategically unwise and, I thought, posturing. Yet, she continued to do that in the House and asked those questions of the minister. I recall the Minister of Forests offering to brief the member opposite, to bring her in and be part of this united team. I can only take from her actions and comments today that she hasn't been part of that team and that she continues not to be part of that team. I think that's unfortunate. I know this government still extends the olive branch or the hand, if you will, asking that all members of all political parties and all British Columbians as a whole would be part of trying to present a united front as opposed to one that is all over the map and divisive.

I know that in the previous administration, the critics from the then opposition held joint meetings, joint press conferences. Public statements were made by the critic and the minister at the same time to try and show that we had a united position. I think that would be a wise position for the member opposite to try and be part of now, as opposed to trying to score some very unfortunate political points at a time when we're all struggling to deal with and solve this problem. I'll leave that there and have her deal with that as she will in the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to deal with some of her comments around Forest Renewal B.C. and worker transition funding and dealing with it. It's a little hard to take, I have to tell you. I've been here for ten years. I was here at the creation of FRBC and the Forest Practices Code. I saw, along with every other member, the damage that was done by the public policy decisions of the previous administration to the resource sector broadly but the forest sector in particular.

There was the Forest Practices Code that the NDP's own Minister of Forests said, after a couple of years of reviewing it, had added over a billion dollars of incremental costs with no environmental or industry benefit as a result. There were more costs than that, but there was at least a billion dollars where there was no benefit. What it does is erode the capital base. It erodes the ability of businesses to invest in new equipment. It erodes the ability of businesses to deal with downturns like this. The impact flows directly to the workers, the people who are employed by the companies.

That billion dollars that should have been there for these businesses to provide for new technology, worker training, sustaining the slow periods and keeping their workforce employed, is gone for no benefit — no economic benefit and no environmental benefit. That's a little hard to take because that billion dollars would be there now, providing opportunities for that industry to withstand this battle.

The second issue I want to deal with very briefly is the member's comments on Forest Renewal B.C. It goes back to '95-96 and even beyond that. The previous government used Forest Renewal B.C. — a potential raid on the Forest Renewal B.C. funds — as their justification for telling British Columbians the budget was balanced in '95 and '96 when they knew it wasn't.

The Premier of the day assured the then Minister of Finance that she could dip into that fund if she needed to balance the budget. I remember Harry Lali, the member for Yale-Lillooet, standing up in this House when Forest Renewal B.C. was introduced as a bill, saying they were going to set up this fund — I can't remember exactly; I'll paraphrase somewhat — and that no greedy politician was ever going to stick their sticky fingers in this pocket and take that money out. You know, while he was saying that, one of their ministers was sticking their hand in that pocket.

The only reason they didn't raid that fund is because the opposition of the day, our party, stood up day after day after day and made them live up to the promise they made to the people of this province whose money that was. That was a big battle at that time. For the member opposite to forget that and somehow make the comments she made today is a little hypocritical at the least.

I want to talk a little bit about that Forest Renewal B.C. fund and the way the NDP managed it — forget the philosophy and the principle. I can't remember what the number was from the auditor general. I think it was almost a billion dollars spent in the Forest Renewal B.C. fund with no business plan. They didn't have a clue where the money was going, how it was being spent, what it was being used for, what the goals were, what it was trying to achieve. There was no plan. The money was thrown out the door and used up for things that in retrospect perhaps could have been used for different things.

The fact that there was no planning done at all indicates again, I think, how difficult it's been to work in that industry in this province for the last decade. That was money that came out of communities. It came out of the forest sector. The provincial government created a little Crown corporation and said: "Go spend it." They spent it all over the place, doing all sorts of things with no plan.

The other thing and the last thing I want to talk about in that regard, in response to the member, are her comments about how this impacts workers and families. She talked about how the government doesn't have any plans, etc. I think she's just clearly wrong. There are other adjustment mechanisms that are in place and have been in place for a number of years,

which are used and have been used for a number of years both by the previous administration and by this one to deal with those types of adjustments.

This fund that the member was talking about is no longer required, given the new systems in place and the way that has evolved. But I want to spend a moment talking a little bit about the forest worker transition fund. I see my colleague who is the member for Shuswap and was the critic for Forests for the previous opposition. I saw his eyes light up. He'll remember this issue very well.

The previous government had this forest worker transition fund that was designed to help workers' transition in the forest sector as a result of some of the policy decisions the previous government had made. They paid these funds to these workers. They told the workers that the funds were tax-free and that they didn't have to pay income tax on them, when they didn't know that for sure.

In fact, there was ongoing dialogue back and forth with the federal government. The federal government was saying, "Sorry, this is income, and this is taxable," and the provincial government was saying, "No, it isn't," and telling those workers it wasn't. The workers went out and made plans for their family, for retraining and for their lives to transition to a different occupation or whatever, only to find out after the fact that the federal government was coming back to them for the income tax.

The provincial government, as a result, was getting the income tax as well, and they had told them it wasn't going to happen. We as government promised to live up to the spirit of the agreement the previous government made with those workers and to the commitments the previous government had made. As a result, our government is sending out between $25 million and $30 million in payments to those workers who were deliberately misled by the previous administration into believing one thing when the government knew it wasn't true.

We're living up to that. We're putting the money back into the pockets of those workers and compensating them for that. It was a decision made by the previous government, and it was something those workers shouldn't have to bear the brunt of. We're fixing it. We're delivering on it. The ombudsman told the previous government and this government that it needed to be done. We're living up to it. We're making sure it happens.

It's easy to stand up, as that member did, and score today's headline political point out of an issue like this, but I think she should keep the history in context. She should keep her record in context, and she should question why it was that forest workers resoundingly voted against the previous administration when they had their chance in the last election.

They didn't do it for no reason. They did it because of the way that administration treated them, because of what the administration did to the forest industry and forest-dependent communities across British Columbia. I think it's a little sanctimonious for the member to stand up and say the types of things she did today and pretend to be standing up and defending forest workers and forest-dependent families in this province. When she was in government, she did exactly the opposite.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to the committee for discussion or debate at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: 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.

J. MacPhail: I had said to the minister responsible for the community charter that we would go to broader powers. The first one I have, and I'm working from the community charter discussion paper, says the community charter proposes that municipalities be granted the powers of a natural person of full capacity. Could the minister explain what effect that will have for the ordinary person in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In response to the question, I'm going to be a little bit careful about detail obviously. Let's put it this way: the broader powers will be part of the package we will introduce into the House in the form of a White Paper and a draft.

The natural person powers are maybe easiest described as the powers that any citizen would have. It means that current municipalities, as corporations, are provided with broadly worded corporate powers. Included in these powers is making agreements. They provide assistance; acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property. They can delegate powers. They can incorporate corporations and establish commissions.

To add onto that, it is not a thing that the community at large should worry about as far as giving more jurisdiction to local governments than is normally given under the other broader powers. It's technical, and in order to give a clear framework, I really have to wait until it is in the legislation. The elements of the power as I just described them are certainly part of natural person powers. As an overall principle these powers are, for local governments, the empowerment to act as a natural person.

J. MacPhail: I understand that this will unfold with the White Paper. The reason I was asking that question — perhaps I should have put the two of these together….

I preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think that the minister is either, so we don't have to worry about the fact that we should know what we're talking about. This is a quote from the paper: "Natural person powers do not confer or expand any regulatory or taxing powers, since natural persons don't have any such authority." I'm curious to know: is that part completely separate for discussion from the discussion about changes in taxation authorities for communities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: They will indeed be separate parts in the legislation that we will bring to the House.

Just to give a bit better framework or body to the natural person power. The member already recognizes I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand what the natural person power will do for local communities. It gives them the capacity and rights, powers and privileges of a normal person, as I already said. Municipalities, for example, can with these powers enter into agreements, acquire properties and provide assistance unless these elements are specifically restricted in other areas.

J. MacPhail: Again, this is under "Broader Powers." All of these questions are, I think. Yes, they are. The discussion paper then states that the community charter will transfer the soil and freehold title to all roads within municipalities from the province to municipalities. Let me ask the minister what flows from that. For instance, maintenance responsibility — is there a change in that area as a result of that, and is there any transfer of funding that goes along with that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: To deal with that question, again, is quite complicated. The best way to put it is to say that municipal roads or municipal highways today are still owned by the provincial government. Today, if a municipality seeks closure of a road, they have to go through a fairly lengthy and quite cumbersome process to get that road closure. By transferring title on these local or municipal highways from the provincial government to local government, it will make it much easier to deal with a road closure, if the municipality indeed has the need for it for whatever reason. This has nothing to do with maintenance. Municipalities are responsible today for maintenance of their municipal road infrastructure. That will remain the same.

J. MacPhail: A couple of points around the broader powers. I notice that the discussion paper uses language that includes mayors and councillors. But there are other local government leaders, such as electoral area directors, and the other one that I'm familiar with is improvement district directors. Is it for simplicity that those terms are used? Do those terms encompass all other locally elected government leaders as well?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No. As I explained this morning, phase 1 of the community charter structure within local governments is focused on municipalities. When we get to the rural areas, it will be part of the regional district overview and the creation of a charter for regional districts. At that time we will deal with these other elements of local jurisdiction and elected bodies.

Let me just ask a question on that, then. Has the minister received any feedback that there are issues that cannot be resolved in phase 1 because phase 2 is going to occur? I don't know the answer to that question, but are there implementation issues that arise with having two phases?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One of the issues that will develop is that local governments will work and be directed by community charter. At the same time, on a regional level, the sections that pertain to regional districts in the Local Government Act will still be in effect. We recognize that in certain areas a harmonization of these two different forms of local government has to happen in order to make the process fluent on a regional level.

We are working on a number of issues to coincide with the introduction of the charter bill to deal with these issues as well, where there could be a conflict of operation or a conflict of authority. If we do not watch carefully, a municipal councillor who sits on a regional board would be working with two different sets of rules, which could create problems. So we're aware of it. We are identifying the areas where these conflicts could happen, and we will take steps to harmonize as much as we can so as to avoid elected officials being in a compromising position of having to serve on a regional board with one set of rules and on a local level with another set of rules.

J. MacPhail: Have local governments put forward any requirement or any proposals that there may be a need for transitional funding as they move from the Local Government Act to the community charter?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That's an excellent question and not surprising — I wouldn't say surprising. During the consultation period that we had in the regions with

local government representatives, the thing they were most concerned about was the transition period and learning to work with the new tools, especially in the smaller communities. It may create a need to consult with municipal lawyers: "How would we do this? How do we interpret that? How are we going to do things differently now with the charter than we used to with the Local Government Act?"

For that transition concern that has been expressed, we have indicated to these local governments that once the charter is introduced as a bill, we will set up a transition team that local governments can contact. This transition team will be made up of people working in the system today who know the Local Government Act and the charter, and will assist in getting the answers so that smaller communities, like larger communities, can effectively use the new tools of the community charter.

J. MacPhail: Just a follow-up to that question, then. Has there been some discussion about the fact that different local governments have different levels of capacity to act as a new order of government? Is that an issue to be managed for transition, or will the charter actually give recognition that there are different levels of capacity?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are two components to the charter. If we take the Local Government Act as it stands today…. We have taken that act and have looked at how many of the sections in there are needed and are prescriptive. In going through that process, we have eliminated many of the parts that we feel, by empowering local governments, are no longer necessary. As a consequence of that, local governments, be they small or large, will have a document, a tool, to work with that is not only less detailed but clearer in its prescription, clearer in explaining, "This is your power; deal with it," without going into pages and pages of explaining point by point. That's one part.

The second part is that there is going to be a basket of tools for local governments to look at, be it in the financial area or in the area of creating partnerships with the private sector — tools for working together with other councillors or councils in the same area to harmonize some of the functions that local governments are involved with. Often, each local government has its own infrastructure for building inspections and these kinds of things.

They can look at this basket of tools and decide what would work for them. This is enabling. There's nothing that mandates them to take all the components. Smaller communities will maybe use fewer of these enabling tools than larger communities, but at the end of the day smaller communities…. The member opposite had concerns about how they could use this new way of doing business. Smaller communities can not only choose when they want to tap into these opportunities and enabling elements, but they can do it at a time when they feel confident they can handle it and deal with the questions that would otherwise arise.

J. MacPhail: I have a few miscellaneous questions, and then that will be it.

I assume, from the answer the minister gave this morning about declaration of financial contributions during an election, that the system for fixed election dates will remain, that it will not be changed.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We have not made any changes to the municipal election act as part of the Local Government Act, as I explained to the member this morning.

J. MacPhail: Is there any change in…? Will the charter affect in any way the ability of two levels of government to sue each other?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: None whatsoever. What we hope to see happen is that with the charter, within its whole framework and the way it operates, there will be less need for communities to go after each other. Because of the natural person powers, the charter will allow local governments to find ways of partnership. I hope the climate amongst local governments in British Columbia can only get better because of the charter approach we are giving them.

J. MacPhail: One of the areas where the charter is moving is to give local governments more autonomy than they previously enjoyed. I'm wondering how that will impact on the agreement on internal trade regulations, particularly as it relates to the MASH sector, I think it's called now. It was MUSH when I was younger. This involves municipalities, academic institutions, schools, social service agencies and health. Anyway, it includes municipalities.

Will the charter conferring greater autonomy on local governments give them any greater autonomy on whether to comply with the agreement on internal trade and those regulations arising, as they relate to the MASH sector?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As far as I can see, there will be no impact on the MASH agreement because of the charter. One commitment made in the charter principles is that if changes would impact local government in relationship to other forms of government, these changes would always be made after a comprehensive consultation with the representatives of local governments.

At this point I can't see anything in the charter that would have an impact on the trade issue. If there were changes in the future, they would happen only after the principle that full consultation with local government would take place on government-intergovernmental relationships.

J. MacPhail: My final question arises out of the service plan. Page 8 commits the government to ensure that communities have safe drinking water and appro-

priate sewage treatment. What actions is the minister taking to realize this goal?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In the past the members opposite have expressed their concern about water quality, including the period where we have seen serious discussions in all provinces because of what happened in Ontario with the quality of water and its impact on people. As government today, we are as committed as we were in opposition that funding coming from the infrastructure program between the provincial, municipal and local governments will be focused primarily on green projects — that is, heavily on the water and sewer issues. We are committed to it, and we will continue to commit to that today.

The other thing is that under the charter, the ability of local governments to get into partnership with the private sector to provide these services will be considerably enhanced over the rules and regulations that now pertain to the P3 programs.

As far as the infrastructure funding programs are concerned, we're very much committed to the green side of projects. The public-private partnership potential for local governments to tap into will also be enhanced and less problematic to achieve. That can clearly assist communities to get involved in these very much needed infrastructure upgrades.

I suppose that's what the member opposite wanted to hear. She wanted to know what we're doing in the context of the charter, and these are two examples.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell me what ministry is primarily responsible for drinking water protection?

J. MacPhail: In an area that has arisen since the community charter discussions, there have been some proposals put forward that local governments should now have responsibility for liquor law enforcement, as I understand it, or — I'm sorry, not liquor law enforcement; the minister is quite correct in terms of shaking his head no — in terms of through a business plan–business licensing model approving licensing for establishments who serve alcohol.

Was any of this discussed, or is there going to be a discussion in the community charter about how this unfolds? Let me put my full range of issues here for the minister. This is very much an issue as far as I can tell, both as a person who took a keen interest in updating our liquor laws and one who uses those liquor laws as well.

In a city like mine, one can live on Boundary Road and have establishments kitty-corner from each other serving alcohol, serving food, and being in different municipalities. There are lots of corners in the lower mainland like that and here in Victoria, as well, with our 13 municipalities. That's a real issue, because if autonomy is used in a way which is an objective of the community charter, autonomy may be used in a way that interferes with one business merely because they're on the other side of the line for a local jurisdiction.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I can respond to this particular question, although it is not in my jurisdiction or in the charter. It is with the Solicitor General. During the consultation meetings in the province, including here and the greater Vancouver area, that question came up quite a few times: "How much more control are we going to get about the establishment of new liquor-providing businesses?" It is not part of the charter, because it is in another minister's jurisdiction.

What I can say is that I believe that the Solicitor General, in my discussions with him on the subject, understands that local governments must have a strong say in the application and the approval of new licences. I think he will recognize that through the steps he is taking right now, dealing with liquor licences. I have been able to give a message to the Solicitor General in that regard on the desire to have a real good, meaningful say in the applications. It's up to the Solicitor General to react to that in his bill, of course. I have good hopes that he recognizes that local governments must have a say.

At the end of the day it has to be somehow the liquor control branch that makes the final decision to make sure we don't have one town with 12 or 20 facilities on one street and the town on the other side with nothing. I think that's how it will be done.

J. MacPhail: Well, those points are exactly appropriate to make. In fact, I just want to go on record here saying that I support the changes — no buts. I supported the changes. In fact, I introduced many of the changes when I was in some capacity in the previous government — I think it was Minister of Finance. What happened, and I put this as a cautionary note to this particular minister, is that bureaucracy overtook us in terms of making the changes. I think it actually is the one time I would have to say that the bureaucracy overwhelmed me and I was extremely disappointed in the bureaucracy's ability to actually make change. I think it's the only time.

I say this with deference: I think it's because the bureaucracy didn't agree with the changes. I tried to figure out every other way to explain it, but I think that's what it was. It could have been that there may have been some political masters that didn't agree with it as well. Nevertheless, they were passed.

Here's the problem I see — and it's specific to this minister because of the new-era commitment to not download — and that is that if indeed we want this system to work and give a greater role to municipalities to approve a business plan that incorporates liquor licensing in it, then municipalities need the resources.

I talked to some business people about this matter, who were receiving the changes with great hope. Then the next question they had was: "Well, gee, in my city it

now takes me so many months" — and those months were greater than a year — "to get my business plan approved by my municipality. If it's now contingent upon proper review of liquor licensing, how much longer is it going to take?" The changes from provincial responsibility to greater municipal responsibility…. We have to be very careful to watch that this isn't a downloading without proper resources.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, I do not consider this a downloading. If a local government decides that it wants to have input on the establishment of a liquor distribution type of business — be it a restaurant, a bar, a pub or a beer and wine store — then that is their choice. It's not downloading. Downloading is when you say you have to do this, and you have to spend the cost of fulfilling that new responsibility that we give you.

What we are saying is: "Here's a charter. Within the charter we will give you certain powers." On the other hand, other ministries will do things, and these other ministries are recognizing that local governments indeed have more power, so they respect that, and by saying to local government: "If you want to have a say on how this liquor licence application is going to be dealt with, please do so."

We have had referrals in the past when it came to pub applications. We have had referrals in other areas, be it in the extraction of gravel or of soil. I remember when I was the mayor of Whistler, on a regular basis we had applications that came to Crown corporations and then were referred to the municipal council for comment. Basically, what we were given was 30 days to respond. I think that is not unfair to see as part of how the bureaucracy, be it at a local or a provincial level, can deal with it, so I don't have that concern.

I would certainly not consider it off-loading, because if local government doesn't want to do it, that's fine too. Then the liquor control branch will make the decision, but most communities want to have a say in it just to make sure that whatever is being recommended as a new project fits within the community structure and the community objectives. I think they will look at it that way.

As far as a time delay, which was the concern expressed, I hope to see that with the new charter and less restrictive requirements than the old Local Government Act had put on local government, on issues like that local governments can react quite fast and in an acceptable time frame.

J. MacPhail: Thanks to the minister. I'm finished on the community charter issues. Thanks very much.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We didn't talk about two portions of my responsibility. This morning we talked about the 2010 bid and as the member opposite expressed strongly this morning that she is (a) supportive and (b) interested in being kept in the loop, I offer that any time you have questions, contact me. We will meet, and we will discuss it. I think it is indeed very important that we as the Legislature as a whole are behind this bid in order to get the very best result out of our endeavour. That very best result, of course, is being nominated as the designated site at next year's meeting in Prague.

On the community charter, it is a very bold initiative we have taken. When the member opposite sees the draft that will go public very soon, she will recognize that it really is a new way of having a relationship between local government and the provincial government.

I want to say one thing. It was triggered by the statement on the member's last question on the liquor control aspect and how the member opposite was really frustrated by the bureaucracy somehow hijacking what she wanted to achieve with the changes in the liquor licensing legislation.

