Hansard -- Tuesday, March 4, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 6 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5201

Tributes		5201
	Melodie Elliott Clark B. Penner Laurence Elliott M. Hunter

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5202
	Forest industry in Kootenay-Boundary area B. Bennett Government policies on domestic violence J. Kwan Spotted owls R. Sultan

Oral Questions		5203
	Government action on sea lice in fish farms J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen Eligibility review for disability benefits J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell P. Nettleton

Petitions		5205
	J. Bray

Second Reading of Bills		5205
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) Hon. S. Santori J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply		5207
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General L. Mayencourt Hon. R. Coleman J. Kwan B. Locke J. MacPhail R. Lee J. Bray R. Visser S. Orr R. Hawes K. Manhas

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special guest from Slovenia. Her Excellency Veronika Stabej is the newly appointed ambassador of Slovenia to Canada. She is accompanied by Dr. Branko Palcic, honorary consul of Slovenia at Vancouver. Ambassador Stabej is visiting from Ottawa to make her official calls on the government. Please join me in giving both of them a warm welcome to this House.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today we are joined by 66 grade 11 students from the great school of Southridge Secondary in beautiful South Surrey. They are joined by their teachers Mr. Julian, Mr. Knihniski and Mr. Bendl. I would ask that the House please make them welcome today.

J. Les: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House seven legislative interns who will be working with the government caucus during this spring legislative session. The seven interns are as follows: Theresa Gerritsen, who is here from the University of Victoria; Jonathan Kim, who is from Simon Fraser University; Azmina Ladha from UBC; Julia Lockhart from UBC; Quinn Newcomb from the University of Victoria; Robert Parker from the University of Victoria; and Tyler Wightman from Malaspina University College. I would invite the House to make these people feel very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm very pleased to have a constituent from Summerland, British Columbia — yes, the heartlands of British Columbia — here today. It's Debbie Kinvig. Debbie is the general manager of the Kettle Valley Railway Society, where there were over 14,000 volunteer hours last year. Debbie's here on behalf of the society to sign a lease to have locomotive 3716 in place at the Kettle Valley Steam Railway in Summerland this year. Would the House please make Debbie very welcome.

P. Sahota: Joining us in the House today is a constituent of mine from Burnaby-Edmonds, Janet Ray. Janet is working on her MA in nursing and currently doing a practicum with the Ministry of Health Planning. Would the House please make her welcome.

B. Penner: Today I have some good news and some bad news. First, the good news. It's my pleasure today to introduce five people from the eastern Fraser Valley. First of all, we're joined today by Clem Seymour, an elected councillor with the Seabird Island Indian band, along with Chief John Pennier of the Scowlitz first nation. In addition, we have Sylvia Pranger, the mayor of the district of Kent, as well as Mayor Clint Hames of the city of Chilliwack — I believe he's here in the precinct as well — and Terry Raymond, chairman of the Fraser Valley regional district. They're here to discuss things, including gravel removal from the Fraser River. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: Now the not-so-good news. It's with regret that I rise to inform the House about the passing of a very distinguished individual who resided in Chilliwack for about 25 years. I learned this morning that Melodie Elliott Clark, born in 1947, passed away on February 25 while with her husband on a holiday.

Melodie Elliott Clark overcame tremendous challenges in her life. She became a quadriplegic as a result of a tragic traffic accident in the early 1970s. Notwithstanding that, she and her husband moved to Chilliwack and established a very successful business, Elliott Clark Arts. I got to know Melodie when I sought the B.C. Liberal nomination in 1995, because she was one of the other people who also sought the nomination at that time. Their business was very successful and very well known in the community, and Melodie and her husband were well regarded for their involvement in the arts community in Chilliwack.

She's been recognized in many ways. For example, she recently received the Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee lifetime achievement medal in Nova Scotia for her work in the arts, and that's where she and her husband have been residing most recently — back in Nova Scotia. I ask that the House please send a note of sympathy to her husband and her family.

M. Hunter: I also rise to note with regret the passing of a constituent of mine, Laurence Elliott. Laurence was a director of the regional district of Nanaimo. He passed away last Thursday, a victim of lupus disease, at the age of 55. Laurence was a real estate professional and a committed and popular public servant and volunteer. He's survived by his wife Diana, three adult children, three grandchildren and many others, including his own parents. Nanaimo is the poorer for his untimely passing, and I ask that a note go to his family, noting our respect.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in recognizing me today. I'm pleased to introduce to the House — they're in the gallery today — well-respected CFAX talk show host Terry Moore and

his producer and wife, Ramona Beauchamp. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Bennett: This government is taking action to strengthen the B.C. forest industry, the creation — finally — of a working forest, a Forest and Range Practices Act that respects the experience and knowledge of forest workers, taking on the encrusted, outdated, byzantine forest policies of yesteryear. This government is determined to rebuild our most important industry and to put forest workers back to work.

I want to tell the House today the story of another very positive step that impacts the Kootenay-Boundary region, where I live. Not long before the last provincial election the government of the day announced, without any public consultation, that they would arbitrarily change the terms of the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan beyond any balanced measure in place across this province.

There are 15,000 families in 28 communities in the Kootenay-Boundary region who depend on forestry. The government back then refused to listen to those 15,000 families in 28 communities. The opposition Forests critic pleaded with the government at the time to not sacrifice the 1,300 family-supporting forestry jobs at stake, and the opposition leader, now Premier, promised the people of my rural region that if elected, his government would listen to the people of Kootenay-Boundary.

It's important for this House to know and it's important for the people of the region to know that this government and this Premier lived up to that promise made before the last election. We listened to the people of the region, we took the necessary steps to bring some socioeconomic balance to our land use plan, and we saved those same 1,300 family-supporting forestry jobs that the former government had put in jeopardy.

J. Kwan: This Saturday marks International Women's Day, when millions of people will join together to celebrate a history. As history also teaches us, women pay a heavy price in times of war. With a new war looming in the Middle East, this International Women's Day will be invested with a particular urgency. That urgency is also felt here at home in British Columbia.

Recently the United Nations singled out our government for very specific criticisms of its policies and the effect they're having on the lives of women in B.C. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women pointed to changes in the way the Liberals are prosecuting domestic violence. It pointed to cuts in legal aid and welfare assistance. It pointed to the elimination of the Human Rights Commission. It pointed to cuts in support programs for victims of domestic violence. Taken together, the committee said, these changes are having a disproportionately negative impact on women, in particular aboriginal women. The committee urged this government to undertake an analysis of these changes and to amend them.

To be singled out in this way by the world's top international body is extraordinary. It is a useful measure of just how thoughtless, misguided and discriminatory many of these policy changes have been. As a signatory of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, signed in 1980, Canadians undertook to live up to certain standards. This UN report says, loud and clear, that in B.C. we're not meeting our obligations. If the B.C. government truly wants B.C. to take a more prominent place on the world stage, I trust that each and every member of this caucus will read the UN report and will reflect long and hard on its criticisms and its recommendations for change — positive change.

R. Sultan: I would like to make a statement about spotted owls. The B.C. government and B.C. business are committed to their survival in our old-growth forests. The New York Times recently suggested that conservation takes a back seat to logging in British Columbia. Our Premier quickly responded, describing our commitment to the recovery of the spotted owl. No question — the bird's in trouble for reasons not well understood.

Both Canfor and Interfor have temporarily ceased logging in all spotted owl management areas to allow for assessment of habitat issues. The province's spotted owl recovery team will recommend how forest companies should proceed. In October conservation officers took the unprecedented step of capturing a very rare juvenile spotted owl from the Pemberton-Lillooet forest. The Grouse Mountain Refuge for Endangered Wildlife in my constituency volunteered to give this little owl temporary refuge. Like Interfor and Canfor, Grouse Mountain is committed to conservation. For example, it takes in orphaned grizzly bear cubs that would otherwise have to be destroyed.

Juvenile spotted owls in the wild have less than a 25 percent chance of surviving their crucial first winter. I'm pleased to report that my constituent owl, appropriately named Hope, received excellent care and overwintered splendidly. Hope has provided Grouse Mountain wildlife professionals and the spotted owl recovery team with valuable scientific data. Having survived her first winter, her chance of surviving subsequent winters rockets to 90 percent. Later this month, Hope will be safely returned to the wilds. We expect she will do her part to save the species from extinction, and we wish her well.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday we learned from one of B.C.'s most reputable scientists that the first run of pink salmon smolts has come early and is covered with sea lice, but a spokesperson from the Fisheries ministry says that fish farm operators are reporting low levels of sea lice. My question to the Fisheries minister is: is he going to listen to fish farm operators, who gave the Liberals big bucks in the last election, or is he going to listen to scientists and immediately fallow every fish farm in the Broughton Archipelago?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, let me say that this government is committed to preserving and protecting wild salmon on the coast of British Columbia, including the pink salmon. Secondly, let me say that the NDP were in government for ten years — the ten worst years of government this province has ever seen, I might add — and did nothing. What we've had to do is clean up the mess left by the previous government.

I can tell you that we are using scientific information. The scientific information that was provided yesterday is very premature. The runs have not started coming out yet. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans tells us they are monitoring constantly. We've sent eight of our people up to the Broughton to monitor and report back. DFO has said it's going to share information with us as it becomes available.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting to note that the minister, until this very moment, has relied on the scientific report produced in the 1990s for his defence. The only difference was that the previous government put in a moratorium. This government justifies the expansion. Scientists say….

J. MacPhail: I do understand how troubled the Liberal government is by the mishandling of this scandal. I do understand.

J. MacPhail: Scientists say that if the government had fallowed these farms two months ago, the run might have been saved, but because of this government's inaction, which continues at this very moment, that run is likely destroyed. In about six weeks a second run of pinks will begin. If the minister doesn't take action now, we risk losing this wild salmon species for good. I ask the question again. Does he want to be remembered as the minister who destroyed the pink salmon run, or will he take action right now to fallow every farm to save what's left of it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like to quote the John Fraser report, which talks about reducing the rhetoric and getting down to the science. That would be my recommendation to the members opposite. I would also like to say to those members opposite that to make such claims and recommendations as she has just made — whether it's in this House or in the media — which are based on such preliminary information, is not scientific. It is, in fact, irresponsible.

As I've said, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has eight fisheries inspectors and one fish health veterinarian on staff, who are up in the Broughton. We are hiring two new inspectors and widening the inspection authority across the ministries of Water, Land and Air Protection and Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: John Fraser may have said to lower the rhetoric. He didn't say to sit idle and do nothing while the fish die, which is exactly what this government is doing. Every time this government has taken a position on fish farming, it's been wrong and the scientists have been right — government wrong, scientists right.

Right now scientists are saying a disaster looms. Communities, fishers, scientists and conservationists are screaming for action from this government. The only people who say there's no problem are fish farm operators and the B.C. Liberal government — oh, and the minister's spokesperson. Why is the Minister of Fisheries stalling? Is it because he's worried that his campaign funds will dry up if he takes action to save the wild salmon stock?

Hon. S. Hagen: May I remind the members opposite that under their tenure as government, as horrible as it was, nine new fish farms were located on the coast of British Columbia. Since the B.C. Liberals were elected, no new fish farms have been located on the coast of British Columbia. Let me also point out to the member, who talks about the John Fraser report, that this is the Pacific Fisheries Resource…

Hon. S. Hagen: …Conservation Council report that she just drew attention to. The recommendations from this report are as follows: firstly, strategic fallowing of salmon net pens judged to be the highest risk to pink salmon. We have done that.

Hon. S. Hagen: Secondly, accelerated marketing of mature fish to fallow those pens. We have done that.

Thirdly, the strategic application of therapeutics, which we have also sent a letter about. This letter went out to all salmon farms on the coast of British Columbia. I'll just read a couple of sentences. "Following the discussions at the forum that was held February 22 to 24…"

Hon. S. Hagen: "…it has been collectively determined that all farms must implement monitoring and treatment plans for sea lice."

J. Kwan: We know that the Minister of Human Resources has spent close to $3 million to pay doctors who help fill out forms for people faced with disability reviews. What has not been made public is the amount of money that the minister has given to community agencies to help clients who have yet to file their review forms. These are additional costs that are added to the list of doctors' fees, government staff time and the suffering that has occurred as a result of his ill-conceived eligibility review.

Can the minister please tell this House how much he has had to pay non-governmental agencies and how much he expects this $3 million-plus witch-hunt to cost the government in total?

Hon. M. Coell: Yesterday the member asked some questions about eligibility, and I just wanted to give her a couple of responses. In April of last year I said that the criteria would be inclusive. No eligible person with a disability will lose their assistance.

In October of last year I said that if all 18,000 people meet the criteria, we'll fund all 18,000 people. In December I again said that this is not about saving money; it's about making sure that people meet the definition.

Hon. M. Coell: If the member wants to talk about wasting money, it reminds me of a time when the New Democrats got elected in 1991. Jobs were being created, unemployment was going down, and they doubled the number of people on income assistance.

One in ten British Columbians was on income assistance. Six in ten single parents were on income assistance. Success for the socialists was putting people on welfare. Success for this government is making sure people have employment and looking after people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: We know that the minister's stuck when he cannot answer the question. I am absolutely alarmed that the minister cannot get us a total of what he expects this witch-hunt will cost. Surely, he must have had some idea of the costs that would be incurred before he started along this road. Surely, he must have some target in mind — some estimate of how many individuals he thought were receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

Could it be the minister who thought that: "Hey, we can't trust the existing files on each and every one of the clients because socialists are running the province"? Is that the reason for the witch-hunt — by putting…

J. Kwan: …people under enormous stress, when the minister should have known all along that these individuals were qualified to receive disability benefits? Will the minister have the courage to table in this House the briefing notes that laid out the eligibility review and his decision to launch this witch-hunt? What were the targets that he set to justify these extra expenses — extra expenses that, I might add, should be spent on people who require the support or perhaps the women's community, which the Minister of State for Women's Equality has cut the funding for?

Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned yesterday, we have increased our budget for people with disabilities on continuous assistance by $80 million. There are 3,200 more people receiving disability assistance with this government, and 6,000 people have taken the opportunity to give us their applications.

Hon. M. Coell: When I look back at the doubling of the income assistance budget by that former government, and I think of the waste of money and no re-

search to show it, when unemployment was going down, jobs were being created…. The former minister didn't even do any tracking of the people on income assistance in those days. Success for them might be just more people on welfare. Success for this government is putting people back to work, which we're doing.

P. Nettleton: For three days I've watched the Minister of Human Resources duck questions regarding the conduct of the disability benefits review. His failure to answer the questions gives me no comfort. I do know, having been a government member on the Health Committee until last fall, that the minister did implement this eligibility review because he believed that there were many individuals receiving disability benefits who should not. That was the logic that led to a program that we know cost close to $3 million just for doctors' fees alone.