We started the exercise of creating this draft in September of last year. Obviously, the bureaucracy that's in place, the different people working within Municipal Affairs, as it was known — it's now CAWS — had just finished a three-year process of creating the Local Government Act. My greatest satisfaction of all is not only that we have a great charter but that these bureaucrats, if you want to call them that…. I don't like that word. One day we have to find another.

They understood what we wanted to do. They understood that with their full participation, we could indeed do something different. The last seven months have been remarkable. There have been times when I had to ask a whole team to work during the weekend. There have been many nights when I had to ask them to stay on and work through some of the issues we had to deal with.

Never, ever was there anyone who said: "Do we really have to do this?" I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every civil servant who has been part of creating this charter, who has been part of the team that has travelled the province, who has been part of the team that has listened to local governments throughout British Columbia. As I said this morning, we met with about 800 different officials.

I want to say thank you to them. They have worked so hard, and this charter is theirs. It's not just the government's. It's theirs because they bought into the new way of creating the relationship between local and provincial governments. They have delivered, in my opinion, beyond expectations.

J. MacPhail: We're moving now into aboriginal programs under the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We're moving into the aboriginal programs section of this ministry.

The New Era document states that a Liberal government would "create a permanent first citizens forum that will provide aboriginal citizens living on and off reserves a direct means to communicate with the government about their priorities and ideas to materially improve their quality of life today."

Hon. G. Abbott: The first citizens forum concept has been in development for some time. We want to develop better and stronger ways of communicating between government and first nations in the province. Probably in October we will have the first of the first citizens forums, likely at the Wosk Centre in Vancouver. Some of the details around that are still to be ironed out.

J. MacPhail: What is the role and structure of the aboriginal directorate? My supplementary question to that is: how does the aboriginal directorate interrelate with the first citizens forum?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are 11 FTEs or public servants in the aboriginal directorate. I'll just briefly quote from the context for the aboriginal directorate: "The directorate provides leadership in developing sound government policy and works to increase participation of aboriginal people and communities in the life and economy of B.C. The directorate works collaboratively with provincial ministries, aboriginal organizations and the federal government to promote culturally responsive, coordinated and effective programs and services for B.C.'s aboriginal people."

In terms of the directorate, two of the members of that directorate have been actively engaged around preparations for the first citizens forum.

J. MacPhail: What's the distinction? Is the first citizens forum a one-shot affair annually, or does the first citizens forum inform the work of the aboriginal directorate, or vice versa?

Hon. G. Abbott: The latter is correct. The first citizens forum will be an annual opportunity for aboriginal people to give us a sense of their expectations from the provincial government. It will be an annual accountability of the government's success in achieving its goals in relation to aboriginal programs and aboriginal services. In short, it will be a kind of report card and an opportunity, obviously, to meet and share new ideas as well. That will be the annual occasion to look at how we're doing.

J. MacPhail: What are the impediments the minister is running into, for it to take at least another six months to have the first, first citizens forum?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are no particular impediments. We just believe this is going to be a very important event both for aboriginal communities and for the government of British Columbia. Particularly because it's the first, we want to ensure it is very well planned and well coordinated. Through the aboriginal directorate, we have been working with aboriginal communities to ensure they have full input around the content of and agenda for the forum and obviously to ensure they feel satisfied that the very many different first nations in British Columbia are represented there.

J. MacPhail: It would be my view that now is the time to speed up the first citizens forum for this reason. There are great changes taking place out there through changed funding, decreased funding and cuts to programs that directly affect aboriginal communities — off-reserve, I'm well aware of, and even some programs on reserve.

In addition to the annual first citizens forum, are there any other avenues, either through programs or through funding, the minister is directing toward resolving the issues that are confronting off-reserve aboriginal peoples either at the provincial, regional or local agencies? What programs, what services exist now that are working until we actually have this, I guess, debate at the first citizens forum?

Hon. G. Abbott: Certainly, while I won't suggest anything else, aboriginal people may be affected in some measure by expenditure reductions in a range of ministries. In the case of this particular ministry, the budget expenditure line has actually gone up. There are a range of ways in which we are attempting to strengthen aboriginal communities and our relationship with aboriginal communities. For example, we have committed to doubling the First Citizens Fund over four years from $36 million to $72 million. Certainly, in the cultural, educational and business areas, the First Citizens Fund is a way for us to assist aboriginal communities in their work there.

Additionally, we have strengthened our funding for the first citizens heritage, language and culture program. I think that's an important initiative as well. There are certainly others which I'm happy to follow up on as well.

J. MacPhail: The areas that have been affected by cuts, I'm sure the minister is well aware, are direct social service deliveries to off-reserve aboriginal children and families. I don't think it will work…. Actually, we have people present today from the aboriginal friendship centres. It won't work to say: "Oh, it's not my responsibility. It's somebody else's responsibility."

Here's what's happening; here's why I'm curious as to when the first citizens forum is going to take place.

There's huge change taking place in Health Services and services to Children and Families that affect directly aboriginal people and aboriginal control over those services. On the one hand the Health Services ministry is eliminating completely the Aboriginal Health Council. All of those programs are being shipped out to the health authorities. Basically, first nations communities, aboriginal communities, are having to start from square one again about getting control, again, of their programs that they deliver directly.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is going to aboriginal communities and saying: "Hey, we want to have a regional health model where we want aboriginal service councils in place." I met with a group of aboriginal social service program people just last week during the week away from here, and they're completely confused. On the one hand the government is saying, "No, we no longer need your services," and another area of government is saying: "Yes, we do need your services." They have grave concerns about both aspects of this. A first citizens forum would, I truly believe, help to bridge the one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing as it relates specifically to first nations aboriginal programs. Is this an agenda item that the minister is considering for the first nations forum?

Hon. G. Abbott: The agenda is still under discussion, but certainly one of the areas which I would suspect we will be talking about at the first citizens forum, because I know there is some interest among first nations around it, is aboriginal health issues. I know that's front and centre on a number of fronts for aboriginal communities. One of the things I have heard in various meetings that I have had with aboriginal organizations is that that is a very important issue for them. So it would not surprise me, though we're still consulting with respect to the agenda, if that were to be among the issues.

I do also want to say that I've had the opportunity to meet frequently with aboriginal organizations in the province, including the aboriginal friendship centres. We as a ministry assist to the tune of about $600,000 a year, I think, in the operation of the centres. We have developed some very strong relationships with aboriginal organizations over the past several months. That's not to say that they agree with everything the government proposes to do, but we have certainly set up a lot of lines of dialogue with first nations. There are a lot of issues to work through. We look forward to continuing that.

J. MacPhail: We can go through some of those issues right now, because we're on the verge of entering the second fiscal year of this government, and these issues are mounting in terms of their need to be resolved. This is the forum in which we need to discuss them.

I want to ask the minister what steps he's taking to support building the necessary aboriginal government structures, particularly off reserve, to ensure that the further devolution to aboriginal agencies is not a trap for failure.

Let me tell you why I'm asking this question. It's because there have been times in other jurisdictions where there have been political arrangements between the government of the day and perhaps political organizations in the aboriginal community who are not responsible for delivering services — nor should they be responsible for delivering services. Those political organizations are asked to actually deliver on-the-ground services. There's no governance structure, other than the political organization, through which to deliver those services. Therefore, the devolution of responsibility for a social service program to a political organization has met with failure.

I know that the aboriginal friendship centres want to avoid that at all costs. Aboriginal women's services organizations want to. Well, basically every aboriginal social service agency that I've met with wants to avoid that trap. What is the minister planning in terms of ensuring proper governance?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the concern that the hon. member has expressed is a legitimate one. Both the provincial government and the aboriginal communities have to be cognizant of building capacity as we move forward on a range of issues. I think the member is right that to attempt to undertake a function without having first built the capacity to effectively manage that function is a legitimate concern.

For example, I recently attended an urban aboriginal conference in Vancouver where later in the agenda my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development was discussing some of the changes that are being contemplated by the ministry and specifically trying to address the issue of building capacity so that the legitimate aspiration of first nations to manage their child and family development issues more directly can be achieved.

J. MacPhail: That was exactly what I was talking about earlier, saying that the aboriginal community is receiving mixed messages about governance and responsibility for programs to their own constituents.

Let me give a very practical example. On the one hand, the capacity for delivering health programs is there through the aboriginal health councils. While it's only $10 million provincewide that the Aboriginal Health Council was responsible for, they had dozens of — I think it was something like 220 — programs working extremely successfully, delivered to aboriginal people mainly off-reserve but certainly working closely with on-reserve programs. That's gone. Government has said: "That governance structure is one that we don't want to have anymore in the area of health."

Then the same people got a phone call a couple of days later — it may have been a week later — saying: "Hey, you know that aboriginal health council? That's the model we want to replicate in the Ministry of Chil-

dren and Family Development." At the same time the government is going through another mechanism to aboriginal political organizations. They are complete, legitimate, well run and have the capacity to be political organizations, governing organizations, for aboriginal communities, but they don't run social service programs. At the same time those organizations, on a one-to-one basis, in some areas are being asked to deliver programs.

I am informed…. Believe you me, it's only through information here. My own community is made absolutely all the better for having, along with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the largest off-reserve aboriginal population in all of Canada. We are honoured to have that, but I'm speaking only through information here on the effects of these changes to aboriginal governance. There's incredible confusion out there, and at the end of this month it all grinds to a halt. The funding stops for social service programs, and there's literally no plan in place to carry on.

I was searching desperately for an area in government where these contradictory messages could be resolved. That's why, doing my homework, the first citizens forum seemed to be the place. Does the minister agree?

Hon. G. Abbott: I do think the first citizens forum will be a place where some of those issues are discussed and, hopefully, over time resolved. Certainly, what I've heard from first nations with respect to that is that those are the kinds of issues they will want to bring forward for discussion at the first citizens forum. It is an opportunity for first nations and aboriginal people to speak directly and personally to members of the provincial cabinet, and hopefully we will attain greater clarity in some of those public policy areas in an event like the first citizens forum.

J. MacPhail: I urge the minister to move more expeditiously than the fall of this year to have the first citizens forum, because the problems are arising now. In fact, some of the problems arise literally at the end of this week. I met with aboriginal health service delivery people who said: "As of March 31, we have no more funding. We've been told that maybe by June this matter will be worked out." Well, these are addiction programs. They're natal, prenatal, postnatal programs. They're housing programs. They're education programs. They're programs that exist now and as of the end of this week will not exist.

Perhaps the minister can help on this basis. What we know — and the government has made it quite clear that they're fully cognizant of — is that the determinants of health are completely negative for aboriginal and first nations people compared to non-aboriginal people in British Columbia. What specific budget commitments can the minister tell me about that are directed to mount cross-sector, interministerial collaborations, specifically with off-reserve aboriginal agencies that are now responsible for programs and services?

Hon. G. Abbott: The government is certainly aware of the challenges the member has outlined. We are in a dynamic time, certainly, in terms of the changes that have been undertaken by the current government and also in terms of first nations both on- and off-reserve looking in many ways to enhance their own management of social services, and so on. It is a dynamic time.

We do have a responsibility as a ministry to look at cross-ministry coordination. We accept that challenge, and we know it's going to be a big undertaking, but we will continue to work relentlessly on that. As part of that process we have just completed an inventory of all provincial services to first nations both on- and off-reserve, and we are developing a provincial strategy for social and economic improvement for aboriginal people.

As well, in terms of the specifics, there is a tripartite negotiation ongoing that involves the province, the federal government and two aboriginal organizations, the Aboriginal Peoples Council and the British Columbia Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, as representatives of first nations in respect to those issues. Given the divided jurisdiction around aboriginal affairs, we do have to work with the federal government. That relationship has been a positive one.

To meet the challenge I've set out, we actually have an improvement of $1.8 million in our budget for the coming fiscal year to manage that challenge.

J. MacPhail: Again, I urge some expediency on that to the minister, because the effects of lack of coordination are going to be felt at the end of this week.

For the minister's information, I was informed that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has extended the deadline for aboriginal service deliverers to respond to the request for a governance model, but I think that's still looming for June. There's a real urgency here to get some sort of interministerial collaboration. I am informed at this point, and the minister doesn't dissuade me of that, that it doesn't exist. In order to not have people fall through the cracks because services have to end, I urge the minister to start that process as quickly as possible.

The New Era document also speaks of various programs and supports for aboriginal people. I want to refer to that document and then ask the minister how his government is responding.

He has already suggested that the first nations language fund has been increased. The new-era commitment of increasing efforts to protect and promote aboriginal languages is recognized through increased funding. What is the increased funding being spent on?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The budget increase for the language program is from $750,000 to $1 million. I'll take a moment and just give a brief outline of how the language program is

developing. It is quite a remarkable project, I must say. I've now had the opportunity to meet with the advisory council and some of the folks who are working on the project, and it is quite amazing. I'm sure the member might be interested at some point in visiting their offices at Bastion Square. She'd get a firsthand sense of what the project is doing.

As a non-computer-literate guy, I probably won't do justice in this description, but what they are essentially doing is attempting to develop a dictionary on computer, which would ensure that all of the various aboriginal languages that exist in British Columbia would be effectively captured by the computer program. I think they are working with Hewlett-Packard on the corporate side. It's kind of a P3 model that they're using — the corporate sector, including Hewlett-Packard. I don't want to be unfair to those who may also be contributing, but I know they're using the computers.

They're working with elders in a range of aboriginal communities across the province, for example, to capture words in the Secwepemc language and provide the translation so that in the years ahead as, regrettably, some of the elders pass away, we don't want to see those languages pass with them. In just a couple of years now they have come a remarkably long way in that project and are feeling very comfortable that in another year or two, the dictionary will provide just a tremendous resource to young aboriginal people who want to reconnect with their languages.

The next one is: how is the minister or his government increasing program funding together with the federal government to solve urban challenges and build capacity? That's a specific new-era commitment, and I did hear the minister say that's a challenge. What specific program funding is he working on with the federal government to solve the urban challenges?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to answer the member's question this way. At the public servant level there are ongoing discussions between or across ministries and with their federal counterparts around some of the urban challenges. Again, I guess, child issues, family issues, health issues, social justice issues and criminal justice issues across the spectrum — there's a lot of ministries involved. There is a public servants committee which is looking at these issues and discussing them with federal counterparts. I chair a committee of provincial ministers which has been looking at these issues. We are developing a provincial strategy, on which we will then be working with the federal government to implement.

J. MacPhail: What are the indicators of success in terms of building capacity? The New Era document speaks of building capacity. Capacity in what, and how will you know whether you've done that or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: To give the member an example of capacity-building, I'll first of all just briefly note for the member that the Spallumcheen Indian band, which is located in the Shuswap constituency, was, from 1986 or thereabouts until recently, the sole Indian band in the province that managed child and family issues themselves. What we would want to do, because the aspiration certainly exists among numerous aboriginal communities, is build the capacity to provide for that in more aboriginal communities across the province.

Again, going back to the member's earlier comments, we do have to build the capacity to ensure that in any transfer of responsibilities, there is the capacity to manage those challenges.

J. MacPhail: Just so the minister knows. All I can do is ask the questions, and then it's up to organizations to decide whether these answers are satisfactory or not. I meet regularly with my friendship centre, and I'll be offering the words of the minister. We'll just have to see whether these new-era commitments are being met. None of them were part of the 90-day commitments, so the proof that these commitments are in the works is in the pudding.

Another one: what is the minister's government doing to "devote special attention and resources to addressing the challenges and needs of aboriginal women and youth"?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a number of initiatives underway in those areas. For example, we have provided $100,000 in '01-02 towards projects at the community level to mitigate against aboriginal youth involvement in the sex trade and sexual exploitation. We're working with a group of aboriginal youth in the province to establish a network and seek advice on priority issues. We're working with the federal government and aboriginal youth to implement the national aboriginal youth strategy in B.C. We have supported and have just recently continued support to the Raven Youth Tech program, an initiative that's managed through the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. We've supported aboriginal youth participation in the new distributed learning program at Royal Roads University, which helps train aboriginal youth as community learning facilitators. And we have supported the Ministry of Attorney General's restorative justice program.

Those are some of the things. We also have other initiatives which are still in development but which we will certainly be bringing forward at the appropriate time.

J. MacPhail: At the beginning the minister mentioned a program targeted toward youth that had funding for '01-02. Has that funding been cut now for '02-03?

J. MacPhail: So the amount carries through for '02-03. I just wondered why the minister specified '01-02 — that's all.

The commitment in terms of helping aboriginal families bridge the digital divide. The Raven Youth Tech program was a legacy of Grand Chief Ed John. When he was a cabinet minister in the previous government, Grand Chief Ed John worked extremely hard on that program, put it in place and knew that the best vehicle for delivering that program was the aboriginal friendship centres. That existed under the previous government.

What did this government mean in their New Era document by "helping aboriginal families bridge the digital divide"? What commitment has his government made towards that?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly agree with the member. Raven Tech is an excellent program. It certainly is very much what's needed in terms of assisting aboriginal youth beyond the education system to become computer-literate and able to enjoy future careers that in some measure build on those computer skills.

The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is working with the chief information officer and with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise along with, most importantly, the Native Economic Development Advisory Board to look at ways in which we can extend the opportunity to access computers and computer technology.

J. MacPhail: Has this government made any commitment that's actually on the ground yet — or money available that can be used now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess one of the areas where additional resources have directly been of assistance is in the First Citizens Fund. As we add to the existing $36 million — it's $45 million now, I guess — and as we enjoy more interest from that, we are able to do more things. Certainly, a number of the proposals that have made their way through the First Citizens Fund do have a relationship with the technology sector. Again, the initiative that I referenced earlier with the CIO and CSE and NEDAB is in its planning stages, and we do expect to see the results of those efforts in the relatively near future.

J. MacPhail: The New Era document said that the Liberal government would double the First Citizens Fund to $72 million to support native friendship centres, student bursaries and economic development programs. The minister has just said it's at $45 million. When will it be at $72 million to deliver on the new-era promise?

Hon. G. Abbott: The commitment was to double the fund over four years, so we add $9 million a year. Over a four-year cycle that would be doubled to $72 million.

The Chair: Members, a short recess has been asked for. Therefore, the committee will recess for five minutes and resume at half past.

J. MacPhail: What is the increased funding for the First Citizens Fund this year going toward?

Hon. G. Abbott: The expanded fund. We're working with the interest from the expanded fund. The base fund remains the same. We work with the interest, and as the fund itself grows, it produces more opportunities to do things.

Basically, we're doing the same things around educational, cultural and business opportunities that currently exist in the fund. We can just do more. In the current fiscal year, one initiative I'm sure the member would be interested in is an expanded business advisory service that the fund is undertaking. It is being funded 50-50 by the fund and by the federal government.

J. MacPhail: The service plan of this ministry states: "The 1996 Canadian census recognized that 70 percent of aboriginal people do not reside on reserves, confirming that the majority of aboriginal people live in urban settings. The urban aboriginal population is growing at a faster rate than on-reserve populations." Can the minister please outline what funding and/or programs the ministry has targeted specifically toward urban aboriginal populations?

Hon. G. Abbott: The programs of our ministry don't discriminate between on- and off-reserve people. We try to make the programs available to both. However, given that on-reserve aboriginals enjoy a special relationship with the federal government, we do try to expand capacity to meet the needs of urban aboriginals.

J. MacPhail: That was a little vague. I'm dealing with the minister's service plan. It's not a statement that I made up. It's the minister's service plan indicating that the urban aboriginal population is growing at a faster rate than on-reserve populations. That's why I'm looking for urban-based aboriginal programs. In fact, they could be on-reserve urban aboriginal programs — just urban aboriginal programs.

The service plan also states in its major trends section: "For aboriginal people in B.C., quality of life indicators in all categories are consistently lower than for other British Columbians. These indicators include health, education, labour force participation, income levels, family and housing." I totally agree, with shame, that those indicators are true, and I accept my responsibility for moving slowly toward improving those horrendous statistics.

There are other statistics that are not in the report that face aboriginal populations, and that is that the aboriginal child and youth suicide rate is six times higher than the national average and that aboriginal women are disproportionately represented in the prison system, disproportionately represented in low-income categories and are at higher risk of homelessness, of abuse and of losing their children. Those statistics are there and are exacerbated amongst the urban aboriginal population.