P. Nettleton: Can he please tell this House how much this review has cost government in total and how many individuals who have submitted their review forms have been told they are ineligible for ongoing disability benefits?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that member actually voted for both pieces of our legislation last year. There are 10,000-plus people who have handed in their review forms — 6,000…

Hon. M. Coell: …new people who have put in review forms. If all of those people, plus any others that put in their forms, are found eligible, we'll fund them. As I've said in the past, if all 18,000 people are approved as eligible, they'll be funded.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Omineca has a supplementary question.

P. Nettleton: It's clear that the minister has invested significant government resources into testing the eligibility of thousands of people with disabilities, the sole result being hardship for individuals and families. Now an individual has taken his own life, leaving behind a suicide note that…

P. Nettleton: …told of his fear and anxiety — yes, it is shameful — related to the review of his eligibility. The minister's remarks in the media and the House this week confirm that this review was intended as an eligibility screening for ongoing benefits. Get beyond the arrogance, minister, and answer the question.

P. Nettleton: And I will. Why did the minister's staff tell the regional coroner who reviewed Mr. Ristvedt's death that his benefits weren't at risk, when they were?

Hon. M. Coell: This government does everything in its power to make sure that people in its care, whether it be Health or Human Resources or Education, are treated with fairness and dignity. The review criteria have been designed to make sure that people who are in need of help get that help.

J. Bray: I rise to present a petition signed by 96 residents in Victoria opposing the privatization of food services at the health authority.

Bill 13 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in response to a comprehensive review of the legislation requested by the Premier. The intent of the review was to increase openness and reduce compliance costs. The amendments were prepared in consultation with stakeholders and the information and privacy commissioner.

Bill 13 addresses the results of the review in a number of ways. First, the bill includes four amendments that change an outdated name for the archives of British Columbia to one that is generic to ensure that the act is current without further amendments whenever the name of the archives is changed in the future.

Second, the bill changes the wording of the original legislation so that when a public body places its archival records in the archives of another public body, these records are still subject to the legislation.

Third, the bill clarifies notification requirements for the indirect collection of personal information. This will reduce confusion and administrative burden in circumstances where indirect collection is already permitted by the legislation.

Fourth, the bill clarifies that researchers cannot use personal information from a public body for the sole purpose of contacting prospective research subjects. This change will increase privacy protection for individuals in an area where the information is often very sensitive and will have limited impact on researchers.

Fifth, the bill addresses a concern expressed by public bodies that if the public body discloses records that are subject to solicitor-client privilege to the information and privacy commissioner at his or her request, that privilege may be harmed if not waived altogether. The bill ensures that solicitor-client privilege is not waived in these circumstances.

Sixth, the bill adds a local government body that has not previously been covered and removes reference to the University of Northern British Columbia as it has become unnecessary, given a change to other legislation.

The bill also addresses a number of concerns raised by the information and privacy commissioner. These amendments will lessen administrative burden and provide increased flexibility to enable the commissioner to continue to meet his mandate in a time of restricted resources.

The amendments also remove unintended consequences of the original drafting. First, the bill corrects an inadvertent error in the original act and clarifies the circumstances under which the commissioner can present a special report to the Legislature.

Second, the bill enhances the mediation role of the information and privacy commissioner's office by protecting them from being compelled to give evidence in legal proceedings.

Third, the bill expands the commissioner's powers to delegate authority to his staff by permitting him to delegate the review of records withheld by public bodies under the law enforcement exception, except in limited circumstances. The bill recognizes that some law enforcement records are particularly sensitive and provides a means for senior law enforcement officials to request that the commissioner not delegate access to certain records. The inclusion of this restriction provides the enhanced protection necessary for these records.

Fourth, the bill permits the commissioner to request authorization from an adjudicator for relief from repetitious, vexatious, systematic and frivolous requests that the commissioner has received as head of the public body. The legislation currently permits public bodies to make an application to the commissioner to seek relief from such requests, yet does not provide the same avenue of redress to the commissioner. This amendment eliminates the inconsistency in the legislation and reduces the administrative burden for the commissioner.

The bill also contains a number of provisions that will improve the administration of the act and address compliance issues. The bill removes the potential for the inconsistent application of the collection, use and disclosure principles for personal information handled by contractors acting on behalf of public bodies. With current wording it is possible that the use and disclosure principles could be interpreted as not binding to contractors acting for public bodies.

The provision of this bill will increase the openness and accountability of government, reduce compliance requirements, improve the protection of personal information, reduce administrative burden for the commissioner and ensure clear policies, practices and standards for public bodies in administering the act. These changes will guarantee the continuation of the tradition of British Columbia having the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that is the most open and the strongest on privacy protection in Canada and will position British Columbia to lead Canadian jurisdictions in electronic government initiatives.

J. MacPhail: It is interesting to note that this bill is about ensuring protection of privacy information when the government contracts out work. Here we are, once again, in a situation where, because of this government's ideological agenda to contract out no matter what it costs, there's more red tape. There's more that has to be looked after. In this particular case it's not a bad thing, because it's about freedom of information and protection of privacy — with a few hiccups.

Yet just because this government has an ideological zeal to contract out work, even to the extent where in the health services this government is going to be contracting out work that will cost triple the amount they'll save, they're still proceeding. Over three years the government will be spending $225 million on booting well-trained, loyal, senior health care workers off the payroll, and they're going to bring in contractors, and they're only going to save $70 million over three years. Let's see. That's a good deal. That's Liberal economics. Spend $225 million to save $70 million. Today we're dealing with the consequences of that contracting-out of work, and so we have to have a piece of legislation where this government will say: "Well, that contractor has to be subject to protection of privacy of information." Interesting, isn't it, that we have to do this?

There's still controversy even within that. There's a disagreement about how this legislation actually has to apply. It says there's a disagreement between the commissioner of the freedom of information and protection of privacy and the responsible bureaucrat for that legislation. I say that the public official responsible, Chris Norman, who is the director of the corporate privacy and information access…. They have a disagreement. It can be resolved. It can be resolved either through an amendment…. Well, actually, it should be resolved through an amendment. I'll detail that in a moment.

What we have here is an expansion of protection of privacy to deal with this government's ideological bent to contract out work that was previously done in the public service. They have to change the law, but they've also reduced — cut back — the available resources for the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. At the same time that people have to be even more vigilant, this government is cutting back on the resources available to maintain that vigilance.

Of course, it's vigilance that's key to the protection of privacy. This is another example not only of the hoops that the public are now going to have go through to deal with this contracting-out agenda but of the threat to personal privacy being greater if the vigilance is diminished. This government has diminished the vigilance of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.

I will be asking questions about how this minister can guarantee proper vigilance with the resources available to the FOIPP commissioner. If, indeed, this minister tries to use the defence that that should be talked about in estimates, it will prove the point that this government doesn't want to be held accountable for its changes in legislation.

Here is the dispute between what the commissioner is saying and what the public official under this minister's ministry is saying. Section 10(a) amends section 33 of the act by striking out "a public body may disclose personal information" and replacing it with "a public body must ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is disclosed" only. By dropping the word "may" and inserting the words "must ensure," the section will, at best, have the unintended effect of causing confusion about whether it is permissive or mandatory and will, at worst, make it a mandatory provision. Those who believe that this section should remain permissive are now in a state of confusion, by this legislation.

A second point is that the government's underlying intent of the amendment is unclear. The wording of the amendment, according to the information and privacy commissioner, is different than the understanding of Chris Norman, director of the corporate privacy and information access branch. Disturbingly, each individual has a significantly different interpretation about the underlying intent of the amendment.

As I understand it, and I've had this confirmed by others, the two individuals' views are this. Mr. Loukidelis, the freedom of information commissioner, interprets the amendment to seek to impose an obligation on public bodies to take steps to ensure that personal information that is disclosed to contractors who perform services for the government will be protected by the provisions of the act. Mr. Norman, the public official working directly for the minister, in contrast, has indicated that the intent of the change is to clarify that government may enter into such agreements to respond to a concern that the act's current wording may preclude the government from doing so. According to Mr. Norman, it would be a matter of government policy to create contractual agreements to ensure that contractors comply with the act. There's a big difference between the two points of view.

I put these comments on the record at second reading so that the minister has time to take them away and eliminate the confusion — table an amendment and eliminate that confusion. I also say that it is time for the government to acknowledge that their agenda to contract out, contract out and contract out carries consequences. The consequences are this. As the government disperses what used to be held in the public service, and with all the protection of privacy of that information being held tightly within the public service…. It will now be dispersed. It will now be dispersed through their contractors.

We saw that as an example last week in a leaked document. The document didn't have to do with Pharmacare, but it was a program this government was setting up, putting it into the private sector for good optics. Issues of freedom of information and protection of privacy stand there as well. Now we have a situation where the government's own bureaucrats are suggesting in some way that it's entirely up to the government to decide how far they go to protect that public information. It is a flaw in the bill, or a misunderstanding at best, that the minister should clarify and clear up through amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Debate at second reading of Bill 13 continues. The minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Santori: I'm very proud of the amendments that are being brought forward, which give us an opportunity to recognize that there are other ways to conduct business in government and how we can provide services. It does allow us to expand our services to the private sector and to do what's in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province. Furthermore, we are putting the changes in place on the freedom of information and the protection of privacy to respond directly to the transformation that this government is undertaking.

On that note, I'm looking forward to entering debate in committee stage with the member opposite. At this time, hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, minister. We do second reading first. The question is second reading of Bill 13.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, 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. Bruce: I call Committee of Supply for the estimates debate of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

L. Mayencourt: I recently had some meetings with a number of charities that reside in my neighbourhood, which provide some very valuable services. Some of the questions that resulted from that I would like to canvass the minister on in terms of estimates.

The first issue that comes up for charities in my area, such as the West End Seniors Network and the 411 Seniors Centre, is the issue around bingo top-up. Their concern is that for a period of time, the gaming policy and enforcement division has been providing top-up to bingo charities to provide them with some additional funds. Can the minister please tell me what the policy is going to be on bingo top-up?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, in the service plan a year ago we were looking at the possibility that top-up would not continue, as a saving to government. What top-up is, is actually a grant program that subsidizes those charities in the bingo facilities of British Columbia. It was tied to an agreement with charities.

My challenge, given to me by Treasury Board last year, was to find ways to restructure how we did business so that I could protect the top-up. I can advise the member that we've done that. It was in the budget speech. The member can rest assured that for the charities in his riding and the other 2,500 charities around the province, top-up has been protected and will be protected.

The other issue that's coming up is the amount of moneys that a charity could apply for under direct access. I understand that there is some talk of a cap at $100,000. Could the minister please clarify that for the charities?

Hon. R. Coleman: That is not a change in policy. That policy has been in place for a long time. Organizations have been allowed to go up to $100,000. Those with provincewide programs, however, have been allowed to exceed the $100,000. That's where the confusion may be, but that is not a change.

The other question I have is regarding something that's maybe inappropriately called double-dipping, in which a charity might access bingo dollars as well as direct access. For those charities that have those two pools that they draw money from, it is a concern. If they lost one of those, how would they make up for any lost revenues? Could the minister clarify for those charities what we are doing on the issue of double-dipping, direct access and bingo dollars?

Hon. R. Coleman: There was a paper that went out that, frankly, wasn't for public digestion at the time that it went out and that has caused some confusion with regards to charities. We are not eliminating one group from one stream or the other. They will still be able to access both streams.

L. Mayencourt: I live in a community that has three schools. They are inner-city schools, and they have parent advisory committees. Sometimes I've found in my travels through the province that not every school has a parent advisory committee, and not every parent advisory committee has the people with the skills to be able to fill out a gaming application. I really believe that parent advisory committees should have access to gaming dollars as a way of supporting enhanced services within those schools, particularly for those that are inner-city or may not have the kind of skill set to put forward an application.

Will the minister give us some clarification on what he's going to be doing in terms of PAC, parent advisory committee, eligibility for gaming access?

Hon. R. Coleman: As we did our review of the direct access program, one of the things we identified is that there was a huge, disproportional amount of success between PACs with regard to receipt of money from direct access either because they had access to material or larger PAC groups in larger schools — whatever the case may be. We looked at it and determined — as I went through the province area by area and riding by riding — that there were some ridings receiving as much as 1 percent and 2 percent of the total amount of money and others receiving huge percentages of the total amount of money we gave to PACs last year.

What we did was basically first take the approach of how much we were going to allow for PACs in the province. We've decided that should be about $20 a student. Before, if you actually got a grant in and you got approved, you got $40 a student. We then took that process through a committee and through discussions and came to the conclusion that in fairness, it would be best if every PAC group in the province, by their student population, receive $20 a student directly to their parent advisory council early in the school year. Although some schools don't have PACs, they will be encouraged to start them and to set up their board and bank account. When they have, they will be eligible for the funding as well.

The good news about this is that this is simply a case of a PAC being identified and existing in a school with the proper bank account and board, and then they will all be funded. Without having to go through an onerous grant application process, we will be funding PACs across the province. Whether you are in Bulkley

Valley–Stikine or whether you are in Vancouver-Burrard, you will be treated the same across the province by school, and you will all receive an equal amount of funding based on your student population.

It is very good news about the stability it will create for PACs to know year upon year whether they will have funding available. You will find in the history of the direct access program that some people in PACs would receive money this year but maybe did not receive it last year or the year before and vice versa. This will give them the stability and the knowledge.

In addition to that, as we went through that process, we became really aware of the fact that there is a group in the middle between the provincial parent advisory council and the school parent advisory council. They are the district parent advisory councils. They have no access to any funds unless a school board actually gives them some money for small operating…. This is the group that actually brings together the presidents and executives of PACs in each district and gives them an opportunity to share ideas on fundraising and how they can improve different programs in their school — ideas they can have. We've decided we will give a small amount of money to every district PAC in the province so that they can pay for the bare essentials that they're saying they can't pay for today unless they get money donated back by the PACs.

I think we've actually struck a really nice balance. We will be advising all the PACs as we move forward how this will work for them, but there will be some disciplines in the market. There will be some notice of a small application that says, "This is who we are. This is our bank account. This is the board," so that we at least know we're sending the money to the right place. One of the anticipated questions that may come out of this discussion is: will you send the money to the principal of the school if there's no PAC? No, we will not. We will only be sending money to the PACs for use as the PACs see fit.

L. Mayencourt: I think that's really good news for many schools in British Columbia, because it is equitable, it provides for some stable funding year over year, and the application process can be quite onerous for those schools. It's also good news for the DPACs, the district parent advisory committees, so I'm grateful to the minister for that.

Can the minister let us know how a school that does not have a parent advisory committee will become aware of the fact that there are funds set aside for them? How will we be notifying them?