I'm really trying to find somewhere in this government where these issues are being addressed. I have to be frank. I thought it would be with this minister that I could discuss those matters. That's why I'm asking for specifics about programs targeted toward the urban aboriginal population.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I certainly agree with the member's introductory comments around how, historically, governments in British Columbia — and I would go back over a 125-year period — perhaps have not served aboriginal people as well as they should have. Certainly, collectively, we have failed in a whole range of measurables. Aboriginal people have not fared well.

I am not at all in dispute of the member's suggestions that in health, education, social justice, the courts, the criminal justice system — in all of those areas — the indicators are not where they should be. Clearly, our government and every government has a very big job in trying to see improvement in those indicators over time. I'm not sure how else I can put this, because I don't think the member is suggesting we should develop programs and then tell on-reserve aboriginal people that they're not able to access them. What I understand from staff is that for most of our programs, the bulk of the program resources actually do go to urban aboriginals. I don't think the member is suggesting that in cases where an application is appropriate, we should exclude on-reserve aboriginals. We obviously don't want to do that.

The problems that the member rightly outlined are acute both in urban settings and in non-urban, reserve settings. Again, I am advised by staff that while we don't discriminate between urban and non-urban, typically a program would be more heavily accessed by the non-reserve aboriginal people.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm looking for specifics on details of programs. I'll concede, and happily concede, that programs are delivered equitably for on-reserve and off-reserve. I'm looking for urban targeted programs to deal with the issues of the disproportionately low health outcomes that face aboriginal first nations people.

I think I've said to the minister that come the end of this week, there's a whole bunch of programs that are gone. I assume it's his responsibility at the cabinet table to advocate delivery on the commitments made under the New Era document. That's why I'm looking for specifics on programs.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the point to the member — and I hope I'm being clear enough here…. I will give her examples of programs that are primarily accessed by off-reserve or urban aboriginal people, but again, we are not going to say to someone on reserve, if they can make a case, that they're specifically excluded.

Some examples. The business advisory program is something which is almost entirely of an urban character. The aboriginal employment partnership initiative is one, again, which would certainly affect 70 percent of aboriginal people who are off reserve. The funding for the initiative, which I mentioned earlier, around assisting aboriginal youth to avoid sexual exploitation and the sex trade is primarily an urban aboriginal youth initiative. To a considerable extent, given that friendship centres have been the delivery agent for the Raven Youth Tech program, that has been primarily an urban-based program as well.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister initiated any programs that are new under his regime?

Hon. G. Abbott: I won't go through the whole list. The first two that I referred the member to — the business advisory program is new, and the aboriginal employment partnership initiative is new as well. Additionally, as I say, there are other initiatives in development, and we will be announcing them when they are ready for announcement.

J. MacPhail: The business advisory program that the minister has initiated — what is to achieve? The service plan states that the development of aboriginal business is hindered by the inability to access capital at competitive interest rates. What's the relationship between that statement and the new business advisory program that the minister has created?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member was looking for more information with respect to the business advisory program. That is as the name would suggest. Perhaps with the assistance of the First Citizens Fund or through other means, aboriginal people undertake business ventures, and the business advisory program provides them with counselling and assistance where they need it on business advice to try to assure the success of their business, particularly during the first five years when frequently the businesses are tested.

J. MacPhail: Does that program have any aspect to it that addresses the concern raised in the minister's own service plan that aboriginal business people are hindered by inability to access capital at competitive interest rates?

J. MacPhail: Why is this mentioned in the service plan, then? What's the purpose of mentioning it? Is there a solution available?

Hon. G. Abbott: The First Citizens Fund loan program is intended to address the difficulty as is set out in the service plan around being able to access capital at prime rates, for example.

J. MacPhail: The First Citizens Fund existed prior to this government, though. It was created by the previous government. I'm just wondering what the service plan…. Is it relying on the status quo of the First Citizens Fund to resolve that issue, or is the First Citizens Fund successful in resolving that issue?

Hon. G. Abbott: The First Citizens Fund has been of some assistance in resolving that issue. I think that is larger than the ability of any single program to overcome, but it has been of assistance in resolving some of those issues. As the fund expands and doubles over four years, the resources we'll have available to assist further will be there.

J. MacPhail: In the service plan under table 3, the performance indicators and targets, it states under that section that the ministry has a goal to create a provincial strategy to increase federal funding for aboriginal programs and services. Has that strategy been drafted?

Hon. G. Abbott: A draft has been prepared with respect to that strategy, but it does have some steps to go through before it would be presented to the federal government.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the broad sense of developing the ideas around it, yes. The specific document, I'm advised, has not been shared at this point. The draft document has not been shared with aboriginal representatives at this point.

J. MacPhail: The table also states that the government is to develop performance measures to assess improvements in quality of life for aboriginal people in B.C. Have those performance measures been drafted? Has there been consultation with aboriginal people on the drafting of those performance measures? When will they be made public?

Hon. G. Abbott: I believe that particular goal is for the service plan for next year. That's when it's going to be further developed.

Hon. G. Abbott: There will be focused consultations on those in the year ahead.

J. MacPhail: The reason I was asking the minister whether the First Citizens Fund was successful in addressing the issue of assisting businesses with one of the barriers they face is that in that same performance plan there is an item referring to the number of aboriginal businesses started or expanded with the assistance of the First Citizens Fund. The baseline is 130. The target for '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05 is also 130.

I assumed that there was some other mechanism by which this government was planning to assist aboriginal businesses because even by the government's own goals, they don't plan to achieve any increased success in that area. I found it confusing.

Could the minister explain what I think is a discrepancy in the commitment to assist aboriginal businesses?

Hon. G. Abbott: The number in the service plan is not cumulative. It's ongoing. That's 130 per year. The First Citizens Fund board manages that. We have tried to set out reasonable and conservative expectations for them.

J. MacPhail: The minister is saying it's not cumulative. Does that mean it's incremental each year by 130 businesses? The minister is nodding yes. Okay. Great.

The next part on the service plan is for a first peoples heritage, language and culture council. Again, I need help on that. It's on page 9 of the service plan. It says that one of the targets is to "increase the annual revenue fivefold to $7.5 million by 2004-2005 with at least 80 percent coming from earned and investor-generated income." In the current year there's $3.6 million, and $2.38 million of that is earned. What plan does the minister have for achieving the fivefold increase in revenue?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll just read this with the member's agreement here. This will give you a more complete sense of the program than what I laid out earlier. FirstVoices.com, which is the program they're working on, is:

J. MacPhail: Sorry. That's the information on how the revenue is going to increase fivefold? It's at page 9 of the service plan.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry. Perhaps the member could send over the piece. It's not making any sense to us in relation to the language initiative.

J. MacPhail: I did all my preparation from the service plan. Is the minister saying that he doesn't have that service plan? I mean, that's fine. It's on page 9 of the service plan. We got that off the Internet, so I don't know whether the minister is working from a different service plan.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I can suggest to the Chair, if we could leave this question for a moment, we'll get the information, because….

Hon. G. Abbott: Simply, we are increasing the support for the program from $750,000 to $1 million. Beyond that, we're not aware of any fivefold increase in anything around this particular program.

J. MacPhail: I'm referring to the service plan for the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council — okay? It says on page 9 of the service plan of the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council…. We can leave this question aside. It's not earthshaking, but it is one where the government has set out an ambitious plan that says "to increase the annual revenue fivefold to $7.5 million…."

J. MacPhail: Of the service plan for the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Anyway, Mr. Chair, we'll leave it, but it is a very ambitious goal, and it would be interesting to see how the government's going to monitor that or achieve that.

Let me refer, then, to the next item. I've got the photocopy here. It's page 12 of the service plan under "Performance Indicators," table 3. It says: "Provincial strategy to increase federal funding for aboriginal programs and services." Again, what would that be, other than asking the federal government for more money? Please tell me the strategy that entails.

Hon. G. Abbott: Broadly speaking, the concern we have, particularly as we see the trend which was noted previously of more aboriginal people moving into an urban setting and off-reserve, is that the federal government's responsibility for off-reserve aboriginals is unclear. We're particularly concerned in a number of program areas — you can predict all the major areas of government where these services would come into play — that in our view the federal government is not, in some cases, providing any matching funds and in other cases only limited funding in relation to what we believe their responsibilities should be.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister yet had any indication from the federal government that they're going to increase funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: At this point in time, given the discussions we had, particularly at the public service level, we are cautiously optimistic that we will see some results from the federal government.

J. MacPhail: This area of aboriginal services has changed substantially. The provision of and responsibility for aboriginal services has changed substantially with the election of a new government. There are a lot of concerns, and I am trying to find answers to those concerns that are raised in the community by the very people who every day provide these services in an incredibly dedicated fashion — many of them through the aboriginal friendship centres but also through the Aboriginal Health Association, aboriginal social workers, and drug and alcohol counsellors.

There is a huge, looming problem at the end of this week in terms of funding being completely lost. Aboriginal health and social service deliverers are looking for some guidance on where to turn so that people don't fall through the cracks. I must say that I remain concerned even after this dialogue. I have no idea where, if asked, I would send any of the aboriginal leaders, in the delivering of these programs, to get their issues resolved. I would have to tell them that they have to wait for a forum in the fall and that interministerial committees are being developed.

As I conclude my questioning on this section, it is with a great deal of concern that the people who are most at risk in our society and who are the most vulnerable are going to have that vulnerability increased by lack of action by the government. So many of them are my neighbours; thousands are my constituents. I will do everything possible to hold this government accountable if people do fall through the cracks because of either cuts or simply one part of the government not knowing what another part of the government is doing.

Hon. G. Abbott: Certainly, I and I'm sure all members of this House share the apprehensions that have been articulated. We do need to do better, and we do need — at least in some areas — to do more. We do have a big task ahead of us as a government to try to see those indicators improve over time around health and education — all of the indicators of economic, social, educational and cultural well-being. We do want to see those indicators improve over time.

We certainly have been working cross-ministry in the government. We have been working government to government with the federal government and certainly with local government to find ways that we can do things better and work cooperatively to see those indicators improve.

I do want to say as well, though, that while the direct benefits may not be there immediately, we have

initiated regular consultations with, for example, the First Nations Summit task force. We meet with them on a quarterly basis or perhaps more frequently. I've now met with them five or six times. We discuss issues like health, education and so on. We tend to focus on those kinds of areas when we meet.

I do know that there is much more to do, and I won't for a moment disagree that we've got a long way to go. It's a big, big challenge, but we'll work with the member opposite and with all members of the House to try to do more — and do better — to better serve the aboriginal people of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I have several questions on multiculturalism in immigration, several questions on audio book programs, a couple of questions on arts, culture and heritage, and a couple of questions on sport, which I think we can finish by the end of today. If we finish earlier, we can move into finishing up women's equality questions, but I doubt that we'll get through those by the end of the day.

On multiculturalism. Again, I am deeply honoured to live in and represent a community which is very diversified, very multiculturally rich. It was with a bit of dismay that I noted that the only mention in the New Era document of multicultural programs is in this context. This is the only mention: "The NDP have also treated equality issues as so-called 'wedge' issues, using women, aboriginals, seniors, gays and lesbians, multicultural groups and others as political pawns to try to gain partisan advantage."

That's it for multiculturalism. It seems like a bit of an inappropriate context in which to mention multiculturalism, especially in that this government likes to hold up the New Era as a forward-looking policy document. What is the place that multicultural programs hold in this government's new era?

Hon. G. Abbott: We have completed the core review for the ministry, and multiculturalism continues to be a core function of the ministry. The budget, year to year, is exactly the same as it was.

J. MacPhail: Some programs have been axed. The ministry axed the multicultural language program, I believe. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, that is correct. The program involved grants to schools of about $1,000 per school. We didn't think that was an effective expenditure for the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Well, it involved more than that. There were some grants of about $1,000, but that program was proving to be very effective, particularly in the lower mainland.

J. MacPhail: The service plan goes on to say that the ministry states that "federal transfers for immigration services have been declining."

The minister, I believe, is responsible for immigration services. Sorry, Mr. Chair. That was an aside.

What, then, does the minister have to rectify the decline in these federal transfers?

Hon. G. Abbott: The federal funding for the immigration settlement fund is one that reflects British Columbia's proportion of new immigrants. As the proportion of new immigrants in British Columbia has fallen relative to the rest of Canada, so have the federal dollars for that program. We have seen now that there's a further cut in the federal fund coming this year and last year as well, so there's been a challenge there. The fund is supplemented by $3.25 million from the provincial government. That amount has remained whole year over year.

J. MacPhail: Is that the minister's solution? Beyond that, there's not an issue?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure I completely understand the member's question. If the question is how we manage the declining number in terms of the federal grant for this purpose, we can only work with our providers to find ways to meet that 15 percent challenge. That was the year-over-year difference in terms of the federal funds. We do meet with the providers and try to find ways to achieve more, but there's no question that everyone has had to work with less. It has been a challenge, but certainly our staff has worked hard with the providers to see what we can do to do more with less.

J. MacPhail: I was wondering whether people were being asked to do more with less. With the declining federal funding and this government flatlining its contribution, what are the effects on immigration settlement services?

Hon. G. Abbott: On the client side, we have seen no changes with respect to the reduction in federal funding and its impact on the ground. Where there has been a change is around the level of funding on the administration and advocacy side. There's been a reduction there.

J. MacPhail: Is that for community group advocacy? The decline in the advocacy side and the administration side — is that administration within the ministry? What are the effects on the community? I'm always concerned about the public service, but I'm very concerned about the community effects of cuts to services.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that for the client group, the funding has actually increased. Where we have seen reductions is to some extent at the staff level at the provincial government, but also the administra-

J. MacPhail: If I went to my community groups that provide client-based services for immigration and settlement services, which I confess I have not done, they would say: "There's been no change. We have the money available to deliver our services to our clients."

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sure the organizations themselves would not say they haven't faced some challenges. With the reduced federal funding, clearly they are being stretched on the administration side. For example, in terms of funding for English as a second language, that has not been reduced. Again, the emphasis has been on trying to ensure that the client service continues at the level it was.

Hon. G. Abbott: English-as-a-second-language training for adults is generally delivered by community colleges, but not always.

J. MacPhail: Oh well, yes. I thought maybe the minister was speaking for his own…making that bald statement. I just met with Vancouver Community College, one of the biggest deliverers of English language training, and they've had huge cuts in English language training — huge. Has the minister got some information about the restoring of their funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are not the sole funder of English as a second language for adults.

J. MacPhail: All right. Believe you me, I'll be raising the minister's comments when we get to the Ministry of Advanced Education to say that somehow he understands that there's been no cuts in funding.

The cuts at Vancouver Community College in English language training are a direct result of this government's lack of funding. I met with groups last week, during our week away from here, on this very matter.

I'm asking specifically about immigration and settlement services. You know, the minister's got first crack at this. I haven't gone to the wonderful organizations in my community and said: "What, if any, effects are there on cuts?" I will do that.

So the minister has first crack to give me reassurance that there have not been cuts. That's what I'm trying to get at here: his specific funding for those programs. They're all client-based. These are real programs on the ground. They're advocacy programs to get services for new immigrants in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're clear, we're doing the estimates for this ministry. I don't know what every other ministry of government is doing, so I'm just speaking for….

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, actually, I didn't. I was responding to your question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I was attempting to answer the member's question, hon. Chair, and I'm sorry if I provided more information to her than she was looking for. That would be a change; I'm sure she would acknowledge that point.

Around ESL — again, so we're entirely clear here — in the last fiscal year there was a 15 percent reduction on the ESL side. There will be no reduction in the current fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I didn't ask any information about English language training is because I knew about it. I'd researched that last week and was going to raise it with great vigour with the Ministry of Advanced Education when those estimates come up.

The effect of refugee claimants no longer being eligible for welfare — what, if any, impact is there on that in this minister's requirement for service delivery?

Hon. G. Abbott: The responsibility around the issue which the member raises rests with the Ministry of Human Resources. We understand them to still be in discussions with the federal government around that particular issue, but I don't have a definitive answer on behalf of MHR.

J. MacPhail: Well, my question was this…. I'm well aware that one of those cuts, under Human Resources, is that this government will no longer provide any social assistance to refugee claimants. I'm asking the minister if he has any safety net programs for refugees who arrive in this country, in the form of settlement services.

J. MacPhail: When a refugee arrives in Canada, which I think is still legal in Canada, and if that point of entry is in British Columbia…. What happens to a refugee who arrives in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: We begin to assume some responsibility as they get immigration papers. Prior to that, they would be the responsibility of the federal government.

J. MacPhail: Does this exist anywhere else in Canada, where it's entirely a federal responsibility the day a refugee arrives?

J. MacPhail: Well, the only…. I'm grappling here, because I think it's actually such a step backward in British Columbia's welcoming arms to a multiculturally diverse society and also from a point of view of our responsibility for humanity. There's no other place to ask this question except here — none. This minister is responsible for immigration, of which refugee status is part, and this minister is responsible for settlement services.

I will ask the minister to provide me at the earliest possible moment with information on how our provincial treatment of refugees is the same or different than other provincial or territorial jurisdictions in Canada — and at the earliest opportunity, please. I must say it's as of last week that these changes have occurred. These are real issues facing real people arriving at our shores for safe haven.

Hon. G. Abbott: There were several. We don't have the full list here, but I'd be glad to forward it to the member. There were community celebrations that we assisted with or partly funded in a number of communities around the province.

J. MacPhail: So the ministry continues to fund community groups in organizing events for Multiculturalism Week?

J. MacPhail: This year — out of the '01-02 budget? It would be '01-02, which is fair enough, because that's when Multiculturalism Week was. Does that funding continue in '02-03?

Hon. G. Abbott: That determination hasn't been made yet, and we haven't received applications yet, so we'll see.

J. MacPhail: One of the areas I explored — actually the first question I asked the minister, I think — was in terms of the four categories of employment equity. The minister was good enough to get me the information expeditiously, and that's because his record is good. Small numbers, but the record for employment equity achievement was good. Why is it, to the minister's knowledge, that this government decided across the board to remove the phrase, "The government of British Columbia is an employment equity employer," from any government document?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have a definitive answer to that question. We understand that it was a PSERC initiative, so she may want to canvass it with the minister responsible.

J. MacPhail: Okay, I will. I assume this minister must have had input into it, because he's responsible for three of the four employment equity categories: first nations or aboriginal people, women and visible minorities. I assume there would have been hell to pay in the past if the minister responsible for those advocating on behalf of those citizens in society…if change had been made without his consultation…. Was he consulted on this?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not aware that the ministry was consulted with respect to it.

J. MacPhail: I take that as a no, because the minister has been in this role since day one of this new government. I take it that the minister wasn't consulted.

Does the minister have a view, then, on the removal of this? Does he have an opinion, given that he represents three of the four employment equity groups in society?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member, if she were to look at the context broadly, would be appreciative of the government policy.

J. MacPhail: The government policy that existed prior to the election of this government was world-class and world-acclaimed.

Let me ask: is the policy that existed up until the election of 2001 the same policy in existence now?

Hon. G. Abbott: Those policies the member asks about around hiring and equity, and so on, are the responsibility of PSERC. We're not aware of any changes that have been initiated with respect to those, but we're not the ministry responsible.

J. MacPhail: I'll certainly take that under advisement. I thought that maybe the minister who is responsible for aboriginal services, women's equality, multiculturalism and settlement services would be aware of what the policy is. It is the one area where a government can be proactive in achieving equality through their own hiring practices. It's a very useful tool. I'm frankly surprised that the minister is not up to speed on what the policy may or may not be.

I have a question about the Canada-B.C. agreement on immigration. The ministry service plan's goal No. 7 says that in creating equitable opportunities for all British Columbians, the objective is to maximize the economic and social benefits of immigration by implementing the following program initiative: the Canada-B.C. agreement on immigration.

Can the minister briefly say whether that agreement is at risk? What is the status of its implementation?

Hon. G. Abbott: The agreement in question is in place until 2003. We do not believe there is any risk of it not being continued. Everything we've heard from

the federal government is that they are anxious to work with us to in fact improve the agreement.

J. MacPhail: Is the Canada-B.C. agreement on immigration responsible in any way for dealing with the issue of expediting immigration processes for nurses who are interested in immigrating to B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: That would generally be in the area of the provincial nominee program.

J. MacPhail: Is that a different program from the Canada-B.C. agreement on immigration, or is it a subset?

J. MacPhail: The minister is responsible for the program, then. How's it going?

Hon. G. Abbott: The program has been going well. I'm happy to provide the details by sector. I'm presuming that the member would prefer me not to go through it right now. The total at this point is 93 who have been assisted through this process to areas like aerospace, nursing, manufacturing, engineering and so on.

J. MacPhail: My question was specifically about expediting the immigration process for nurses who are interested in immigrating to B.C. I would appreciate all of the information, but perhaps the minister can tell me for nursing.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have a breakdown about how that's improving? There was acknowledgment all around that the program was slow to start. The 41 have arrived or been approved. It's awful to talk about people in the context of approved — their immigration has been approved. How many per month? What are the statistics?

Hon. G. Abbott: The program is about 18 months old. As the member knows, it was during the last several months of the former government that the provincial nominee program was initiated. Virtually all of the 41 nurses — and I presume we're still talking about nurses — have come through the program in the last four or five months.

J. MacPhail: That is excellent news. Can the minister explain what changes occurred to expedite the process? That's very good news.

Hon. G. Abbott: The improvement is primarily a consequence of working through some of the impediments with the federal government. Rather than seeing the process take a couple of years, it has now been streamlined down to four to six months. It's primarily through working out some of the barriers that were in place in our previous relationship with the federal government.

J. MacPhail: Are those changes to remove the barriers confirmed changes in policy or practice, or by contract? How can we assure the continued success of this program?

Hon. G. Abbott: It was primarily through eliminating barriers that existed in the federal system — that is, as people were entering the country. That's been a big part of it. We understand that the changes that have been initiated will be reflective of ongoing federal policy.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting to know. I have questions remaining on arts, culture and heritage, audio books and sport.

To audio books. There's been a substantial reaction to the minister's elimination of that program. It's hard for lots of people to understand. I know the minister has said that things have changed since that program was introduced, but I remember very clearly the outcry when the now member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant suggested cutting support to the audio books program by half — not even eliminating it, but cutting support by half. There was reaction both internally and externally that quickly restored the full funding for the audio books program. That was just a couple of years ago. Three or four years ago, I guess it was.

The resources the minister now says are available to people who use audio books were available then, yet his government, when in opposition at that time, said: "Shame on cutting the audio books funding by half." I don't think that the public, particularly those who are using audio books and rely on audio books, buy that as an explanation. So what's the real reason for cutting the audio books program?

Hon. G. Abbott: I suspect that much of the rationale is similar to what was considered when the former government planned the similar initiative. I think it was in 1998 or '99. But again, for background here — I think the member knows this — when the government of British Columbia got into the business of producing audio tapes back in 1974, the technology, the process, the product was still quite unusual.

What we have seen over the past 27 or 28 years is that the audio book business has expanded and changed remarkably. We now have a $2 billion audio book industry in Canada and the United States. It's a huge industry. It's not only the blind and others who access audio books. It's a wide range of commuters and exercisers at the Y in the morning, and so on. They're very common. There are literally thousands of titles being produced every year. We understand that now

the cumulative number of titles available on audio books is in excess of 90,000. It's quite a different situation than existed in 1974 when the government, perhaps rightly, got into the business of producing them because they were a product that wasn't readily available to the blind and others.

I'll frankly acknowledge this. We had to make some difficult decisions as we moved in our three-year budget plans to balance the budget in '04-05. I knew when we were going to undertake this that it was apt to be controversial. The member is right. It certainly has been. Again, was it the wrong decision? I don't think so. I think that, in fact, there is some confusion around the business of producing audio books versus continuing to fund the capacity to provide audio books to the blind and other shut-ins.

I am happy to say — and I'm sure the member will acknowledge this — that we have protected library funding across the board. It has been maintained and protected. I've met with the B.C. Library Association. They are pleased that given the fiscal context, we've been able to do that. Through that funding we will be able to assure the capacity for libraries to make audio books available to the blind and others.

In fact, just this morning I met with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to discuss this issue. I've certainly appreciated what they've had to say on the issue and have a better understanding of the importance that goes into the packaging of the materials. It's not so much who produces the product but rather that it is packaged in a way that's manageable for the blind — that it has, for example, Braille on the packaging to ensure that it can be effectively managed.

We believe it's far more important, given the choices and given the ready availability in the marketplace of audio books, that we preserve that capacity on the part of the library system to deliver the product to the blind and to others. I don't think there is any particular magic associated with the government producing an audio book versus the private sector producing an audio book. Given the volume of titles and so on, I remain to be convinced that there's any particular magic in the government doing it versus someone in the private sector. Nevertheless, we do know that it is a controversial decision.

Forgive me for the longish answer, but it's an important question, and I do want to give a full answer here. I know the former government looked at this as well, and I'm not attempting to be provocative. I'm stating the facts. The technology which was used at our audio books production centre was aging, and aging dramatically. As the members of the House know, we have been moving into a digital era, and the equipment we had was analog. Clearly, if we were going to stay in the business of producing audio books, we were looking at a substantial capital investment in the very near future to meet that. Looking at all that, again, we felt that it was far more important to assure continuing capacity to meet the needs of the blind and shut-ins, and so on, to access those materials.

What we are currently doing is discussing, hopefully, a devolution of the equipment and some of the program opportunities that we have to InterLink. Those discussions continue, and we're hoping to successfully conclude them in the near future. I hope that will be a win-win for all parties in this.

J. MacPhail: There's not one piece of new information that the minister has provided that wasn't accessible to him when his party, then in opposition, lambasted a threat to this program. Not one new piece of information has the minister put on the table that wasn't available to him when he advocated loudly and vociferously to the extent that the now Premier wrote a letter of support to protect the audio book program. Not one new piece of information has the minister given right here.

Yes, the previous government considered all of those factors and then listened to the public and reversed its cuts to the program completely, 100 percent, to the end of the previous government's mandate. The difference here is that this government has done a flip-flop. They crossed from this side of the House to that side of the House and said: "Oh gee, you know what? We now think that all those facts we had available to us in the late 1990s are more salient than cheap political opportunism." That's exactly what happened.

I can't tell you what a symbol it was for seniors. In fact, I think the government's paying a bigger price for this because so many seniors looked so quickly toward the government with a suspicious eye for everything else after this, which has caused this government its due grief but a huge amount of grief. It's no surprise to anybody in this world that the incidence of blindness increases demographically with age. The audio book program, cut in a very cynical flip-flop, said to seniors: "My gosh, what's next?" Then they turned to look, and there was a lot next. They found it much more difficult in any way to be anything other than cynical about the other cuts that this government made.

The Premier of this province wrote a letter that said "bad, bad, bad" to anyone who's going to cut the audio book program. Those kinds of letters and that kind of politicking come back to haunt politicians. In this case, unfortunately, the victims of it are the people who actually use the audio book program.

I know it's difficult for governments to say, "Oops, we made a mistake," but previous governments have done it frequently. The most recent previous government did it, the government before that did it, and the government before that did it. On this particular matter it seems to be such an appropriate point for this government to say: "Oops, we made a mistake."

What did the CNIB say? Was the CNIB satisfied with the minister's responses at the meeting this morning, and is there now a resolution around the continuation or the cuts to the audio books program?

Hon. G. Abbott: The CNIB have recently gone through what appears to be a painful downsizing of

their organization. I think there was some understanding of the challenge this government faces as it attempts to restore some fiscal health in the province and indeed to move to get our economic and fiscal house in order. I think there was a genuine appreciation of that on behalf of the CNIB.

Certainly among those the CNIB represents, the blind, I think there is some apprehension about the change with respect to the audio books program. I don't discount that at all. While I'm most respectful of their views, there will not be a reversal of policy with respect to audio books for all of the reasons which I have laid out in my previous answer in some detail.

Again, I think it is far more important and far more critical that we maintain the capacity within the library system for the blind to access those materials. The only thing we're talking about is whether the government has some particular magic in producing the audio books themselves.

I hear a lot of apprehension around the issue of capacity, because I think some people have generated fears around the absence of capacity. Everything we have done as a government is to assure capacity to the blind and others with respect to access to audio books. I have not heard a compelling argument about why the government should be producing those books.

I'm sure many and perhaps even a majority of the blind would feel badly about this piece of public policy. I accept that. I do know , however, that it's not universal. I'll cite one particular eminent source with respect to that. Dr. Bruce Andrews, who is the chair of the greater Victoria library board and who incidentally is also blind, had this to say about the audio books controversy. For the member's reference, this is from a column by Jody Paterson in the Times Colonist, January 29 of the current year: "This same issue came up in 1998, and there was a great furore, and a warranted one, because we still didn't have access to many titles. But now that audio books have been discovered by commuters, the number of titles is increasing by the double digits every year. That bodes well for everyone."

This is not to try to diminish the concerns that have been expressed by people. I'm very respectful of their views, but when one considers difficult choices that have to be made in times of severe fiscal constraint, I believe, and I believe sincerely, the right thing to do is to ensure continued capacity.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the chair of the greater Victoria library board is a much-respected person, but frankly, to date, he's a lone voice. I'm disappointed that for such a small cost for kindness, civility and recognition, this government still chooses to be intransigent. I'm disappointed and will continue to work with those people who will urge the government to reverse its position on this matter.

Moving to the area of sport. Oh, I just want to make it clear: is this minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission?

May I just say, as we conclude the discussion of audio books, that one of the things which I committed to today with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is to continue to work with them, to indeed find ways government can assist to continue that capacity we helped to provide to the blind.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I note the minister says he is responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. May I just put on record for the Liberal MLAs here that I am going to leave the responsibility for questioning the minister on the Provincial Capital Commission to those MLAs who are directly affected by it. While my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have what seems to be unending ability to hold this government accountable with great energy and great compunction and resource, it is the responsibility of the members from the greater Victoria area to the hold the minister accountable for the Provincial Capital Commission. You're on notice now. Take up the cudgels.

In the area of sport, I want to ask the minister this question, because it's related specifically to a current event. I recall a program put in place by our government, my previous government, that dealt with the issue of appropriate behaviour in sports, dealing with both violence and, I think, relationships between adults and children. Does that program still exist?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, it does. The program — I remember it well; I believe Ian Waddell was the minister responsible for sport at the time it was initiated — was in many ways prompted by some unfortunate incidents and displays of violence around minor hockey.

J. MacPhail: So the program exists, and it's fully funded? There are no cuts to that program?

Hon. G. Abbott: The funding is not an issue with respect to it. The ministry developed the policy with respect to that. The first increment of that was around harassment. The second increment was around anti-violence. The third increment, which is still in the final stages of development, is likely to be safety. The government of British Columbia, or the sports branch, doesn't actually deliver that. It is delivered through Sport B.C. and through the provincial sports organizations associated with Sport B.C.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me ask a question, then. I think this will have to be my last question today, Mr. Chair. As a result of any provincial government action anywhere — funding for Sport B.C. or whatever — is this program under threat? Is it at risk? Or is it going to continue in its full form?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, it is not at risk. When former minister Waddell set out the initiative, it was, again, around policy, and that's what it continues to be today. There is no risk.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. Always good to end on a positive note, I say, Mr. Chair.

With that, I 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.

S. Orr: My first question is something that I would just like to clarify. It's something that I've encountered in my constituency and that I seem to have a hard time getting a clear answer on. It's in regards to eye exams for those on BC Benefits. Routine eye exams are now a cost to those between the ages of 18 and 64. Those on BC Benefits are deciding not to follow through on their appointments. Even when a doctor has referred them to an optometrist, they don't know if they must pay the sometimes $80 fee until the optometrist declares that the appointment was eye-related or medically necessary. This is producing a little bit of undue hardship on these people, and as a result they may go undiagnosed, and further eye damage will occur.

My question is: will there be a way for BC Benefits clients to pay for an eye exam on a payment plan or a way to teach clients to save for their eye exam?

Hon. M. Coell: There are no plans for us to introduce a benefit to cover the cost of routine eye exams. Income assistance, to my knowledge, has never provided that benefit for routine eye exams from within this ministry.

The Medical Services Plan still covers routine eye examinations for British Columbians under 19 years of age and over the age of 65. We provide some basic optical services to children and adults with enhanced medical coverage but not the routine exams.

As far as using this ministry for a payment plan, it probably would be better for clients who aren't able to get that coverage to make arrangements for plans with their optometrists. I know that has happened. We don't have any plans to expand coverage for this ministry at this time.

S. Orr: My next question relates to a lot of my constituents. I live in a riding that has a lot of people who live on a very limited income.

I would like to ask the minister about the proposed training programs that I'm hearing about. I think I know the number, but I'd like to reiterate the amount of money that's going into those training programs. I'm basically zeroing in on, say, a constituent who is a single mom with a couple of kids. I need to get my head around what we are going to offer this mom with her children. I need to touch it and feel it as they do. I recognize that there are going to be some reductions in their monthly allowance. I need to have a really good, clear answer as to what we're doing to help these mothers.

Hon. M. Coell: We covered a bit of this issue this morning. I'll just expand.

If a single parent with one child wishes to stay home for three years, under this program they're not required to seek work or to be involved in the training programs. They can, however, if they want, during that three years, have access to all of the training programs and placement programs the ministry has.

The next two years they are to take part in the employment placement programs or to seek training otherwise agreed to by them and the ministry or to seek work. At that point they would have the child care subsidy as well to give them some child care relief while they searched for work or were in training programs. A lot of the training programs that we'll be involved with aren't eight hours a day.

There are a number of options for them. We want to work with people to get them into employment. From our perspective the best social safety net is a job and the ability to get your second job and your third job.

Those are the options that are open for a single parent. They basically have a schedule of three years and then two years — a five-year window — in order to get the training programs that are available through the ministry or to come to some agreement with ministry staff on an employment plan that includes different pieces of training that they might get elsewhere.

S. Orr: Can I just clarify the numbers in the training program? How much money is going into the training program, and how is it going to be distributed to the providers? How are you going to advertise those training programs?

Hon. M. Coell: For the training and employment programs there'll be $300 million spread over three years. We're going to RFP right now. All of the people who are involved in the training and placement programs right now will have to re-bid for them. They know that, and I think that on all of their parts, they welcome it. The people doing the pilot projects that we spoke about this morning — Destinations, some of the ASPECT programs, Spectrum Job Search, Job Wave — will all have to re-bid on this new RFP process.

I think we learned lots from the programs, and we've tailored the new programs to make use of what we learned from the pilot projects. That's exactly what pilot projects are there for, to find out what works and what doesn't.

I think we will find that we get a good response to this. On the website we put up the draft RFP. We got some feedback from people who generally supply us with training and employment programs. We built that into the RFP, and then have put it forward. This should come into place I would think by September 30, to have them all up running and the other ones collapsed in behind them.

S. Orr: The last question is one about what I will always refer to as the genuinely most vulnerable. The people that I have real worries about. These are people that are on disability 2. I would just like it made very clear as to where they are standing in the system of your ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: You might want to read some of this morning's conversation because we covered that. Briefly, the continuous assistance program will be there for people who are unable to participate in the workforce. We have designed a number of pilot projects and a strategy that will come forward later this spring for people with disabilities who want and are able to work. We have also allowed that people on the continuous stream can earn up to $300 a month, and they would keep that money without having it deducted from their income. The level of their income has not changed from B.C. Benefits. I believe it's $786 for the continuous stream. Then there would be also the group in the continuous stream that would have multiple barriers to employment, but not have that added medical cost that some people with disabilities would have that would reach the $786.

J. Kwan: Just checking to see if other members in the House would like to ask questions, but they appear not to at this time.

Just following up, before the lunch break we were talking about the appeal process. The minister was advising that if a person applied for the continuous category and was turned down…. The minister was explaining the appeal process, and I think he wanted to add something to it. Before I venture into the next set of questions around the appeal process, perhaps I should give the minister the opportunity to do that now.

Hon. M. Coell: I just wanted to clarify for the member the tribunal process. We will be asking for submissions of interest for people who'd like to sit on the tribunal from around the province. They will be regionally based. Basically, they will be drawn from a roster of people who are appointed by the minister, and I believe that would be in rotation. People would be used not too dissimilarly to the appeal process that's there now. You'd have a bank of people who are qualified and trained to take on the role of chair and the members within the tribunals.

J. Kwan: How many people would be on the tribunal — one, two, three people? That would be the chair and then two other members. The only difference then with this appeal process is that all of these members are now appointed by the ministry.

J. Kwan: Then it takes away the opportunity for the individuals to select their own representative on the tribunal. The appeal process formerly allowed for the ministry to choose a person as their representative, the client to choose a person, and then jointly they choose and arrive at a chairperson. That approach is now taken away completely in terms of the opportunity for the client to designate their representative on the tribunal and the ability to choose what we would deem to be an impartial chair in that instance. None of those opportunities are now afforded to the client.

Hon. M. Coell: I think what I'm hoping to see happen is that there would be a better training process for tribunal members and chairs. There has been some expertise built up with the people who are fulfilling that function now, and I would expect that many of them would also respond to the proposal put forward. What we're wanting to do is build up tribunals that have an expertise and a body of knowledge and are randomly chosen in that they would be chosen from a roster and not chosen at any one time from the ministry or from the individual who is applying. They would actually be more at arm's length from both parties.

J. Kwan: The people put onto that roster, though, are individuals that would be appointed by the minister without anybody else's input.

Hon. M. Coell: That is correct. I would hope that when we put the proposal call out for people who want

to be members, we would get people who have an active interest in the process, who have active knowledge and who are committed to the process. As I said, there are many people already within the system who I expect to apply for those positions. I have actually reappointed a number of them over the last nine months to carry on in this transition period, and I would expect that they would take an active interest in the new process as well.

J. Kwan: The issues around the independence of the tribunal and the appointed individuals of the regional tribunals. Now the opportunity for the client to appoint their own person is taken away, and in everybody's interests, I think — the ministry and the client — they would always want to choose someone who is familiar with the issues, who understands the act, and so on and so forth, to participate in the tribunal process so the knowledge base of the tribunal, usually from people who select them, is a good one. How can the minister, then, assure the independence of this tribunal? At the end of the day, they are still all individuals that are to be appointed by the government, by the minister.

Hon. M. Coell: What is intended is that we would advertise for panel members from around the province. We would choose on a regional basis, so there would be people in different regions of the province who would become part of the tribunal panels.

I think that in many instances when a client of the ministry goes forward, they'll still take an advocate with them to help them through the process, but what we want is a tribunal process that is very unbiased and isn't two people being appointed from two different points of view. We want them trained, more unbiased from the ministry and from the client and just having a good base of knowledge and understanding of the act. We do intend to spend a great deal of time training and retraining people so that you get a more unbiased or judicial approach to the tribunal process than there has been in the past. I think the process of advertising and the process of picking regionally and then also having a roster that they're drawn from on a rotational basis rather than either side putting them in will actually give you better decisions in the long run.

J. Kwan: In the effort to ensure independence — or at least, the appearance of independence and fairness — in this process, would the minister entertain the notion or the possibility of having a committee of people who will then make the appointments of tribunal members? The committee of people would include ministry individuals, ministry staff perhaps, community advocates and clients as well — the broad range of people who have a different point of view around what is important in terms of perspectives that the individuals need to have to be part of the tribunal roster. Would the minister entertain that kind of suggestion?

Hon. M. Coell: I honestly haven't entertained that notion. It's interesting. I have a feeling that what we're going to be looking for is recommendations from the community at large, as well, in that process. People would apply for the panel and maybe have the backing of different groups, sort of like recommendations from people. I suspect that will happen.

At this point I don't think I'm able to commit to the request that the member makes.

J. Kwan: I would seriously ask the minister to take that suggestion into consideration. I think it is important from several points of view.

One is that it actually ensures the notion of independence and that you have a wide spectrum of people in selecting the tribunal members. Ultimately, the tribunal decision is going to impact people's lives significantly. If nothing else, the appearance of fairness is, I think, going to be critical in the minds of the public. To ensure that this is actually taken into consideration by the minister, the process of choosing that roster by involving a broad-based community representation and selecting individuals who will be sending their résumés forward is one approach to ensuring independence. I hope the minister will take that into consideration.