Hon. R. Coleman: In a number of ways. First of all, we will be advising all the schools and the provincial parent advisory council people about this change. They are expecting it. We will also be advising all existing PACs, because we actually do have a pretty good record of who they are, if they have applied with us. Obviously, we will let school districts know this. Hopefully, the MLAs will take the opportunity to advise their different PAC organizations of this great opportunity they have facing them for their communities. We wouldn't want any school to go without this opportunity in the province of B.C.

L. Mayencourt: I personally will take you up on that one, and I'm sure many members here will want to be able to inform their PACs of that good news.

This next item I wanted to ask the minister about is the issue of the variety of categories under which someone becomes eligible to apply for a gaming grant. I understand there's some talk about a reduction in the number of categories, and I'm concerned that might result in some people, who currently receive gaming funds, being disqualified. I would like to know, first off, what the rationale is behind the reduction in the number of categories. Secondly, is there anyone currently eligible for gaming funds who is going to become ineligible as a result of those changes?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are presently 11 categories of groups that are eligible for gaming funds in the province. They will all still be eligible. What we are doing, though, is collapsing the categories into four categories. Within the four categories, all 11 will be eligible. The reason we're doing that is that we want to go, in the next fiscal year, to a quarterly intake. We will take a quarterly intake in each of the four categories that will cover off those 11.

We will do the quarterly intake so that we can actually be comparing application to application within a category, versus what's happened in the past, where applications were coming in at different times of the year. That will allow us to do two things. It will increase our efficiency so we can get it down to what we hope will be a 12-week-or-less process period, so the money can be stable and get into the hands of the groups or the organizations as quickly as possible. It will allow us, within each area, to assess the applications as to the community benefit to the programs that they're going to fund. That's what this is about. It is a grant program. It will also allow us to basically streamline our process and management.

Now, having said that, we recognize that in year 1 of going to quarterly intake, there will be some groups in the first quarter or second quarter or even third quarter who would normally have received their funds early and who need them for their programs to pay for them in this fiscal year. We are, therefore, going to transition any groups that are affected by quarterly intake so that they can get their money earlier. We will take care of everybody — keep them whole — and then adjust to the entire quarterly intake process by the next fiscal year.

L. Mayencourt: I have a number of charities within my community that provide really valuable and important service. I think of B.C. Persons with AIDS Society, AIDS Vancouver and the 411 Seniors Centre Society. These people also receive funding from other govern-

ment sources — through the Ministry of Health, through Vancouver coastal health authority, etc.

They have a concern that as a result of receiving a fairly significant chunk of their operating dollars, changes might affect their ability to access gaming dollars. Specifically, they use those gaming dollars to deliver not their core services but, rather, the enriched services. It might be a shopping service for a senior. It might be a hospice program for someone living with HIV/AIDS.

Will those charities still be able to apply for gaming dollars for those programs for which they do not receive funding from a government source or for which they receive less than 50 percent, for example?

Hon. R. Coleman: This has been one of those actual portions of discussions in and around grant programs for some time, as to how you actually manage them. One of the challenges we recognized as we looked at the program was, in fact, that people were looking at a grant program as basically a guarantee for the operation of their society or whatever the case may be.

We looked at this from a number of aspects. We looked at it from the aspect of how, when we give out a grant, it's for a particular program funded by an organization within the community — whichever one of those organizations the member mentioned — not their core funding but for programs they may have, like you described, for seniors or whatever the case may be.

We feel that an organization should have some community support and involvement. We looked at the possibility of saying that if organizations were actually receiving more than 50 percent of their entire dollars from various sources of government, maybe we should look at how we would do direct access with them. We've raised that bar to 75 percent. As long as an organization has some other value in it that's coming from a variety of sources that can be reflected and they're not receiving more than 75 percent of their money from government, they'll be fine.

Having said that, we are going to allow things like goods in kind, volunteer labour and that sort of thing to be accounted for as charged back as part of the contribution to the organization. We know we may find some that are on the edge, and we're going to help them with that as we go forward. The intent of the program is not to have it where 100 percent of the dollars are coming from a particular grant program. We'd like to see them also have money coming from other sources where they raise it within the community from whatever means they do or they actually have volunteer labour in kind or materials in kind so they balance it off.

We think we've struck the balance there. We're going to work through that. We know we have some issues in and around transition houses, which we've already addressed. We're going to find a way to deal with that one, because we know they have to change their accounting somewhat so they can get to the percentages and be comfortable. We'll work with all the organizations to make that transition fine.

L. Mayencourt: Just to get a further clarification, we're talking about programs as opposed to global funding for an agency. Is that correct? Okay. Then the other question I have is: how soon will it be before those charities — unless they're watching, of course; they'd know today — that are affected by these proposed changes will know what the ramifications are for themselves?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I don't think there are ramifications for any charities. I think we're okay with the formula we've selected. If we find one there that isn't, we're certainly going to work with them to solve that ramification for them.

We expect that the charities will actually receive a letter in writing from us within this week advising them about the quarterly intake, about the fact that we protect the top-up, the fact that we've funded the entire agreement with charities and that the grant money actually goes up next year by the amount of the cost of living tied to the Vancouver index. It's all the good news, which is: "Folks, you don't have to worry. The money is still there. You're still eligible." Everything else will go out. Then we expect, obviously, to have some questions back. We'll deal with those concerns.

Frankly, if anything, I would say about the branch in this particular case and this portion of my ministry that I think they've done an exceptional job taking a program we were concerned about not being sustainable for the charities of B.C. and making it sustainable. Last year, for instance, we had well over 300 or 400 charities that did not receive money from direct access because we ran out of money early. By actually managing the program better, we were able to fund close to 400 additional charities this year through this program while still funding the organizations we funded in the past. I'm pretty comfortable that we'll continue to be able to do that.

L. Mayencourt: I'd like to move on to community police offices for just a moment. I had a meeting earlier today in which someone said we had cancelled funding to the community police offices. That's not quite my recollection. I'd like to get from the minister what is available to community police offices in the city of Vancouver. I know that we have been helping them in a shared arrangement with the city of Vancouver for a while. Can the minister please clarify what is available to the Vancouver community police offices right now?

Hon. R. Coleman: The issue the member is dealing with is really a Vancouver-only issue. Back in about 1996, as an announcement of a day where I think the ministry was making announcements to…. I don't know whether it was press releases or announcements or whatever the case may be, but $150,000 for the community policing offices grant was announced for

1996. It was announced by the then Attorney General. It was supposed to be one-time thing. It continued on.

There are 18 community policing offices in the city of Vancouver. Last year I met with the then mayor of Vancouver and explained to him the situation — that I thought the funding for community policing offices should be fair for all communities. The community of Mission or the community of Langley or the community of Surrey doesn't receive extra funding for the community policing offices from government.

We do have a program where, by making an application, community policing offices are entitled to a grant of up to $5,000. They have to make the application. They actually have to tell us what they're going to do with the money. We like to make sure those offices are interacting well with the police and they're performing the function that's comfortable for the police as far as their relationship with the community policing offices. When we do those grants, we actually ask for feedback and endorsement from law enforcement within the community about how well this is working for them.

We changed that grant, and we will now make Vancouver, like any other community, eligible the same way. That is, they can apply for the up-to-$5,000 grant. Each one of those community offices would be allowed to do that. The city can choose to match it in whatever way it wants, just like they do in any other community.

L. Mayencourt: My final question to the minister revolves around the Residential Tenancy Act. We have an act that was approved in the last session. At this stage the minister is dealing with issues around the regulations. There are two issues that keep coming up in my community, and I'd like to get the minister's response to those.