Before the minister makes the decision on those appointments, would he be advising members of the public how those appointments will be made?

Hon. M. Coell: We probably have a number of weeks before the legislation comes. We could have this discussion again after we're looking at the appeal legislation.

What we would be able to do is identify the criteria for selecting members — i.e., community experience, regional location, educational background. Those sorts of criteria would be used. We could probably talk about those when we table the legislation.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that we will be exploring the criteria and all of those things in the legislation when the legislation is tabled. What I'm talking about is quite different from the criteria issue. It is about the selection process and getting right down to the selection process of making sure that there is broad representation at the table in choosing the tribunal members, irrespective of their qualifications.

One would assume that even now, as we speak, tribunal members who come to represent the ministry or the client and who ultimately choose a third person as a chair, jointly…. Those individuals are qualified to be involved in that capacity. One would assume that qualifications are probably not a huge issue around that front. Again, I go back to the selection process, in view of the issue of independence, ensuring that there is a level of independence in the minds of the public and also ensuring that there is a level of fairness in choosing the appointments of the tribunal representatives.

Who will be judging the timeliness and the transparency of the decision-making process? Who will be evaluating that work?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the ultimate response will be how the clients view the new procedure when it's put in. I think that's what we'll be looking for. One of the problems that I saw with the present system is that people can be appointed, and they don't necessarily have to have the training and the background that we would like them to have. That has been a bit of a problem. I quite expect that many of the people doing tribunals now will reapply. There are many, as I said, who I've reappointed.

I think that in some respects…. In the letter that I received from the Premier when I became a minister, I was to look at an internal review process. The complaint had been that by the time you'd been through the appeal process, there are some that have taken two years. What we want is something that is much more timely, to get decisions to clients so that they can get on with their lives, whether they find in favour or in the negative to the request.

I think the process will be streamlined. For me, the bottom line will be that I want to see a professional, well-trained body of people that work on a rotation basis, that are appointed and trained and retrained and regularly updated on issues that are affecting our clients. The whole process that you'll see will be the one that came out the administrative judicial review process that the Attorney General brought forward earlier this spring.

J. Kwan: On the question around training, the minister emphasized that there needs to be standardized training for tribunal members. What kind of training is he envisioning?

Hon. M. Coell: The training component of the new legislation's being developed now. We're looking at having a number of components and issues that affect the legislation, as well as understanding the flow of the legislation: what it's intended to do and how it's intended to help people.

The module basis we intend to have on line, so that we could either train that group on line or we could bring them together for the training of the different modules — with an overview of the legislation, how it works and, then, issues that affect…. We talked about alcohol and drug problems, multi-barriered problems to employment — those sorts of issues would all be part of the training process. I think that's ongoing. You don't just train them once and then let them go. You want that ongoing training and updating of individuals, so you get a really good basic knowledge for your tribunals.

J. Kwan: Would the information, the training modules that the minister mentions, be made public, so that the public can actually access this on the Internet and see what the training procedures are and what the information is that they would receive?

Hon. M. Coell: It certainly could be. We've just started to develop it. I don't see why it wouldn't be part of something. We've got a pretty extensive website right now, and I think you'd just find that those training modules would be on the website.

J. Kwan: I think it would be helpful if the minister could make that information public, available and easily accessible, just so that people know how these tribunal members are being trained and what information is being passed on to them. Again, this is for the issue of transparency, openness and so on.

On the issue around monitoring of the appeal process, the minister suggested that the monitoring of that process really rests with the client. If the client got turned down in the appeal process, what is the next option for that client?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the changes we're making is we'll set time limits for ourselves. Government has to respond back within a certain length of time. The time limits right now, I guess, are one of the reasons the Premier asked me to look at that. It's open-ended; and some are taking two years and some are taking less time. When I mentioned I thought the client would be a good bellwether for whether it's succeeding or not, it's because of whether the timeliness is met and the decision is written and provided to the client within the time period set out for us to govern our own appeal process.

I think that will be a benefit to the client in any event, whether they're turned down or not. You don't spend, as some have, a year and a half going through a process to find out that you just have to go to a judicial review in the end anyway.

That, I guess, will still be open to people if they go through the process of the financial aid worker, the supervisor, the REO, the ADM and then a tribunal system. Now you would still go to a judicial review if you wanted. We still have some, not a lot but a few, that go through every year, and that would still be open to someone who did not like the decision of the tribunal process.

J. Kwan: Is there a time line attached to the appeal, for the client to actually apply for the appeal? Formerly there was a time line attached to that. Is there still going to be? And then what is the ministry's time line in terms of response time? Is it 30 days? Is it — I don't know — two months, three months?

Hon. M. Coell: There will be for both set out in the legislation, so we probably should have that discussion around the legislation, if that's all right with the member.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear: is the minister anticipating that the legislation will be introduced into the House this session?

J. Kwan: Okay, I'll ask those questions in terms of the time lines, then, when the legislation is introduced.

Let me ask the minister this question, then, on the appeal decisions. I know that formerly, even if it does go to a judicial review, for the tribunal decisions for the appeal process to be in place, those decisions are not precedent-setting for someone else, although it sometimes helps. As an advocate you can bring forth cases that you know of, incidents where somebody had such a decision made to support their request, but they were not precedent-setting kinds of decisions. Will these decisions be precedent-setting in that way?

J. Kwan: Of the people who are making the appeals, many individuals attempt to get advocates and supports to go to the tribunals. Given that in this new era a lot of the advocate services are going to be cut…. Take as an example women's centres: they do a lot of advocacy work, and their services are going to be phased out with the funding cuts from this government, so advocate services are going to be diminished in the community. Is it the minister's intention that individuals will be provided advocacy support in these appeal procedures? How will the ministry assist individuals in gaining advocacy support?

Hon. M. Coell: We've continued to fund advocates through to September 30. We'll be going to RFPs at that time under the new community assistance program, so there will be an avenue for advocates for funding after that date as well.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that there will be an RFP process. Could he elaborate on that?

Hon. M. Coell: It would be our intention that the RFP would come out in the summer. It would also be the intention that people would put forward their proposals for assisting people with barriers — not just for income assistance but barriers to society in a number of areas. We would consider those, and then there is certain funding in the budget that we would deal with to approve those RFPs to ensure that there are advocates out there presenting the clients with an opportunity to deal better with government. I suspect most of them would be dealing with this ministry, but some could be dealing with other ministries as well.

J. Kwan: How much money from the budget is set aside for this RFP process? I assume that the RFP process would be awarding funds to agencies who would be providing advocacy work and supports in the community.

Hon. M. Coell: There's approximately $2 million in this budget for agencies or individuals who will provide those services.

Hon. M. Coell: It's comparable to the community advocacy funding that was there last year. I believe that was approximately $2 million as well.

J. Kwan: So the budget from the minister's ministry has not gone down. Is that correct? I know that the budget has gone down in other ministries. I know in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, women's services and advocacy support for women's centres are going to be losing their funding, so that advocacy support is gone.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes. The only thing I would add is that the proposals we get may differ slightly from the previous year, but the money is approximately the same. I believe it's just under $2 million for the community assistance program. That should provide the advocates.

I think the new programs will…. They're more streamlined, and the employment programs are more focused, so there may be less need for clarity. I think that's a lot of what advocates do. They clarify things for us and for clients. We're trying to make the new legislation and the new programs as clear as we possibly can so that the need for advocates' time…. They might take only an hour with a client rather than two hours because of the difference in acts and changes.

There's a number of things out there that might reflect how an advocate works with a client, but the funds are still there to make sure there is the ability to have clarity for clients on government issues relating to this ministry.

J. Kwan: The other group of advocates whose funding is substantively eliminated is, of course, legal aid. Some 40 percent of the legal aid services support is now gone, and all administrative support work from legal aid will no longer be available from the community law offices and so on. That, too, has a huge impact for access to community legal advocates for welfare cases and a variety of different administrative law areas, but certainly in the area of poverty law. Has the minister accounted for the increased demand for advocates within the programs which the minister's ministry is providing for given that the reality is such that the funding for a whole range of other areas is being reduced and being cut by government?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not anticipating an increase in demand for this ministry. Of course, legal aid is another ministry, which, I think, is up after this ministry. It might be advisable to ask the question of the Attorney General.

J. Kwan: In the instance where a client is unable to get an advocate because of the shortage of advocates out there because of funding impacts — perhaps not from this ministry but definitely from within government pro-

gramming cuts — and as a result of that the individual is delayed in the process of their appeal or needs a delay in the process of the appeal because they are unable to obtain an advocate…. Is there a provision within the ministry's procedures to address that kind of scenario?

Hon. M. Coell: In some respects the question won't pertain, because we're not expecting a greater degree of advocacy for our programs. The funding is there that we feel will address those who are having problems with the Ministry of Human Resources or our programs, so there should be adequate funds for an advocate group to be there for clients that need them. I think we haven't found that there's been a change in the last year, anyways, that I've seen, or any more increased need for advocates for this ministry. That's not to say…. If there is in the future, we'll monitor it, but at this point we don't feel the issues that arise from this ministry will create a need for more advocates for this ministry.

J. Kwan: The anticipated changes, with the new legislation…. I mean, comparing it to last year, when there weren't really substantive changes to the income assistance process, eligibility, and so on, we're anticipating those changes coming very shortly. I think that will impact the system out in the broader public. There's no doubt in my mind that it would. I think there's an added pressure, especially in the area of the resource sector, where the softwood lumber issue has really been unresolved and is escalating in fact. A lot of people are losing their jobs and will be applying for unemployment insurance, and their UI will be running out. If they're unable to secure employment, they'll be looking to government assistance. I think that the pressure on the ministry will actually escalate and not reduce.

Back to the question then. For the people who are unable to obtain an advocate, are there special provisions within the government's procedures to recognize a time delay because of that and not reject the person from the appeal process so that the person has to start all over again from square one?

Hon. M. Coell: The appeal process is really up to the individual to appeal. They could appeal at any time — a day after they're rejected, or a number of days or weeks. The timing for them, as well as our response — within days — will be set out in the legislation. It's more for us to be more responsive.

I don't think you'll see a need this year for more funds than was in the budget last year for advocates specifically dealing with issues in this ministry. I think there are a number of issues at play when you change legislation. Some things will be made to work faster and easier; some we may find that there are problems with, and we'll have to deal with them if they cause problems. We'll continue to monitor the situation. I do recognize the comments of the member.

J. Kwan: Maybe I'm not clear in my question to the minister. Let me just try and clarify. I'm not talking about whether or not there will be more funds from the ministry to support advocacy work in the community, although I think that too would help.

What I'm asking is: if the client is unable to get an advocate for a number of different reasons — availability or otherwise — even though the appeal process has been launched, and they have to go to a tribunal within a certain period of time but are unable to get an advocate to go with them for that particular time and therefore have to delay the appeal process or the tribunal timing…. Is that possible? Are there special provisions to acknowledge the client's right to access advocacy representation? If their attempt to access an advocate is delayed for whatever reason, will the ministry make special provisions and recognitions for that delay?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the best I can do is monitor that situation. I don't believe that situation will come to fruition. I think that the past practice, even when BC Benefits was brought in, was that there were a number of issues where you saw a lot of advocating for different programs. We'll have to monitor that. I think that what you'll find is that the amount of people out there that are dealing with human resources ministry issues should be the required amount. I understand the comments, and we will monitor the situation. If we see a real problem in one area, of course we'll address it.

J. Kwan: I hope the minister is right, and that there wouldn't be a great need out there in the community in accessing advocates, and that they would be available in full abundance should the need arise. In my own personal experience, that's not the case. Even now, often it's very difficult for people to access advocacy in administrative law. In light of the fact that women's centres are going to be shut, their advocacy support would no longer be there. Legal aid offices, community law offices and advocacy work are being eliminated because of the funding cuts.

Those added pressures are going to be enormous. I think it's going to be enormous for the existing advocacy agencies that are there. As funding becomes more and more scarce for these agencies, the demand becomes greater and greater, because the numbers are shrinking. I think the demand may well be increasing in light of the resource sector downturn and the softwood lumber dispute issues.

I hope the minister is right. In the event the minister is wrong, and there are an increased number of people unable to get advocacy to the tribunals to do their appeals and all of those kinds of things, how will the minister monitor the results that would take place in the ministry?

Hon. M. Coell: The three-year service plan sets out targets, and a lot of them have to do with timeliness and performance measures. One of those is that if we're not getting through the tribunals and we're not getting the decisions back to the clients, that is something the ministry staff will bring to my attention. Part of what

I'm supposed to be doing, as a minister, is making sure that we have timely, accountable decisions through the tribunal process. If at the front end we're finding that people are asking for delays because they don't understand the new system or can't fit in, that will be brought to my attention.

J. Kwan: The minister mentions the internal monitoring would be the time line that would apply on the response from the ministry, but on the flipside would be the inability of a client to gain access to advocacy support to file the appeal and to represent them in the appeal. That monitoring, I think, comes outside a time line question. How would that monitoring be done?

Hon. M. Coell: It would be our intention to have an appeal process that a client would be able to enter into right with the financial aid worker. If they have been through the financial aid worker, the district supervisor, REO and the ADM and they still disagree, then they would come in, sign an appeal, and that appeal would be in the process. That's the streamlining that we've added.

Now if they needed an advocate to go to the appeal with them, that's where I think the member's saying there's a problem. The appeal system will actually start to move and an appeal kit would be given to a client right upfront. The advocates will have those kits, so they'll understand how the appeal process works. We're trying to streamline it for the benefit of everyone. I think that the work of the advocate may be lessened because of the ability of the client to sign: "I would like this issue appealed." They have an appeal kit that goes to the person. Many of the people will be able to do it themselves. Some will need an advocate or a family friend or someone to assist them if they have problems. I think that in itself should streamline the beginning of the process, and also make it easier for someone to appeal a decision that is appealable and get into the system quickly.

J. Kwan: I know that the minister takes the perspective that the pressure on the system would actually decrease and not increase.

I worked as an advocate before I entered into the dark forces of being a politician. I know the appeal procedures and processes intimately, and how difficult it is sometimes to get through the system, and how difficult it is particularly for the clients to get through the system. Many people that I've come across are illiterate. Many of them have great difficulties in dealing with people who are in a power position.

Oftentimes as an advocate I used to…. Even if it wasn't a big appeal situation, the individual or the family would actually want me to go into the office with them. Not that I would even do anything. I would just sit there and be there to let them know that someone is there if they need someone to go through a procedure with them and to understand that their rights will be protected because someone is there for them.

It's a huge area of demand, I can tell you. I used to take on about 400 cases a year, of people just walking in and then me doing the advocacy work. Even then, it wasn't enough. I can tell you that now. With the changes that are coming, the pressures that are coming at full force everywhere to those individuals and families are going to be enormous. It worries me. It worries me greatly for these individuals. Some of them don't even know that there is an avenue of appeal and how you go about doing that — not even understanding what their rights are.

In spite of all the best efforts of streamlining, those problems will still occur. I can almost guarantee it — not to be a pessimist or anything like that. I just know that it will. It's the reality in which we live and the society in which we live, and we try to manage it as best we can and overcome these challenges.

I hope there is going to be a process in place that will actually monitor those kinds of impacts from the ministry side on the appeal question. I hope the minister will look at that question. It appears that the minister doesn't think it needs to be in place, but I think it does. I think we need to put a system in place to make sure that people have their rights afforded to them and that they're not mistreated in any way in that direction.

I know I'm not going to win this argument, so I'm going to drop that now and move on to another area around the appeal situation. Formerly, when a person was appealing a decision of the ministry, the ministry would…. Let's say, if it's a…. What's a good example that I could use? Let's say, in this instance, a person who is appealing a decision to be on continuous income assistance.

This person currently is on DB-2. The reassessment has taken place, and it was determined that this person does not qualify for continuous assistance, for whatever reason. Formerly, when an appeal procedure, as such, took place, the person was able to continue to receive ongoing support until the decision of the appeal had been finalized. Will the people who are going through that appeal procedure now still be eligible for income assistance while they go through the process of appeal?

Hon. M. Coell: That's a level of detail we haven't got to. I would welcome that discussion when we do the legislation. It would be in legislation and regulations, as it is today. We could have that discussion, if it's all right with the member, during the legislation. I'll have that discussion with my staff prior to the legislation coming in and prior to the regulations being drawn up.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister can give any indication which way he is leaning on this issue. We'll canvass it fully when we're in the House. I raise this again because it's a hugely important question. If people are cut off now, while the appeal process is in place — if they've been rejected for, let's say, continuous assistance — that makes a huge difference in people's lives.

I'm just wondering if there's any indication from the minister which way he is leaning.

Hon. M. Coell: It's actually a level of discussion I haven't had with staff. I'd like to have that before we deal with the legislation. The legislation, of course…. The appeal process is ongoing with B.C. Benefits until the fall, when the new act would come in, so there is time to have that discussion with staff and then back with the member during the legislation.

J. Kwan: The minister said the legislation will come into effect in the fall. Is it the intention that the legislation will be introduced this session and be for exposure only? Then in the fall session, when we come back, that's when the legislation will be passed. That's when the regulations would be drafted, after the legislation has been passed. I'm just trying to get the timing of when the legislation would actually be applicable on the ground.

Hon. M. Coell: Just so I can clarify that, the intention would be to bring in the legislation and table the regulations at the same time, so members would also see that. I know that's not usually done, but it's the intention to do that. I think to do what the member is suggesting will help alleviate some of the uneasiness around the changes. When the legislation is tabled, my intention would be to table regulations at the same time — or shortly after. It wouldn't be the same day. The appeal process would….

Just for the member: we'll have a transition period that will be fully implemented in the fall, when you go from the old B.C. Benefits to the new tribunal, and training for the new people and bringing them up to speed. There is a transition period there.

I think I'm probably rambling a bit, as I did this morning. Your question was: what way am I leaning? I need to speak to staff before we bring the legislation in, to have that discussion with the member as to whether they would continue or be cut off while that discussion was going on. I commit to the member that we'll have that discussion during the legislation.

J. Kwan: If the minister hasn't made his decision on which way he's going to go with that — and I appreciate that we'll have the chance later on when the legislation's tabled — then I would urge the minister to consider not cutting people off while the appeal process is being embarked on. I think that is just fair to the individual who is going through that process. I would seriously urge the minister to not lean the other way.

The regional tribunals that the minister mentioned and the rosters that would be set up. Just approximately how many regional tribunals will there be? How many people does the minister anticipate will be on that roster?

Hon. M. Coell: Again, I know these discussions are a little difficult with changes to legislation at the same time as we're doing estimates. Presently, I believe, there's about 1,600 people that are used throughout the system. We're looking at a smaller number than that, but we haven't come up with a number that would be on a roster. Not all those are full-time. Some of them might advocate once a year or be on a panel once a year.

The idea is to have them fully trained, with the right backgrounds and knowledge of the new act and how the needs of our clients differ — you know when you get a quarter of a million people, you're going have a lot of different needs. We want that training package to be done. We haven't made the decision as to how many would be on the roster. We have nine regions presently, and they would be based on those nine regions.

J. Kwan: Will the tribunal members be paid? Will they receive some sort of per diem? Is it anticipated that they would do this as their full-time job, or is it that they would just come on a case-by-case basis, when they are called upon?

Hon. M. Coell: Presently the chair is paid $75 and tribunal members are paid $50. We're considering carrying that forward. I know the administrative justice committee had made some suggestions of payment for all tribunals in the province — different ones as well. That may change over a period of time, but right now the intention would be to carry on with the rate structure as it is under B.C. Benefits.

J. Kwan: It will come back to me. I'm sorry. I had one more follow-up question on the appointees for the tribunal, but I've lost my train of thought on that. My apologies. I'll come back to that.

How much does the ministry anticipate the budget would be for the training of the tribunal members?

Hon. M. Coell: At this point I don't have that level of detail. It'll depend on the number of tribunal members that we decide on and the number of regions. I mentioned that we have nine regions; there may be a necessity of having more regional tribunals in the north of the province just because of the vastness of the size of the province. The other thing is that right now there's a maximum of three cases that a tribunal member can have per day. We wouldn't have to keep that as well.

J. Kwan: Is it anticipated that within the range of tribunal members there would be multilingual supports there as well as sign language?

J. Kwan: If an individual shows up at a tribunal who needs translation, will the ministry be providing for that kind of service as well?

J. Kwan: I will leave the appeal process for the time being and then wait and ask the other questions as they come up when we get into the House on the legislation.

Getting back to the eligibility requirements, the minister earlier talked about and recognized the issues around multiple barriers. We talked about people who may be multi-diagnosed, who have mental illness, substance issues, etc. There's also the term that was used and that I see in the documents of the government — the term "persistent barriers." Could the minister please explain to the House what persistent barriers are?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the issues that I think we can do a better job with is people with mental illness. In many instances the mental illness is not readily noticeable but comes up periodically or cyclically. With the idea of having persistent multiple barriers, it would be a psychological or social barrier that prevents them from being employed.

One of the areas that we are looking at with continuous assistance is having a number of pilot projects that look for employment for those specific types of people so that although they have found those barriers in the past — they may have got a job for two weeks and been laid off because of the behaviour or the barrier — it's going to be related to the ability to achieve independence through employment. I think that in many instances those were unseen before. That's one of the areas that should give them some security.

I guess in some respects, too, the persistent, multiple barriers to employment may be seen as the same thing. The bottom line is to capture that person with mental illness that isn't at first recognizable but who should be on continuous assistance. Then we can start to deal with employment programs that might work on a part-time or a cyclical basis. I think it will be useful in helping a pretty small but important segment of society that sometimes gets overlooked at this point.

J. Kwan: The minister uses the term "mental illness" in describing this context of persistent barriers or multiple barriers. Am I assuming correctly that it's not just mental illness that would become a barrier and that it could be a range of other challenges that a person might be faced with? It could include substance misuse, as an example. It could include physical disabilities for sure, one would assume; illnesses; and even something like HIV-AIDS, which can sometimes cause a person to be unable to work because of that particular illness. That, I would understand, then, from the minister, is one example of persistent or multiple barriers that that person is faced with.

Hon. M. Coell: I can give you a couple of other examples. Fetal alcohol syndrome would be one, I think. Mental disability would be another. We talked about mental illness. There is a broad range of issues there which, when you look at one or some of them together, as we discussed this morning, create a barrier to employment. That's a group of people we want to see moved into a consistent stream. Once that can be achieved, then you can work on some of the other problems. Then you look at the disability strategy that we're coming forward with and, as we mentioned this morning, the possibility of encouraging…. If alcohol and drug is a problem, as well, and is one of those barriers.

I guess one of the problems is that you may have a whole host of those barriers presented. You might have someone with an alcohol and drug problem who has schizophrenia and who also has fetal alcohol syndrome. That is a whole range of things that would be holding someone back from employment and putting them into the consistent category.

J. Kwan: In the trials or pilot projects the minister will be instituting in this area, if the person loses their employment because of their illness or because of the barriers or challenges they are faced with, would that person be cut off income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: In cases like that we would actually be looking at rapid reinstatement. That's the cyclical nature of some of the mental illness barriers to employment. We might have a plan that we'd worked with, with someone that was trying a bunch of different options for employment, and they've been in one of the pilot projects or disability strategies.

From my perspective and, I think, from the perspective of the ministry now and in the past, this has been a group of people that we've been trying to assist but not doing a very good job, so we're going to try an approach that is a little bit different. I think you almost have to look on a case-by-case basis as to who is going to succeed and when they're going to succeed and design an employment plan and a plan for assistance that meets their needs on an individual basis.

J. Kwan: I think the minister used "rapid assistance." I think those were the words he used. In theory, then, if the person goes on some sort of employment initiative and loses his or her job because of personal challenges related to these things called persistent barriers or multiple barriers…. In that instance, that person would actually be put back on income assistance immediately, and they wouldn't have to go through the three-week period of pre-employment training. Am I understanding that correctly? Then that could just carry on for as often as it occurs.

Hon. M. Coell: People on continuous assistance would be able to earn up to $300 a month. There may be some people who say: "I would like to try removing myself from continuous assistance and move into employment." Hopefully they would succeed, but if, as the member says, they failed, they would come back, on rapid reinstatement, onto the continuous rolls. That would be part of the plan that was put together for

them to achieve the best independence they can, realizing that some people will be cyclically on and off continuous assistance for their lives. Others may have a year or two off and then back on. I think the employment plan and its management have to be flexible if we're going to see success for those individuals on continuous assistance.

J. Kwan: The question on the appeal process that I lost earlier has come back to me. Will the minister be entertaining the possibility of making public the appeal decisions from the tribunal so that members of the public can actually see what decisions are made in what circumstances and those kinds of things?

Hon. M. Coell: There are some privacy and information considerations, but it's something we should consider. Right now the tribunals aren't made public, but the board decisions are. That's a good point, and one we'll consider.

J. Kwan: I would urge the minister to consider doing that. It would be very helpful both for the people in the advocacy world and their clients in the broader community, as well as the people in the tribunal, to get a sense of what is going on out there. There are those of us who would like to see what kind of cases are being appealed and the success rates or the rates of losses — barring, of course, confidentiality. Of course, you can always strike out the individual's name and that kind of thing. That would be very helpful, and I hope the minister will consider putting that out for the community's review and monitoring.

Let me just go to the questions around the training programs. The announcement was made that $300 million would be targeted for education and training initiatives. How much funding was provided last year for training programs?

Hon. M. Coell: We've reinstated some of the job partnership programs into the training program, so it's essentially the same. When you look at the $110 million, last year's budget, I'm not sure whether all $110 million were spent out of last year's budget, but the budget this year is $110 million.

J. Kwan: I don't have the number off the top of my head, so I'm just taking the numbers the minister gives me as the correct information. Essentially, it's about the same. What we're talking about is about $300 million.

What are the eligibility requirements for an individual to qualify for a training program?

Hon. M. Coell: The RFP for the training programs will be going out in June. They're going to be more performance-based. We're talking now to the contractors who are delivering the programs and getting some feedback from them as to what's worked and what we can improve on. We're looking at skills for specific jobs and specific job openings at the same time.

The reason I gave you the global numbers of $110 million and $110 million is that the budget was restated. We've had the restatement of the budget after the March budget. Some funds have shifted to different programs, but the block funding is still the same.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister a question around the eligibility for training. He mentioned that the training will be more performance-based. Could the minister explain what performance-based is? How does he define performance-based?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll give an example of performance-based. Let's say you have someone who wants to be a residential care worker but they need ESL. What we want to see out of it is not just that they took the ESL program or that they took the residential care program. The performance is actually the certificate and then the job. What we want to be able to track is people coming into the system, going through it and getting a certificate and a job, and then tracking them to see how long they keep the job or whether they move from that job to another job and have the ability and the confidence to get another job. That's sort of the performance-based model.

It's something the member would know. The previous government started down that road, and they had some success with it. We're just building on the success of the pilot projects that were put in place by the previous government.

I think that moving down that model, you'll actually see that the contractors have to do a better job for us. They'll have to do more work for the money they get for placing people and training people.

J. Kwan: In terms of the training that a person wishes to embark on, performance-based would be the ultimate outcome whether or not the person is off income assistance, whether or not the placement has been made and then tracking that down the system.

In the range of training courses that would be offered to clients — again, I go back to my advocacy days and to stuff that goes on in my office more recently…. When a person wants to go to a particular area in training, it may well be that the FAW or somebody else may advise that the person should take a different course or a different track. Would the person be penalized for their eligibility on income assistance or access to training courses if their decision is not necessarily consistent with the advice that's given to them from the FAW or the workers that are involved in the case?

Hon. M. Coell: What we would be looking for firstly is a mutual agreement on an employment plan. I think that if you're going to have an employment plan that we're going to work with and fund and a client is going to take the programs and move through the con-

tinuum of what we offer, we would like to have that mutually agreed on right up at the front.

What we're going to be looking at through the process — and this is for job placement as well as for job training — is what's available in the labour market and what occupational shortages are coming up. We're seeing that there is a whole range of shortages of skilled labour, technical and high-tech people. We want to make sure, as British Columbia, that we're providing people for those occupational shortages.

I guess the difference would be that if someone had the desire to do a PhD in philosophy or something, we would direct them to the student financial aid. That would be separate from what the ministry would offer.

I think there probably will be cases where someone has a really different idea of what they want to do with their life, and it really doesn't fit into this particular ministry but does fit into Advanced Ed or some of the other apprenticeship programs that they would have the ability to go to student financial aid for.

J. Kwan: I can understand the situation where if someone wishes to earn a PhD in whatever field…. Let me say medical anthropology. That's my partner's field. It'll drive him crazy with the words that I'm about to say. Let's say someone wants to pursue their career with those goals. It may well take them a long period of time to do that, and the ministry would likely advise in that instance: "You should go and seek assistance through a student loan program to do that." Would people who may not have as long-range a goal in terms of educational development but who may require some post-secondary education support to get into potentially long-range developments be qualified for income assistance, or is it that the minute the individual decides that their career planning falls into the realm of post-secondary education or advanced education, then immediately they're cut off income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: We're not envisioning that these dollars would replace the student financial assistance. From my knowledge of it, it's a very good plan, and it's been in place and doing a good job. If someone wants to do that sort of higher education, long-range planning, whether it be two years or four years, that other pocket of money is available. As I say, I think it's a very good program.

What we're looking for with these dollars is to get people the skills they need to get into employment. Once they're in employment, they might save some money and start going to those different courses part-time, as many British Columbians do. We don't want to have this program take over from the student financial aid program that will still be there.

J. Kwan: I'll give this real-life experience example to the minister. Actually, that's what got me into the field of work I'm in now. It was my first case as a student. I won't tell you how long ago, but it was my first case. It was very inspirational. I actually received a Christmas card from this young woman some years later advising me of her progress.

Here was her situation. She was a refugee claimant who came from Vietnam with her father. The rest of her family had been killed in wars and so on. Her father was extremely disabled and unable to work. She was much older, although not old enough to be completely independent. She had applied for income assistance, and so, too, had her father, and they received it. When she turned 19 — and she was only in grade 10 at that time — the ministry wanted to cut her off income assistance because of her age. They said to her: "You should really go out there and get a job." This young woman had the dream that she would become a nurse one day.

Anyway, I was a student at a legal aid office at that time. She came in and saw me, and I worked through her case. We went to appeal and the whole rigmarole around that on the argument that she should continue to receive income assistance until she completed her grade 12, at which point she could pursue post-secondary education. She needed much work to actually get to graduation level. She was even taking night classes to improve her English, because she had severe ESL challenges as well.

Having said that, she embarked on this process, but she was going to be cut off income assistance. If that had happened…. What the ministry had actually advised her at that time to do was that she should just go out and get a job at McDonald's, finance herself through, take night classes, get her graduation through night courses and then pursue her other vocational/career choices after that. We fought that in the process, and we won, to all of our amazement.

She won the case, and she managed to actually finish high school at the age of 22 with the support of income assistance. She did go out and get additional work. She put herself through school and graduated as a nurse. As I said, most recently she sent me a Christmas card telling me her progress from many years ago when I dealt with this instance.

The reason I'm asking questions that talk about vocational supports and whether or not income assistance would be there for these individuals is that it actually makes a huge difference, ultimately, for the individual, vocationally and for their future, as to whether they can break through the poverty level and so on and so forth. It makes a huge difference. I'm wondering whether or not there is provision within the parameters of the training programs that would allow for people to go after their vocational choices.

Hon. M. Coell: It's nice to see successes in life like that. I appreciated that in the work that I used to do as well.

Right now, in the previous government and this government, the minister has the ability to allow someone to finish grade 12 and continue on income assistance. There aren't very many of them that I'm

That person would also be a good candidate for the jobs training placement programs, as well, which would be a year and under after they had finished grade 12. There are a number of options for that individual. That's a case a few years ago, obviously. Without knowing the details, it's hard to give any more examples than I have.

J. Kwan: Actually, I think we've touched on one critical point. The minister says "one year or under" for the training program. Is that the case? Is that the threshold for these training initiatives, for a person to actually be able to get access to it and still be funded by income assistance — one year or less?

Hon. M. Coell: The majority of the programs that are now part of the ministry are a year and under. We're still considering that. It's part of the RFP process. We may get some other options longer than that. Right now the programs range from three months to a year. We're continuing to keep that level of training and employment placement program.

J. Kwan: Would a certificate program that may require two years for a person to achieve it be considered?

Hon. M. Coell: It may be as we go through the process, but there is also the availability of student financial aid, which happens now. People come in, and they'll have a program that they want to get on. We've assisted them — previously, too — in getting the financial aid package from the education branch, aid to do a two-year program. It's something that is under consideration.

J. Kwan: On the training parameters, the minister mentioned that it's also dependent on what is out there in the job market, I guess, in terms of what's being advertised and what the job market is seeking. How much of that will play a role in terms of the person's decision and choice in accessing training programs?

Hon. M. Coell: What we're looking for is a demonstrated labour market need — not too dissimilar to the apprenticeship programs that have been set up in B.C. We don't want to be training people for jobs that don't exist. We want to be able to identify jobs in a sector and then have, through the RFP process, a contractor who is actually going to provide the training and the background needed for that person to move into that employment.

From my perspective, I don't think there are very many people out there who just want to take training. They want to know that if they're going to train for a specific job, they're actually going to get a job. I don't think you're going to find there's too much problem with that perception, where we're moving.

J. Kwan: I understand that. Clearly you want to be trained. Although actually, my parents argued when I did my training in criminology that I was never going to be a criminologist. They argued vigorously against…

J. Kwan: …my going down that road. They thought I should stay in business administration. I understand that in terms of matching training with the skills demand that is out there, but sometimes in that choice, in trying to make that decision for your career development, it may not necessarily be obvious that the job market is out there. It was never obvious to me what job market was going to be out there for me, as an example.

I'm hopeful that the criteria that's been set out by government — in people accessing the training program and still receiving assistance — would not curtail that opportunity for them to decide what is their career choice. I hope that the idea of the training programs would actually provide a greater opportunity for income assistance recipients to break out of the poverty cycle in which they live and which, many times, goes on from generation to generation.

Often, where that cycle is broken is if the person can actually break out of minimum–wage paying jobs — not just working at McDonald's but really developing a career and having a career opportunity to go beyond and, hopefully, to establish those opportunities for their children. I'm hopeful that there is leverage and consideration within the ministry's process for those individuals to exercise choice and access to their career choice.

Hon. M. Coell: Through the Chair, may I just make a brief comment. I think there is value in all education for individuals. The purpose of this program is not to curtail a long-term plan for bettering oneself through education but actually to complement what's needed out in the workforce with the skills needed and trained.

The other aspect is that this hopefully won't be their first or their last job that we help them get. Many people need that first job to build the self-esteem and the motivation to move on, to save a bit of money and to feel better about making those other changes and other educational choices.

In short, the programs are designed to fit people into the job market, to give them…. A good example would be the average pay out of some of the contractors with the previous programs, which was about $10.50 an hour. It was quite a bit above minimum wage, and that's the sort of jobs we want to look for through the training programs and the employment placement programs. We don't want to curtail people from dreaming and bettering themselves through education, but what this program is designed to do is to take people and place them in employment where there is employment to be placed, in short.

J. Kwan: I'm just going to ask a couple more questions in the training area, and then I'm going to yield

the floor to other members in the House who wish to ask the minister some questions. Then I'll come back to other areas.

On the RFP process the minister's talking about, where the person will go and receive training and the agency would assist that individual to access that training, is it the intent of the government that that agency will also help the individual be placed into a job environment as well?

Hon. M. Coell: As part of the performance expectation, the training group would be an essential part of the placement. We haven't got to the details as to whether they actually have to go out and place that person into the job. What we want to make sure is that once they finish the training program, they're actually offered a number of jobs. They might choose from those jobs. In that respect, the agency wouldn't be placing them, but they would be finding them an array of jobs that they could apply for.

J. Kwan: Are they penalized in any way if, after the training, they're given — I don't know — three or four places of employment to go to, and they apply for these jobs and they don't get these jobs? Will they be penalized in any way if they don't get the jobs?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, that's a good point in that some people don't get the job they apply for. What we're asking them to do is to seek employment and take training programs, so if they're actually looking for work and they're turned down a number of times…. I mean, I think we've all around this table probably applied for jobs and not got them, but we eventually apply for another one and get it. It's the ability to be seeking work and to be in the training and placement programs that's the important part of the philosophy.

J. Kwan: If they succeed in attaining a job, there's usually a probationary period which a person has to go through. Let's say that during that probationary period they do not pass the probation for whatever reason and are let go. Would that person be penalized if that person is fired from their employment?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the contractor would be the one who would be penalized, because they don't get paid until that person's been in employment for a certain length of time, similar to the way the pilots work. We've changed the payment schedule because of problems the contractors found. They get paid in blocks during the training process and then during the employment process. The idea is you stay in a job 19 months for the final payment, so actually it's the contractor that has a vested interest in finding more opportunities for someone if they do lose their job — to find another job quickly — because they actually lose out on the payment for the contract.

J. Kwan: If the client is fired from the employment, they would not be cut off income assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: I think you need to draw the distinction between fired with cause or fired because the company folded or there were problems where the company didn't need them. That's the same as it is now for income assistance. Then you would go back onto income assistance.

There would be a penalty. I'm not sure what the penalty is right now. If someone's fired with cause, there is a period of time — and I can get the member that number — that they wouldn't be eligible for income assistance. That would probably be something we would carry on with in the new regulations as well.

J. Kwan: I think it's one month. I could be wrong. If they're fired for cause, they have to wait for a month, but usually if you're fired for cause, you would actually have one month's pay to carry you into the next month. Then, if you need income assistance, you can actually apply.

In the situation where a person is going through training and they don't qualify or get fired during the probationary period, likely it may well be for cause in that they may not be able to perform. Even though you might have gone through your training, it was still not sufficient for you to maintain the job, even though you got the job. In that instance, would the ministry be looking at parameters in understanding those kinds of scenarios?

Hon. M. Coell: I think you have to look at the intent. If someone is fulfilling their obligations — they've taken the training programs, and they're part of the contractor's programs, but they just don't have the right skills — that's different than someone who has done something dishonest in the workplace. I think you have to look at the individual cases. That's how it's dealt with now, and that would continue.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that the contractor would be paid — right? — on the rate of success, if you will. I think it's also termed performance-based. Does the contractor have the right to refuse to accept a client for training? Could they cream, in other words?

Hon. M. Coell: It'll probably be a couple of months before we have those details. The process in the pilots was that they were sent a number of placements and could choose a certain number of them. In some respects what we want to be able to do is to focus on someone who has greater needs as well, but we really don't have the details at this point so that we could outline the criteria for the contractors and how the contractors will be able to choose between clients we send them. I would think it would be at least a couple of months.

J. Kwan: Then I would just point out this caution for the minister's consideration. It worries me. I know

that people do it from time to time because they are compensated for their work based on their performance and their success rate. Because of that, they start to cream the applicants. Therefore, it's the people who would obviously be able to get a job with or without their assistance that they end up taking on as clients. Then the whole purpose of setting up this system defeats itself, because the people who really need the assistance to gain employment, to gain training, are the people who wouldn't get into the program. That defeats the entire purpose of the intent of the ministry. I would ask the minister to put his mind to making sure he does not allow the creaming process to take place. Otherwise, at the end of the day the people who would lose would be every member in the community.

I know there are other members in the House who wish to ask questions of the minister, so I'm going to yield the floor at this time to those other members.

M. Hunter: Thanks to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for accommodating my schedule. I appreciate that.

I wanted to ask a few questions of the minister because of where I come from, where I represent. I think the minister is aware of the — I guess "dismal" is a fair adjective — social indicators that exist in Nanaimo. If you look at the regional district statistics, a lot of social indicators suggest to me that the changes in the way the ministry is going to deal with income assistance are going to have impacts. I would like to understand them, and I know some of my constituents would like to understand them.

I do want to preface my questions by saying, first of all, that the ministry staff in Nanaimo have been extraordinarily helpful to me and my constituency staff in trying to understand some of the changes being introduced. That's been extremely helpful as my staff deal with clients and cases that come through the door, as I'm sure you're aware they do.