First off, I want to know how we are dealing with the tenant and landlord associations. How are we working with them to find the rent fairness item? Out in the community we have some fears that tenants might see unfair rent increases. Frankly, I've worked really hard to make sure we have fair rent legislation, and I think it's covered in this act.

The other issue that comes up again and again is the issue of retroactivity. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the status is of the talks that are going on between landlords and tenants to find a fair balance for the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and landlords in the province.

Hon. R. Coleman: The regulations have not been written for the Residential Tenancy Act as yet. We are still in the middle of consultations. Our staff are out meeting with both the tenants groups and the industry groups, and we're receiving input back towards those regulations. There have been some concerns in and around the issue the member has described. We're going to look at those as we move forward with the writing of the regulation, and I will keep him apprised of those initiatives as we move forward.

We're not in a position to make a comment today, because regulations have to come to cabinet. But as we draft them, we are taking those concerns into account.

J. Kwan: I understand that we sort of switched the agenda a little bit in order to accommodate the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has to head back to Vancouver. Perhaps before we begin, the minister may want to make some opening statements and introduce the staff with him, and I have a series of questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate that. I do know the other member had to leave, and we will get used to that.

I will introduce my staff. The reason I look behind me is because Derek Sturko, who is the director with regard to the gaming policy branch, was behind me. He has now left. He has been replaced by Gary Martin, who is with compliance and consumer services. Also, I have Deputy Minister Alison MacPhail beside me and Assistant Deputy Minister of Management Services Jim Crone here to my left. Behind me is the director of resource analysis branch, Barbara Kaiway.

I will now continue on with my opening remarks. Our government has made public safety a key priority. Over the past year we've been working to reform public safety in the face of significant challenges and to keep spending under control without compromising essential services, and we are experiencing success. Over the past year we have made some significant gains in carrying out our action plan. Here's a brief summary of what we have done.

Consolidation of correctional facilities, January 2002. Correctional facilities were not operating at capacity. They were not operating even at close to capacity in some areas. Therefore, efficiencies and cost savings were possible through consolidation of facilities. Some facilities that were old and updated were closed, and savings were achieved by not upgrading these facilities. That allowed for more correctional resources to be focused on supervising high-risk offenders.

In gaming, management restructuring and introduction of new gaming policies and a new gaming act in March 2002. That eliminated the duplication by consolidating five gaming management agencies into two. It improved the accountability and saved administrative costs. It protected the consistency in distribution of gaming funds and gaming revenues to charities.

The amendment of the Name Act in April 2002 was to prevent people with criminal records from changing their name to avoid criminal-record check detection. It improved public safety as a result, and it closed a loophole that allowed people with criminal records to change their names and hide their criminal pasts.

The restructuring of victims services in June 2002 was the establishment of 24 new programs — both specialized and police-based victims programs — and a new 24-hour, seven-day-a-week crisis line to be im-

plemented this year. More programs in more communities throughout B.C. is a result. The elimination of duplication and funding inconsistencies, actually measuring the success of programs within communities and what they were directed to, and the preservation of current funding in totality for victims programs within my ministry….

Vehicle impoundment for street racing in June 2002. It was to work on increasing the public safety. It provides more tools for police to fight street racing by allowing them to impound for up to 48 hours vehicles of those who are involved in street racing. This gets dangerous drivers and dangerous vehicles off the streets immediately. We also allow for up to two years of suspension by police in cases of street racing with a 24-hour line to the superintendent of motor vehicles, and we doubled the points for excessive speed.

The new crime victims assistance program in July 2002 increased the range of programs available to victims. There is more flexibility to target victims funding where it is needed the most; faster adjudication of claims, so benefits reach victims faster; and alliance with other jurisdictions by removing pain and suffering awards, which are unfair, difficult to judge and time-consuming and which revictimize the victim.

Liquor law reforms in August 2002 through to December 2002 allow liquor inspectors now to focus on public safety issues, including service to minors, overservicing, overcrowding and illegal sale of liquor. It simplifies and streamlines the licensing process. It will stimulate the economy, support tourism and help small business. It improves choice and flexibility for consumers.

The modernization of the Residential Tenancy Act legislation, October 2002, increased the clarity and protection of tenants and landlords. It will revitalize the rental housing market. It fulfils a new-era commitment to modernize the Residential Tenancy Act to properly protect the interests of landlords in plain language so everyone can understand. It will reduce the needs for arbitrated disputes. We've done a separate act for manufactured home park tenancies. We anticipate the further consultation on the regulations to be finished this spring and our regulations to be ready by early summer.

Formal inauguration of the integrated Esquimalt police force and the amalgamated Esquimalt-Victoria police force in January 2003. This enhanced public safety by putting two police forces together. It allowed for cost-efficiencies, effective use of policing resources, less duplication, and increased secure opportunities for the officers involved in both departments.

Agreement to review and enhance avalanche safety in February 2003, which is to enhance public safety, to support the economy and tourism, to establish a fair and effective regulatory environment, and to work, frankly, to put this thing in a stable, long-term funding relationship with both government and the private sector for the benefit of all British Columbians.

The expansion of PRIME, the police records information management environment, which just took place in February 2003. Legislation has been brought to the House to make it law that there will only be one police records information management environment in British Columbia. All police forces will be on it. It will be the first time in history that we are aware of that a jurisdiction has actually had one system for all police forces and law enforcement in their jurisdiction. This will obviously enhance public safety. It will improve law enforcement capabilities. It will protect our citizens and communities from crime and give us the data management necessary to do policing in the twenty-first century.

In the future, we will maintain provincial police funding. We will ensure equitable enforcement and targeting of organized crime. We're going to continue to pressure the federal government to cancel the gun control registration program and allocate those resources to front-line policing enforcement. We will institute PRIME provincewide. We will review the cost of funding for police communities under 5,000 in rural areas in consultation, as we've just advised the municipalities a few weeks ago.

We are going to continue with the integration of police services where warranted, something that is a priority of the ministry — whether it be an integrated homicide team, forensic ident, dog teams or any other integrated team that's necessary across borders — so policing will not have boundaries and silos in its way in the effective management of policing in this province. It is absolutely vital that we do that, and jurisdictions across the province that think they don't want to participate should be aware of the fact that they will participate, because we're going to do what's right for our citizens, protect our children, protect our communities and deal with major crime.

In corrections we will rationalize probation services, seeking to reduce administrative costs while maintaining services. We will further the development of effective rehabilitation programs for our offenders, as we've done by taking a number of them in-house and working on consistent levels to make them successful.

There will be new legislation to reduce red tape in the marketplace, improve consumer protection and allow for self-regulation of certain sectors such as travel services, funeral services, etc., reducing government involvement. Our intention is to bring together a number of consumer legislations that exist out there with regulatory process to have it in one consumer transaction act so that we can actually manage the protection of consumers in this province in a better and much more integrated manner.

We have made significant gains in the second year of our three-year service plan, but there's still more to do. We'll continue to take action, making our streets safer; our homes, communities and schools better places to be; and giving our business community the flexibility and protections they need to thrive.

I am pleased with the work of my ministry in the past year, considering its considerable challenges with

regard to some serious investigations in policing and some costs with regard to the provincial emergency program. I think that we're moving in the right direction, and I am pleased to answer any questions the members might have.

J. Kwan: I have a number of areas on which I'd like to ask the minister questions. Perhaps I could start off with the gaming area first.

Over the last while I have been receiving numerous correspondences and phone calls from community agencies and so on around the gaming issues, some of which are now outdated, of course, because they were dated back to the year 2002 — September, November, June, October, etc. The issues surrounding those were primarily around the processing of applications. Even though people were approved for their gaming dollars, they were not able to get the dollars. Those issues have now been resolved, but I just want to ask this one question, though. I'm not going to read all of these onto the record from each of the associations who sent me letters then, because it's now outdated. I can only assume that all of those applications have been processed. We also made calls to the gaming branch to inquire about it, and we know that some of them have, such as East Side Family Place as an example.

I just want to ask a broader-scoped question relating to that. Is it the case and is it a safe assumption that those applications from last year have now all been processed, and those organizations that were qualified have now received their funding?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I have about 18 students from Kwantlen College. They are accompanied by their teacher, Joan Robertson. These students are new immigrants to this country. They're from India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, Poland and Ivory Coast. I would like the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: Unless they're an application that's for next year, they would have been processed within the last 12 weeks. My understanding is that we have nothing that is older than 12 weeks within the branch. Anything would be for next year. If the member has a specific one — I offer the same to any member of the Legislature — you can contact me, and I will get you the exact details of the status of any application that's before the branch. My understanding is that we have now processed all applications for funding for this year. We know how much money we've spent, and we have now completed our funds.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise how much money has gone out the door for the gaming funds from last year? In this last 12-week period, in the year leading up to it, how much money has been approved for gaming, and how does it break down in terms of bingo moneys, direct access, etc.?

Hon. R. Coleman: This year for direct access, we distributed $61.5 million. Next year that figure will be $65 million. The total guarantee that was put together back when the member was in government related to gaming and charities, which is the top-up in the bingo and the direct access, is a total of $133.2 million this year and is expected to be $136.5 million next year.

Bingo top-up and bingo revenue combined this year was $71.7 million, and it's expected to be at $71.5 million next year. That difference would be as a result — we hope, as we've modernized the bingo sector — of the bingo halls making a bit more money, so the top-up reduces, which we automatically apply to direct access.

J. Kwan: Is it safe to assume that the formula in calculating how much money would go into non-profits…? Has that changed?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it hasn't changed. What we did this last year is that we certainly were a bit more rigid on the use of the funds. We looked at records to see if they had actually used last year's funds, and we are approving the funds that had to go out. When I became the minister the first year, we were basically six months into the fiscal year and out of money for direct access, and about 400 to 500 charities couldn't get money in that particular fiscal year.

By disciplining it and watching that the funds were actually being spent on the programs they were supposed to be and by making sure that the previous year's funds were used, etc. — and, I frankly think, because of some good management at the branch — we managed to fund an extra close to 400 charities over what we did last year. We have kept the funds sustainable until now, which is quite an accomplishment, given that we've actually had money for four or five months longer.

J. Kwan: Is it possible for the minister to provide us with a list of the organizations that were approved for the gaming funds and for how much? Instead of me going down through a long list of organizations that have written me, it might be easier if I just get the list and can cross-reference it myself.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that list is available. We will get it to the hon. member with regard to both top-up and bingo. When we generate the list, it also shows you which ones made money in charitable gaming, which isn't applied to either of those aspects. We're more than happy to provide the list for the province. It would amount to about 4,000 to 5,000 charities in the province

J. Kwan: I'd like to thank the minister for that information. It would just be easier instead of us asking each question about who got approval and who didn't, etc. On the flip side of that, could we also get the list of the people who were rejected?

Hon. R. Coleman: We believe we can generate that list for you. If we can, we will. Otherwise, we will give you a briefing on who might not have been eligible.

J. Kwan: Then on to potential changes to the gaming policies. The opposition also received a number of letters and heard a number of concerns from the communities who were anticipating changes, perhaps, to the gaming policies. These concerns deal with issues around delays in processing, the increased complexity of the application process — the concern is creating inequitable access to gaming funds — changes in eligibility that may disqualify organizations or reduce the funds they receive, the possibility of a capping of direct access grants at $100,000, removal of the top-up funding, removing the proceeds from electronic bingo and the requirement that gaming funds only be applied to programs or organizations that receive 50 percent or less of their revenues from government. These are just some of the concerns that people have raised.

I'd like to canvass with the minister around potential changes in policies. I have a document with me that actually quotes the minister on a number of points. I wonder whether or not this is now the new policy that the minister has put forward. The document is from the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming. It highlights the reply from the minister on February 27, 2003. There are many points, so I'll go just through them one by one.

According to this document, the following points have been made by the minister. One is that he has managed to protect the entire commitment to charity bingos, top-up and direct access along with the annual cost-of-living increases.

Should I just go through it one by one and then have the minister answer? You have that document. Okay. The second issue goes on to say that no groups will be eliminated from being eligible. The third point is that a move to quarterly intake and direct access will, however, transition any groups that need their grant earlier. The parent advisory committee will now receive $20 per student instead of $40. Formerly it was $40. Now there's a reduction, essentially, of 50 percent of that fund. Groups will be able to access both bingo and direct access.

Maybe I'll just stop there. Those are the first five points, if the minister could comment on them.

Hon. R. Coleman: Most of these questions were asked by the member for Vancouver-Burrard just a little while ago, so I will walk through them again.

I have the member's letter from February 2003 with regard to this, and I'll deal with her points as well. The one question the member, as she went through that…. We protected the top-up funding. That was in the budget speech. That still includes electronic bingo as part of the money that goes to charities in that package. None of that has changed. That money is protected.

As to groups being eligible, they're all remaining eligible. What we're doing is…. We have 11 different eligibility categories now. We're going to collapse those into four, but all 11 groups will still be eligible within the four so that we can go to a quarterly intake, manage our funds better and actually speed up our application approval process. One of the challenges when we do that, as I said to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, will be that some groups that need their funding in quarter one may be in quarter four. If that is the case, with anybody that has difficulty with that, we will transition early so that they will not be stressed with regard to the operation of their charity. That's a quarterly intake.

The member's take on the $20 per student is actually an unfair comment with regard to going from $40 to $20. In the past, parent advisory councils could only get money from gaming by actually filling out a grant application, and the cap was $40 per student. They actually had to go through the whole grant application process, which proved onerous for a number of schools, particularly inner-city schools and those who maybe didn't have the technology or the assistance on a strong PAC to do it.

We found, when I did my analysis, that there was a disproportionate amount of money from riding to riding and school to school. By doing this $20 per student, we will actually put $3 million additional into parent advisory groups in B.C. next year. I think last year we gave about $9 million to parent advisory councils, and this year, with 600,000 students, that would be $12 million, so an additional $3 million will go out to PACs. The difference will be that PACs globally, wherever there is a PAC, will be eligible for $20 a student. It doesn't matter whether you are a school in Bulkley Valley–Stikine or a school in Langley or a school in Vancouver, you will be treated the same by simply providing us with your bank account information and your board information, and we will forward the funds to the PAC for the school. This is something that most PACs I've spoken to are very excited about, simply because it actually lets them know they're going to have this funding year on year. One of the things that happened in the past was that a PAC might get $40 a student this year, and the next year they applied they weren't eligible or there wasn't enough money for them, and they didn't get it the next year. They weren't getting it every single year and not all schools were getting it, simply because they weren't all applying.