I've also been working with a couple of groups in Nanaimo that I have developed a relationship with. I think they are very positive people. They deal with youth, with a lot of problem individuals. I've asked them to help me, from their perspective, to understand the impact of some of the changes that are being introduced.

In undergoing those discussions with these folks, it's interesting — and I'm sure the minister will be pleased to know this — that the spin on the changes, at least from the individuals I've talked to and the groups that they represent, is one of understanding what we're trying to do and support for the change in paradigm we're trying to introduce. There's also a concern about the way some of these changes will impact on the ground. I'm sure that's a concern that every member in the House has.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. I have many, actually. I'm not going to ask them all, because I have a sneaking suspicion that while I've been doing other things today, you've probably answered some of them. I suspect that the answers to others are probably in the extensive briefing materials you've provided to our offices in the last 24 hours. If I do ask questions for which answers have been given or are in other forums, please excuse my doing that and simply tell me, and I'll sit down and we'll move on.

I guess, going through the service plan, and the service plan summary in particular, I just want to deal with the employability category for a moment. One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is that in moving the income assistance program into a work-related, work search, job search kind of program we not make assumptions about individuals. There is a lot of concern, minister, in Nanaimo that there are a lot of individuals currently on income assistance who are going to have some difficulty comprehending the concept of employability. There are some long-term people on income assistance.

I think I would like to hear what your comments are on how we're going to make sure these people get the help they need to become, I guess, literate in the job search area if they're going to maintain any kind of existence into the future. Have you thought about the issue of the ability, the capacity, of many people who, at least up to now, with the system that's been in place, have appeared to be functionally unable to enter the workforce? How do they get the skills to go for the job training? Can you comment on that?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a couple of areas I'd like to touch on. My view and the view of the government is that the people on income assistance are assets. They are needed to be part of the workforce. We look at the huge amount of jobs that are going to come available through people retiring in the next 15 years. That hasn't happened in Canada in my lifetime or yours, where you have such a huge amount of people leaving the workforce. A lot of the young people who are on income assistance we very much view as assets. They're future skilled labourers. They're future people who work in the hospitality industry and in the construction industry. Those jobs are going to become more and more available.

What we need to do in British Columbia and, indeed, Canada, is to make sure we identify people who have lost the motivation, who maybe have a number of problems areas for employment, and we work with them and put these training and job placement programs in place so that they'll get back into the workforce. The longer someone stays out of the workforce, no matter at what level, the more likelihood they'll stay out for longer and longer periods of time, so it's important that we get people back in at the initial first or second job and that we give them the support to stay in there. The previous government started some pilot projects with contractors that we feel had some success, and we're going to continue to streamline and focus them from the areas we learned.

I think the long-range plan is that you have a quarter of a million people on income assistance. Some of those will be on income assistance permanently

through continuous. People with disabilities and people with persistent multiple barriers to employment are going to be in need most of their lives. A lot of the other people and the children who are on income assistance right now…. We want to make sure they don't become the second generation income assistance and that we make sure they get the right education and the right skills and have the right motivation to move into the labour market.

It's really two-fold. It's going to be good for our country and our province that these people get into the labour force and achieve their highest and greatest potential, and it's also good for them as individuals. It will create a new sense of personal worth and well-being that we want to see and we want to help them achieve.

It's not an easy task. Income assistance reforms or redefinitions have happened across the country, across North America and across Europe with varying degrees of success. One of the things that makes me optimistic is that we were in a position to do a minor amount of refining in the last four or five years, which has shown some success in some areas. We can take those successes and move them into the future, and also take the successes that Alberta, Ontario and some of the American states have seen with income assistance redefinition or reform.

I'm optimistic that the training and employment placement programs that we're going to put in place and some of the changes in the rate structure that are designed to have a motivating effect…. When you look at the minimum wage being $8 an hour and what someone would make on income assistance…. With all those things combined, I think you'll see a greater and greater success with the income assistance program that will unfold over the next few months.

That's a bit of a long thought process, but those are the thoughts that have helped us as a ministry, the staff and this government to start to move in the process of redefining, basically, a culture of dependence and entitlement into one of self-sufficiency and one that moves people from income assistance into employment with the long-term checks and balances there to keep them in employment.

M. Hunter: Thanks for that, minister. You mentioned the fact that British Columbia is a jurisdiction kind of following other jurisdictions across Canada in income assistance reform. In terms of this issue of capability of long-term income assistance recipients to meet the new requirements for employability or job search, do we have data from Ontario or Alberta, for example, that you have used in creating the RFPs that you talked about earlier for new partners in the employment search field?

I appreciate everything you say, and I agree. I'm expressing to you some concerns that have come from people who are working closely with individuals in Nanaimo who they feel don't fall into the long-term, unable-to-work category but are people who just don't have the skills to even go to a job training centre to understand what's going on. It's that element of capacity to learn that I'm as concerned about as anything as we make these transitions.

I'm wondering if there is any experience that you have been able to pick up on from other jurisdictions in Canada or the U.S. where these kinds of changes have been made and if that's been a problem. If so, are we addressing it?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll elaborate a bit more on the continuous assistance that is envisioned in the new legislation and the new programs. Where there are people with disabilities — be they physical or mental — that will not allow them to participate in the employment programs and to participate fully in employment, they will still be eligible for continuous assistance.

There are also people that I think are on the disability level 1 now who have multiple persistent barriers, as we call them, to employment. We want to design some programs that assist them at moving in and out of employment as they are able. We want to have programs that allow them to earn extra money — be it $300 a month — and keep that money if they're on the continuous program.

I mentioned this morning that we're going to bring some pilot projects in for people with disabilities and persistent multiple barriers to try and do what we can, working with them to find employment. The realization is that there are some people who will not be able to achieve their fullest potential through employment, and the programs will be there for them.

The other areas that we're going to concentrate on through these programs are people who have just come on to income assistance. We get them off as quickly as possible so they don't become dependent on the system or find that it's a way they can use year after year.

There's two streams, really. One is a temporary stream, where we work with people who can work to make sure that the programs and the opportunities are there. The people who can't work we help to live as comfortable and beneficial a life as they can. There will always be people in the middle, in that grey area, that we'll have to monitor and see whether our programs are working and keep an eye on that group that I think you're mentioning, that may fall through the cracks. We will do that.

M. Hunter: Thank you, minister. I think people falling through the cracks is a concern that every member, and I'm sure you, as minister, will have. It's certainly been a concern in my community, because as I said earlier, the history, unfortunate though it might be — and I don't like to talk about it too much — is there, and we have to deal with it.

I think that of all the concerns that have been expressed to me about the changes being introduced, perhaps the one that has created the most consternation is the issue of young adults over 19 leaving home.

As I understand it, the proposal is that they would lose benefits. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. M. Coell: They won't lose benefits, but what they need to be able to say at any point, 19 and over, is that they have been independent from home. There are exemptions for that, and I outlined some of those to one of the other members, in that if someone is fleeing an abusive situation, is a teenage parent — a teenage mother in most cases — or has medical problems, we want to make sure there are a number of escape valves that are met through the system. Some of them are in place now, and we'll continue them and will have in addition…. They are specifically designed so that people don't fall through the cracks. There is the ability for the ministry to make exceptions for those types of individuals.

M. Hunter: I don't want to focus on individual issues, but that is helpful. There has been, as I say, some concern that somehow if at 19 somebody decides to leave home, they get cut off. I guess the answer is: "Well, unless you're prepared to look for work, that's the change." That's understood.

The last area of questioning. I want to just ask a few questions about rates of assistance. One of the important features of the program is shelter payments. Are we taking into account differences in shelter rates around the province? I happen to come from a community where despite the fact that there are a fair number of vacancies in the rental market, rental rates are a lot higher than you would expect. The concern about affordability of housing for people on income assistance is one that's been brought to my attention. I wonder: is there a formula that the ministry uses? Is it just one-size-fits-all around the province?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the answer is that the shelter rate is to a maximum. If there is an area in the province where someone is able to get shelter for less than the rate, we don't give them the maximum rate. That happens around the province. There are areas of the province where shelter rates are much lower. Some of the changes — if people live together, if you have two or three people living in the place, we don't give them all the maximum shelter rate. It's actually shared out, so that might be significantly less than what you'd get as an individual.

My last question is kind of at the opposite end of the age scale that I was asking about a moment ago. Let's take the example of a 64½-year-old man who is about to achieve OAS cheques, come June or September — not likely to be employable or very interested in seeking assistance to become employed. How do we deal with those cases? Is there flexibility in the system to bridge somebody onto a federal payment that's going to look after him or her for the rest of their lives in two weeks or two months?

Hon. M. Coell: We've levelled out the rates so that 19 to 64 is the same rate now. If someone's 61, we would do an employment plan and look at what their potentials are. At the other end, if someone is 64, there isn't much likelihood that they're going to be in a training program before they get the old age security benefits. At that age it would be done on an individual basis as to what's going to work for the individual client.

M. Hunter: You probably suspect that there's a case in mind when I talk about this, and there is. An individual actually is 64 and ten months and is expecting his OAS cheque literally on June 1.

I need to understand whether we have flexibility in the system. I understand we had it before where you could take an individual case who might fall through the cracks because benefits aren't going to get him where he needs to be, but two months from now he's on the federal "payroll". Do we still have that flexibility for individual case officers to deal on a humane, sensible basis, or is there a rule book that says: "No, that's the rate, and you've got to go to the Salvation Army between now and when you get your OAS cheque"?

Hon. M. Coell: Based on a person's assets and savings, they would be eligible if they met the criteria that everyone else from 19 to 64 would meet. In this instance, if the person had assets over the value, they wouldn't be eligible for income assistance. If they met the asset criteria test, they would be eligible for two months.

I. Chong: I don't have too many questions, but I do want to ask some in relation to the service plans and generally how they affect constituents that I may be dealing with.

First of all, I noticed that in the strategic shifts there are a number of points raised for the ministry in ensuring that the income assistance system will be guided through some new principles. There are a number of these: personal responsibility, active participation, innovative partnerships, etc.

My question is: will there be different benchmarks established for different categories of people to fit into these guiding principles? I say that in the light of different categories of people on disability. For example, you have those who have physical disabilities who are able to move into productive work situations. You have those who have mental disabilities who may be able to sustain some work but may never become independent. You have those who are multi-barriered who may never become independent, but then again, they may. Then you have the profoundly disabled who you know will never be able to move off income assistance whatsoever.

Given that there are these groups — and I apologize to the minister if these questions have already been raised by other members — what kinds of differ-

ent benchmarks are going to be established? If they have not yet been established, will they soon be established and posted on your website? Then as we deal with constituents in those various categories, we can explain to them how this will fit into their personal situation and a year from now ask the minister how it's looking, whether those benchmarks need to be changed and whether we can properly evaluate these performance measures that I'm sure his ministry is wanting to attain.

Hon. M. Coell: From the perspective of the new acts and the changes that have been made, we're looking for people to achieve their highest potential. That may differ for individuals.

I can give you an example. In goal 2 in the service plan, the continuous assistance clients participate in employment or volunteer in the community as they are able. I think that we want to have a plan for individuals that allows them to meet their greatest potential. That hasn't always been the case in Canada.

I think what we want to do is realize that people have limitations but not look just at those limitations. Let's look at what their strengths are and build on the strengths and have the program build on the individual strengths for success and for achieving their highest potential. That may not necessarily be full employment. It may be volunteering one afternoon a week, and that's all their disability or barriers allow them to do. Let's work to the strengths rather than rely on the weaknesses or the…. We want people to succeed is what I guess I'm trying to say. We want to help them succeed and to achieve the potential that they can.

I. Chong: I appreciate that response from the minister. Clearly, it is showing a different direction. We're looking at people to succeed. While I would agree that we need benchmarks, I was concerned that if established benchmarks were put out and they were too rigid, we would limit the ability to succeed from one person to another, even within categories. The minister's comment is reassuring. It's like what the Ministry of Education is doing: ensuring that where some successes in one region of the province…. In an inner-city school, for example, their achievement rates may not be the same as another, but whatever percentage of success they can achieve is great. That's good.

At the same time, I was wondering whether there still would be some minimum in terms of benchmarking. For example, in order to evaluate a person's success who has been able to be semi-independent or fully independent, would you be measuring that in the context of a year, whether a number of months or a number of weeks of employment would signify success or whether a number of months or a number of weeks on income assistance would be considered a measurement?

Again, I recognize that since we are moving into a different strategic shift and looking more at helping and assisting people, which is what assistance should be all about, to establish benchmarks at this time can be quite challenging. At the same time, in dealing with constituents who come into our offices, I want to be able to provide them with some encouragement and some opportunity to see that these benchmarks that we may or may not set for them are in fact achievable and to give them some hope and give them encouragement to come off income assistance. Even if there were minimum benchmarks of those things being considered, would the minister be able to share that with me at this time so that I have an idea when people come into my office?

Hon. M. Coell: I think there are two issues here. This being a new program — and I agree that there's a strategic shift — we want to establish a baseline number of continuous assistance clients who would be involved in work or volunteer activities. We haven't got down to the level where you would have a baseline for the individual. I think that's where your financial aid worker and your employment and management plan for that would come into consideration, where you design what you think you can accomplish as an individual and measure that against time and success in programs.

It's easier to do the higher-level baseline as to how many people you're having success with, how many people are changing into employment who are on the continuous program. It's much more individual, I think, when you do it for individual clients. It's harder for me to describe that to you at this time.

I. Chong: I do acknowledge, with the changes, the difficulty that there may be to establish certain criteria, seeing that we are moving this way. I would hope that if in fact the minister is looking for input, members will be able to help and participate in that. As he well knows, when he was opposition critic, he received numerous letters and e-mails in his office — more than in some of our offices — and certainly must have an arsenal of information that he can use to develop these benchmarks.

I want to move quickly on to one other area. The minister is aware of this, but I'm wondering whether, through the Chair, he would be able to offer some information at this time about a matter that I raised last year. That, again, is to do with persons of disability who are not moving into employment per se but moving into the area of self-employment. I had raised this issue last year and had hoped that a pilot project might be established. If there is a pilot project, again, I would hope the minister is able to share that with us.

Very quickly, for the benefit of Hansard, those on disability who are not able to be employed in, I would say, a regular work environment — sometimes because of the cyclical nature of their disability or because of other barriers — have been able to, through encouragement of family members and other support groups, develop a self-employment program themselves. The one I'm thinking about in particular in my area is

someone who got into the furniture-making business, and of course, income assistance was based on the outside income levels they were receiving. In one month you may be able to gross a substantial amount, while the next month you may in fact be in the hole — taking into consideration overhead costs, occupancy costs, interest costs if you're taking a loan out, and cost of inventory.

The measurement that has been used in the past, in previous governments and perhaps all across Canada, used to be based on gross income, which really, very definitely, was unfair. Speaking as an accountant, certain people can gross $30,000 a year; at the end of the year they might show me $2,000 net profit because of all these costs. If that kind of an approach was taken, someone would have to turn back all their income assistance and be in even worse straits.

My recommendation last year to the minister was that if we were to look at self-employment and gauge whether their level of income assistance should be altered at the base or as a percentage of what self-employment income they brought in, then we had to look at net income, and month-by-month net income was not always practical or feasible. The measure that can be used would be somewhat the same as what Revenue Canada does when they give GST tax credits or B.C. Benefits credits after the previous year's tax return was filed. That's how their future credits would be determined. By the same token, I had hoped that we would be able to take a look at this.

I hadn't heard much more on this, and I'm wondering if this minister could share with us where we are with this — what kind of pilot program he might be considering or looking at and whether there was an opportunity for someone like myself to be involved in such an initiative. I'm very keen on seeing that happen. As I say, there are many, many people that are disabled, and some are multi-barriered, who have a keen sense of being able to become independent but need to know that they have sufficient time in order to establish that self-sufficiency. If the minister can share some information on that initiative, I'd be most grateful.

Hon. M. Coell: I remember the estimates last year. It was something I asked staff to look at in the context of bringing forward an employment strategy for persons with disabilities. It will deal with self-employment and supporting individuals through that process — something that I hope to have finished for consideration within the next couple of months. If it's all right with the member, I will talk to her about that and get her input as this progresses along.

Through the Chair to the minister, can you advise at this time whether all the cases of those who are in that kind of a situation are sort of in abeyance pending your two-month review? I haven't heard back from this constituent. Maybe he hasn't been able to work of late. I just want to be assured that if the minister is looking at this, people who are affected in that way are not still hanging onto the edge of their seats month by month, wondering what's happening. As long as I know that they are being left alone under a previous system and are not being adversely impacted until this program is initiated, and that that's in place…. Can the minister advise whether there is any information on that?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not aware that anyone has brought this forward to the ministry as a problem since we talked. At present it's just status quo until the new programs are brought into place.

I. Chong: The last point, I promise, is on another issue. Again, I apologize if the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or Nanaimo have raised it. I wasn't able to listen or follow all the Hansards that have taken place.

It has to do with employable single parents with children turning age three. Contrary to what some people might believe, I do have a number of people in my riding who are affected in this situation while this new strategic shift is being implemented.

First of all, I do want to say that there have been people who have applauded this initiative and people who are concerned about it. Their concerns are sometimes more worrisome, in that they haven't been able to get clarification.

If you have somebody who at present has a child of two years and ten months — I know the programs are coming into place — and they have not yet been able to work into or develop an employment plan or an employability program, is there a transition period? What is the length of that transition period to allow them to go beyond when their child turns three as of April 1, May 1 or whatever?

This being a rather new initiative, some people have not been able to get around what was happening. At one point, as we all know, we heard in the media thoughts that it was going to be when your child was one, and of course that created a lot of concern. Now that it's been determined that it's three, there might be people caught in this transition getting to the ministry's office or coming to our offices in the next little while.

I just would like to have some assurance that we can work with them and with the ministry to assure that a cutoff isn't happening immediately, because some things will take a while. If there is a transition period, how long will that transition period be?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we did canvass this issue in the morning. I'll just highlight it for you. We're asking that single parents, when their child reaches three, become involved in the training or job placement programs or be willing to seek work. They're not going to be cut off; they have a two-year period to do that.

With single parents after that, there is just a reduction in their income assistance, not the child's income assistance or the shelter income assistance. It's designed to be motivating. You have the three-year period so that they would, for the most part, get their

lives together if they come from a difficult situation. Then they would transfer into the training and employment placement programs. Then at the end of five years we would reduce by, I believe, 11 percent the income level of that single parent, not the child or the shelter. It's designed to be a motivating factor in moving people into employment.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for repeating the answer for my benefit. That's very helpful for those of us who weren't able to hear that. With that, I'll yield the floor to my colleagues.

J. Kwan: The area of questions I'd like to ask the minister…. Actually, before I finish off on the training pieces, there's one question I forgot to ask. If a person is referred to an employment training program and there's a wait-list for that particular program the person is interested in, for the period of time which the person has to wait to get access to that training program, would that waiting time be deemed to be non-compliance from the client's perspective?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the simple answer is that that wouldn't be non-compliance, because we would be purchasing the space from a contractor or a training placement program. We would try and purchase seats that were available; we wouldn't want to purchase something that's six months out. We would look around to try and find one that's available for a client that has specific needs, but it's a point worth considering in more depth.

J. Kwan: For that period of time when the client is waiting to get access to a program, that would be counted towards the three weeks of seeking training or seeking employment, and that person would not be deemed to be ineligible to apply for income assistance while the individual is waiting to get into the course.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure I can answer that more fully than I did, in that we don't have the details back from the RFP process. We've asked for proposals. There may be a number of different proposals that come in that satisfy that need, but we don't have the details at this point. I don't think I can answer with any more definition at this point, but I will give it further thought.

J. Kwan: What I'm suggesting is that even if you've completed the RFP process…. Let's say that you have — I don't know — 500 spots for training to become a welder, and there is a whole host of people who want to be trained to become a welder. For the 501st person who shows up, there's a wait period of, let's say — I don't know — three weeks before that spot opens up, before the person graduates and moves on and that spot opens up again. For that three-week wait period for the person who's waiting to get that welding training, that person would be deemed to be in compliance with the rules and regulations of the government. That would be counted towards the three weeks of wait period that the individual is required to go through. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Hon. M. Coell: I regret that I don't think I have the information to answer the question. The RFP will go up in June for that. As I say, we've got one out now, and we've got one going out in June. I'd be more than willing to sit down with the member when that goes out to discuss some potential problems that might come from that process, but I don't really have the details to be able to say yes or no at this point. I don't suspect it'll be a problem. It hasn't been a problem with the pilot projects; they haven't had large waiting lists to get in for any length of time. They've been able to put people through them quite successfully, and I suspect that'll be the case with the new programs.

J. Kwan: There is actually a case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case is essentially a similar scenario, where a person is waiting to get into training and the issue is around eligibility. I believe the case is called the Gosselin case. That's before the Supreme Court right now around that. It is an important point to clarify: while a person is waiting to get into a training program, for that person not to be deemed to be not in compliance with the government's requirements for going through the procedures of seeking training. Therefore, they would not be cut off that process.

I would hope that the minister will confirm with me that that is in fact the case, that people would not be cut off and would not be deemed to be in non-compliance with the procedures of the government to apply for income assistance if they're put on the wait-list waiting for a program as it comes on stream.

In the area around school attendance, in the service plan it states that a family's eligibility for assistance will be conditional on their child or children attending school. How will a family's income assistance change if they have one child who does not attend school? Let's say you have three children who are in the school system. Will this be based on the rates of attendance at their school? How will the office track their attendance rates? Will there be liaison with the school officials or through a voluntary disclosure sort of process? Will a family with, let's say, a 17-year-old who is not in school but with two other children, ten and seven, who are in the school system…? Will the children who are ten and seven also be penalized because the 17-year-old is not in school? How will that work?

Hon. M. Coell: That wouldn't be the intention. This discussion, again, may be something we would deal with in the debate around the legislation. It's not the intention to penalize families who have some children in school and one who is out. There may be a reduction

for that one child who is not attending school but not the entire family and the children who are also attending school. Again, this would be something I wouldn't mind dealing with in more depth when we look at the legislation later this spring.

J. Kwan: The family unit would not be penalized. I think that's what I heard from the minister, although there will be legislation that will deal with this issue more specifically in the House. It may be that the family unit will face a reduction of one child's worth of income assistance support.

On the question around attendance, how does one go about establishing that the child is not attending school, as an example?

Hon. M. Coell: That would be done through the policy with the School Act and school districts. We will take into consideration someone who is being home-schooled. They would be eligible as long as they're taking an educational process or program. It wouldn't be that the family unit was ineligible, but there would be a reduction because the child was not attending school.

J. Kwan: Then if that child is not attending school — and let's say that child is 17 years old — the amount of support for that child will be reduced accordingly. If this child then went out to be on his or her own, that child would not be eligible for income assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: That would depend upon the specific circumstances. I think we touched on it this morning. If the child was leaving an abusive relationship or a family violence relationship, they would be eligible, but if they just decided they didn't like their mom and dad and wanted an apartment on their own, they wouldn't be eligible.

J. Kwan: In that scenario the amount of support for that child is reduced. If that child went out and, let's say, got a job and brought money into the family unit, but it's to support himself or herself, not the family unit, would that amount of income brought to the family — although not to support the family but for himself — be deducted from the overall cheque for that family unit?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, presently that would be exempt. If they're in school and they're working part-time, that isn't taken off the entire family exemption. If they're leaving school, I think that presently that would become part of the family income and would actually be deducted from the family unit's income assistance.

What we've tried to do, and, I think, the previous government, too…. If someone is working at a part-time job and they're in grade 10, we don't want to take that money away from that child or that family. Neither did the previous government. I believe — and I'll just check — if that 16-year-old decides they don't like school and wants to go out and work part-time and live at home, that would be part of the family income, and their family income would be reduced by that level.

I guess the desire here is to have children finish school and get an education, because all the statistics point to a lower standard of living, lower health, if you don't achieve grade 12 and that education level that allows you to work. What we're trying to do is stop a second generation of income assistance by making sure that children stay in school, get educated and don't become another generation of income assistance. That's the crux of where the former government, I believe, was coming from, and it's something we will carry through with as well.

J. Kwan: Just to follow that line of rationale, in this instance, if the child is expelled from school for whatever reason and is trying to seek re-entry into a school somewhere but has not been successful, would that family be penalized with a reduced income rate?

Hon. M. Coell: The School Act requires children to be in school until 16. This would be post-16. There are people who, for whatever reason, leave school at 16. Some are on their own accord; some are for behaviour. They would be required to be in the training and employment placement programs in order to achieve income assistance for their family unit. My guess is there aren't very many of those, but they're also the ones that are probably going to need the most assistance in the long run. So you want to be successful at getting them either back into school, into some alternative program — then they would become eligible again — or into a program that would supply them with a different form of education, and we have a few programs like that. They would be eligible if they were in an alternative program that was giving them the training up to grade 12, as well as the ability to go into the job training and placement programs after that — or during that, if they chose not to.

J. Kwan: Just following the minister's answer — and I'm trying to understand this in my mind — if a child who is 16 or younger is expelled from a school and is in the process of trying to regain entry into a school…. In that scenario, that person has to undergo the pre-training employment initiative. The minister is shaking his head. So the person does not have to go. They just have to wait and sort of get into school, during which time that family unit would not be penalized with their income assistance. That is to say, there would be no deduction from that family unit as the person is trying to regain entry into the school system.

I see the minister nodding, so I'll move on with the questions around this area, then. In the case where the child is permanently out of the school system — 16 or older — and the person then…. In that instance, for the family unit to get income assistance as a whole, that

child has to go through training programs. Did I hear the minister correctly when he suggested that that person would have to go through the training program in order for the family unit to qualify?

Hon. M. Coell: The member was correct on the first part. Sixteen or under, the School Act…. The family wouldn't be penalized. Over that, we would require the person to be involved in employment and training programs. If they weren't able to attend school, the family would not be penalized.

If the child is 16 or over and they're able to attend school and do not, then the family has a penalty, because the child is not attending school and is able to. If they're not able to, the family isn't penalized — and/or involved in an employment and training program. The family wouldn't be penalized there as well.

J. Kwan: Okay. The penalty as it applies would be the deduction of one child's assistance rate.

In the income assistance rate categories, the threshold is such that when you have children…. It's true that as the number of children increases, your rate also increases, but it reaches a threshold point where your rate no longer increases. I think that's three children.

In the case where the threshold is reached — let's say, five children — and one child is not in the school system, how would you reduce the rate? Or would it not be reduced? How do you determine what the rate is for one child? How would you reduce the rate within the different categories of the numbers of children that are eligible for income assistance in a family unit?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not quite clear on the question. I think I understand. I wonder if the member could just repeat it for me, and I'll try to answer.

J. Kwan: Currently, in the rates that apply for income assistance support, if you are a person with one child, you have an increased rate over that of a single person. If you are a person with two children, you receive a still higher rate. If you are a person with three children, you receive a higher rate still. Beyond that, I think, you reach a certain threshold where even if you had more children, your rates for the support portion don't go up anymore. Am I right in that? That's what I understood the system is.

Let me just start with that. Am I right in understanding the rate application of how many children you have? Is there a place where…it doesn't matter how many children you have, your rates are not going to go up any higher? Where is that threshold cutoff?

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for the clarification. There will always be a rate increase. It just won't be going up by the same amount as it had been per child. You'll see an increment if you have five or six children, but that increment won't be the same for every child as you reach that sixth child.

J. Kwan: So the increments vary, but there will always be a rate increase as long as there are additional children in the family unit. From four to five to six to eight to ten, there's always an increase. Okay, then I'm mistaken in understanding that differently. I thought that at some point, there's a threshold where you don't see your rates go up anymore.

So then you would reduce the rate, I guess. If it's six children, then it would be from six to five. That would be the reduction, then, of one child, moving it from the bottom level up one if that one child is not in school or not attending a job-training program.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, now I understand the question. It's a good question. It's one that would be set in regulations, and it's one we haven't yet decided on the number for. You do present a question that needs further thought, in my opinion.

J. Kwan: Okay. We'll canvass this in legislation when that comes up, then, because that is an important question too. The concern I have, of course, is that I would hope that if one child within the family unit is not in school or in training for whatever reason, that would not end up penalizing other children in the family unit by not receiving appropriate support. That's where I'm coming from on this. We'll canvass that in legislation.

Let me now go to the issue around the independence requirement. What would happen to a 20-year-old who has left home at the age of 19 and finds himself or herself unable to make ends meet? I know the minister said earlier that they were looking to provisions around abuse, around the family situation and medical issues.

I guess what I'm worried about is that young people could be forced into the streets because of their untenable situation at home. Take as an example that it may not be physical abuse and may not even be sexual abuse, but it could be mental abuse in the home environment. It may be difficult for the young person to prove that the environment is the place in which he or she should live.

In a scenario like that, perhaps it's not as easy for the young person to identify the reasons why they are leaving home and then still be eligible and qualify for income assistance. In that instance, the options left for them are very little. They'll be left on the streets. They may even be forced into prostitution and into crime, violence, etc. I worry very much about that.

What kind of latitude is available within the ministry to look at this broad range of issues? Again, on the question around the burden of proof on the young person, what does the young person have to do to prove it is untenable for them to stay at home?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the answer is that we want to have as much flexibility in the legislation to allow the financial aid worker and, indeed, the supervisor or the REO to make that determination. That would be for

anyone 19 years of age or older who falls into that situation. They come having experienced abuse, whether it be physical or mental, or they have a medical problem. In many instances, you might find someone coming in at that age who might be eligible for the continuous program because of mental illness, fetal alcohol syndrome or a range of problems that might fit.

I understand where the member's coming from. That's a grey area. That's a crack people could fall through. You want to make sure that what you are doing is saying to the healthy, employable, motivated person, "We want you to seek work," but we want to be able to bring people in who would have that broad list of problems that the member has identified.

I think the discussion around the flexibility in the legislation is also important to achieving that safety valve in the program.

J. Kwan: I guess we'll canvass that when we get into the legislation, then, to see what the legislation looks like, what kind of latitude would be given and the role of the FAW in evaluating that. I think it is a critical piece, and it will have significant impact for young people in British Columbia.

The minister said that when a person becomes of age and if the person is identified as physically, mentally or otherwise disabled — some sort of disability — that person would be eligible for continuous income assistance. Is that the case if the individual is still living at home?

Hon. M. Coell: Now they would be eligible. That will be unchanged. It's my understanding that persons with disabilities in a continuous program, as well as DB-2, are able to live at home at age 19 and be on income assistance. There isn't a means test there now, and there wouldn't be in the future.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know how many full-time post-secondary students currently collect income assistance now?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have the number handy, but I will endeavour to get it for the member in the next day or so.

I think there are a number of people who exhaust their student financial assistance and then come back onto income assistance. That number is actually quite low, but I'll get that number for the member as well.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can also provide this information along with it, unless he has it. I'm also wondering how many months out of a year post-secondary education students collect income assistance. It may be for a period but not for the entire year. If the minister can provide that information to me as well, I would appreciate it.

The other question relating to full-time post-secondary education students is this. The loss of the first-year and work-study grants make it very difficult for students to find the financial help they need to make ends meet during their school year. Will a student with a few months of school left be denied income assistance because they have run out of financial aid from their student loan? Would they be able to apply for income assistance if they're just trying to finish their school year and are a couple of months short to make ends meet?

Hon. M. Coell: To my knowledge, it's quite an extensive program, and there are options for people who run into those circumstances, for whatever reason, to get more student financial aid. It's in Advanced Ed's best interests, as well, not to see them fail. It's a question I really don't have the answer to, as it's an Advanced Ed question, but my understanding is that it's a generous program and that there aren't a large number of people who fall through the system. If the member has more information, I'd be interested in it. If not, I'd be interested in staff supplying both of us with the information.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that access to student loans is the responsibility of Advanced Education. People often try to exhaust all of those avenues. In fact, they're required to. I'm talking about situations where the person has exhausted all of those avenues. Will they be able to come to this ministry and apply for income assistance when they have exhausted the Advanced Education options for student loans?

I do know of at least one situation in my travels. I met a single mom in her last year, actually the last semester, of her degree, and she has exhausted — maxed out — the student loan parameters she's eligible for. She doesn't know whether she can graduate because of one semester's continuation to complete the program.

In that instance, would this person, a single mom, be able to come to the income assistance office and apply and be eligible for income assistance to be able to complete her studies so that she doesn't waste her last three and a half years of studies?

Hon. M. Coell: That's an interesting problem. They would be able to apply, and they would be assessed. Their eligibility criteria may or may not make them eligible. They may be taking part-time night courses, which would make them eligible. If they're taking a full-time university course, they wouldn't be eligible at this point, and they wouldn't be eligible in the future, I don't think, in the new legislation.

It really bounces back to me to be an SFA issue more than one of someone who had been on income assistance for a long period of time and was in one of our programs. Someone who is in a university program has the benefit of the SFA program, which covers a great deal of funds we don't cover in this ministry.

There may be a few people caught in that situation, but I still think it would be something where student financial aid would have an interest in seeing that person succeed. Their assets, as I said, may or may not allow them to come onto income assistance.

J. Kwan: On the issue around assets, I'm assuming the person has no assets. People in that situation are just getting right down to the finishing line. They have gone to try and access a student loan, and they have exhausted — maxed out — the amount of student loans they could get to finish their program. They're very close to finishing. In that instance, would they be able to qualify for income assistance, assuming they have no other financial assets?

Hon. M. Coell: If the situation is exactly as you described it, the answer would be no. They wouldn't be eligible, because they would still be in school full-time, and you're not eligible for these funds if you're going to post-secondary school full-time.

That may be the answer. I'd be interested in hearing more and dealing with this issue in just a bit more depth if the member can give me some more information.

J. Kwan: In a situation where the criteria are being strictly applied from the government side, if you are in post-secondary education or career development full-time, you're not eligible for income assistance — full stop. It ends there. In that instance, this person would not qualify.

I'm actually asking the minister, then, is to consider a provision for their training piece. When we talked about their training piece, I thought that generally speaking, a person would be able to collect income assistance under that. If they fit into the program criteria for the one-year training programs being offered by the ministry, then the person would be eligible for income assistance. I think the minister also told me earlier that individuals would also be able to work out a training plan of some sort with their worker.

In the scenario where this person is at the finishing line of completing her degree and needs one semester, half a year, of support to get through it, and where she has exhausted every avenue of student grants and bursaries and all of those things — short of winning a lottery, I guess — this person is not going to be able to complete the program. It would mean that the person would have to drop out of the system, which would seem to me an awful waste and a sad situation we would want to prevent.

In that scenario, would the person be able to apply and work out a plan with the FAW? They might say: "This is the training I'm doing. I'm in the last six months of my studies. Can I get income assistance to pull myself through that?" Would there be a provision for consideration under this new set of legislation that we'll be contemplating in the spring?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I'm in an interesting situation, because I supported the B.C. Benefits legislation. It divided post-secondary education into student financial aid and took that out of income assistance. We're not doing anything different than that at this point.

There may still be a few people getting income assistance who are doing advanced education courses, but I'm not aware that there are very many. Most of them have been shifted over to the student financial aid program and taken out of income assistance. I believe there was some logic when B.C. Benefits did that, and I still think the logic is there to have the two separate categories.

I think it's incumbent on students to manage their funds, but there are unforeseeable circumstances. I think that's probably what the member is getting at. In that instance, the person may just find they have to work for a year to save some money to go back to school. I think that was how B.C. Benefits was trying to move people off income assistance to student financial aid and to take a different stream. We're not really doing anything different than that, except continuing it.

J. Kwan: I guess the short answer from the minister, then, is no. There are no extenuating circumstances whatsoever for an individual to be considered if they're attending post-secondary education in a degree-granting career development.

I was actually hoping the answer would be different — that there would be case-by-case assessment in these scenarios. In the last while, I have in my travels come across individuals who are on their last leg of finishing their degrees and couldn't get any more assistance from student loans. They then tried to get on income assistance.

I've actually assisted individuals who are in that situation and have been able to get them on some sort of assistance with the ministry. There may be provisions in which the person may have to pay back some parts of it. There is temporary assistance and those kinds of things. With great effort, I have been able to do that in the past, and I was hoping that given the new era, there would be flexibility in looking at these issues.

There was, if we pushed it really, really hard and tried really, really hard. It was not in every case, I have to admit, but I think that's wrong. There should be provisions to enable and to ensure successful completion for these individuals. Oftentimes, if they do end up dropping out, it's a high risk for the person to enter into a slippery slope and then lose those years of studies. I'm hopeful that there's some provision that could be considered so that doesn't happen, preventing it as best as we can.

Will the assistance for full-time post-secondary students with disabilities be continued?

J. Kwan: I'm tempted to go back and argue the other case, but I think maybe I'll just leave that for the legislation when we deal with it.

I just want to ask this question, because it has popped into my head. On Black Thursday, it was announced that legal guardians will no longer be eligible under the child in the home of a relative program. Payments will continue to be provided when parents

are unable to financially support a child and place the child with a relative. What was the thinking behind no longer having the legal guardian be eligible under the child in the home of a relative program? What's the rationale for that cut?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the rationale is that both the Family Relations Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act consider a guardian as a parent of the child. The Ministry of Human Resources policy is now consistent with both of those acts. If you have taken on the guardianship, you are the legal guardian or the parent, and you have the responsibilities that go with that. We're making this act consistent with those other two acts.

J. Kwan: Has the minister considered the risk of this change? People may be more reluctant to accept the responsibility of legal guardianship, given that they would have to assume full financial responsibility, whether or not they themselves could be financially able to do it. They might have the other capacities, but financially, they may not be able to, and they were looking toward the government for income assistance to support the child in that instance.

Hon. M. Coell: We did consider it. We felt that because of the family relationship, it wasn't consistent. A family of two, let's say, who took on a guardianship of a brother or sister or grandparent would be eligible for income assistance if their income and their asset level were low. Their family unit would be able to be covered by income assistance.

If the family had assets greater than that, we felt that British Columbia doesn't pay all parents to look after their children. In this instance, the guardian has now become the parent of the child, and we would treat it the same as with all other parents in British Columbia and then be consistent with these two acts. It wouldn't preclude someone needing income assistance from applying for income assistance and getting the assistance for themselves and their new guardian.

J. Kwan: That change concerns me, and I'll tell the minister why. I know a lot of people who would take on the responsibility of legal guardianship, whether it be family or friends. In fact, I know a lot of people would take on that role. Sometimes, with their own family and with the added responsibility of the legal guardianship, the family unit may well need assistance — not to the point where the entire family unit would need to be qualified for income assistance, but to the point where it really would jeopardize the quality of life of members of that family unit, including the child who was referred to the legal guardian.

If the legal guardian is unable to gain additional financial assistance from government to do that, then I think it actually puts at risk the people taking on the legal responsibility of a legal guardianship, putting more pressure on government in the area around foster parenting or supports from government elsewhere. You could actually end up having a more adverse effect than providing the financial assistance required to keep that family unit together and support the family unit in that way.

Hon. M. Coell: A couple of things. A low-income family would still be eligible for both the B.C. family bonus for the child and also for the child tax credit, so there is some income there. It is something I'm going to monitor with the Minister of Children and Family Development to see if there is any change in the desire of people to become guardians. There are those other two sources of income, the B.C. family bonus and the child tax credit federally, that should help.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be tracking this, or will the minister be asking the Minister of Children and Family Development to track what those numbers look like and how it is changing?

Hon. M. Coell: It's certainly something we'll both be monitoring, because it's in both our interests.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect that the first report will be provided? Is there going to be some sort of report in this area, in the monitoring of these numbers?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member would know, these would be anecdotal reports through social workers and through financial aid workers. We would endeavour to have a report back in six months.

J. Kwan: Will the minister make that information available to the opposition?

J. Kwan: I'd be very interested to see whether or not that has any effect. Maybe it won't. Maybe I'm just a bit of a worrywart about everything. Hopefully, I am, and it wouldn't have an impact, but I would be interested in getting that report as well.

I'm just noting the time about whether or not I should enter into another area of questions. Or should I report out at this time? I'm seeking advice from the Chair.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. Noting the time, then, I'd like to thank the minister for his answers to my questions. We'll continue on tomorrow with the estimates of this ministry.

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