One of the things we've done with this is do that, plus provide some small amount of funding for district parent advisory groups so that they can coordinate PACs in the area, with regard to PACs. In actual fact,

what we've done with PACs…. My understanding is that the provincial PAC groups are comfortable with it, the DPACs are, and certainly the PAC groups that I've met with are as well. They actually see this as something that says: "We all know now. If we're a school of 300 students in some small rural community, we can have $6,000 for our PAC. We know that money's coming, and we can plan for those students." I think, frankly, it's very fair to do it that way, so every school is funded versus having what would be classified as winners and losers with regard to the PAC funding on an annual basis.

Your other questions were basically about the delay in processing and application of funds, which was in your letter to me. We are down to 12 weeks of process now. We're doing very well with that. The whole idea behind going to quarterly intake is so we can reach the goal of being 12 weeks or under, for every application that comes to government, to process and have the money back in the hands of charity. Basically, as a result of that, we think we can take care of the complexity issues that you've mentioned.

There has always been a capping of $100,000 in direct access grants with regard to individual organizations. It's the provincial organizations, with provincewide programs, that are allowed larger amounts of funding. We still do that. We've worked with each one of those as we've worked through that, as we've been discussing this. The whole goal in dealing with this is to make it sustainable for as many charities as possible in British Columbia to receive money from direct access bingo funds in this province.

J. Kwan: Just to clarify, then: the organizations will be capped at $100,000. That's direct access. The provincial cap will be at $250,000. With respect to organizations that make more than $250,000 through licensed gaming in the last 12 months, is it the case that they would not be eligible for direct access?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, yes. The capping on the direct access, $100,000, has always been there. The $250,000 has always been there, in policy. Over the years that may not have been standardized or managed correctly, but in actual fact, that's the way it is supposed to be with regard to the direct access grants. This is basically how these grants have been operated for the last number of years. This isn't a change.

J. Kwan: The second part to that question was about the ineligibility for direct access if people get $250,000 or more through licensed gaming in the past 12 months. Is that the case?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that's true. The direct access program has always been to try and fund programs on the basis of merit within the community. But if you have somebody that's making $1 million in licensed gaming in B.C., and organizations that need the funds…. That's why we've actually controlled that cap — so we can make sure the organizations that are in need of the money can get access to the money.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, there is no cap on those forms of gaming. As a matter of fact, it was one of the changes I made early on. I think the member might be familiar with the argument. It was always around the seniors lottery. In the seniors lottery they actually had a cap of how much they could make. If the first two in a given year were too successful, they were actually not allowed to run their third lottery in the year. We removed that in December of 2001 so that they would be able to have…. If they're successful, they're successful, and we encourage them to be successful.

J. Kwan: On the issue around the 50 percent funding source, if your funding is 50 percent or less from government agencies — federal, provincial or a combination — then you're eligible for gaming funding. If you're over that 50 percent in terms of your revenues from a government source, then you're not eligible for any gaming funding. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not correct. That was in the initial discussion document. We raised that to 75 percent. There are some organizations that will be above 75 percent just by the nature of the service they give, like transition houses.

In order to make that calculation, any goods or services in kind and any volunteer labour will be allowed to be added to their financial statement to reduce the amount of money, as a credit for moneys that are not coming from government. By looking at our package, we think that 75 percent…. We actually don't affect any charities at all with regards to access to the money, but it does put a standard in place.

J. Kwan: The 11 categories that the minister mentions, which have been reduced to five. Are these the categories — human and social services, public safety, arts and culture, protection of the environment, and PACs?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's art, culture and sports, but she's correct. We feel the 11 existing categories can all fit within those four categories, plus the PACs. The other thing we will allow for, if we have the funds, is access to capital for capital projects in communities. Our experience so far is that the programs and the grants have such a large demand on them by groups that we haven't experienced having money left over to make capital matching grants.

J. Kwan: The old categories that have been eliminated from direct access are health care facilities, foundations, post-secondary organizations, adult sport, education streams and religious organizations. Are any of the categories that were formerly part of the old

categories, although they've now been reclassified under the five…? Is it fair, then, to say that none of these groups would not be able to access any portion of the gaming funds, as long as they meet the earlier criteria we highlighted, which were the five that we talked about?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so we're clear, none of those organizations will be ineligible to apply with the changes. They will all still be eligible to apply now within the four categories versus the 11. No organization is being made ineligible as a result of these changes. They will all still be eligible to apply and get direct access grants.

J. Kwan: Okay. Is there a difference between access to bingo funds, electronic or otherwise? Why I ask the question is this: if there's a difference between electronic bingo funds versus non-electronic bingo funds in terms of access from non-profits to those funds — if there's a difference in application there…. I did get a letter from a couple of community groups that were concerned about that and who had heard the rumour — or speculation, if you will — that electronic bingo proceeds might actually be eliminated from the pot of funds which non-profits could access. Is that just a rumour, and is it completely false?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification for the member, I think I'll give you a full description so that we all understand bingo. In the bingo sector there is paper bingo, there's electronic bingo, and there's top-up. All of those combined form the amount of money that goes to charities within that sector of the charity gaming money. The electronic bingo is not being removed. It is still there as part of the revenue to charities. The paper bingo is not being removed. It is still there as a revenue to charities. There are still the top-up grants, which amount to about $35 million a year to charities.

Our hope is that we see growth in the paper and the electronic part of the business so that we can reduce the amount of top-up, which then allows us to increase the money that we give in direct access because one grant just flows over to the other. We are not affecting the revenue. We're not taking out the $10 million that we presently do in electronic bingo and reducing it to charities. It's staying in there as part of the total calculation.

J. Kwan: Is it safe to say, then, that all of the sources of gaming funds — whether it be paper bingo, electronic bingo or otherwise — are available to all non-profit groups who wish to make an application? The only difference in terms of the fluctuation or the amount of dollars would actually be an increase in the amount to the funding pot and not a decrease, and the increase is projected on the basis of increased revenues in gaming generally. Am I understanding that correctly in the short form?

Hon. R. Coleman: You are correct. The revenues and the dollars that are presently available to charities are still available to charities, plus the increase that I alluded to earlier, which is the amount of money related to a cost-of-living increase that's in place in the agreement to charities each year.

Last year $133.2 million from direct access, electronic bingo, top-up and paper bingo went to charities. Next year it will be $136.5 million. That's our estimate. That has been done, just so the hon. member knows, in light of the fact that…. Even though some people think we're actually seeing increased revenues in gaming, the Lottery Corporation actually projected net revenue to be less in this fiscal year than it was in the last fiscal year. We still managed to…. Going outward, now that we have allowed…. Now that they will hopefully build their business case, we will see some of these things balance out. We are protecting the money to charities in direct access, top-up, paper bingo and electronic bingo.

J. Kwan: I know I said I wasn't going to go through group by group, and I'm not going to, but there are two groups who have specifically asked me to raise these questions with you. One actually must be watching Hansard TV and sent up a fax to us with their question. I do want to ask these questions on behalf of these organizations.

The Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, known as PICS in its short form, wrote to me and raised the concern, amongst various other concerns, in relation to the gaming branch funding. They advised that they have been cut 70 percent in their funding, therefore reducing their resources and ability to service the broader community.

PICS, for the minister's information, is an organization that provides work particularly for the multicultural community and for people who are living in poverty, who are low income, who are faced with homelessness. Of course, they also work on housing initiatives as well, to that end. They also do advocacy in the area around employment, immigration, schooling, health, welfare, legal services and other related services.

This particular question, of course, is around the funding cut they have received. I wonder if the minister can provide answers to PICS in relation to the concerns they have raised with me.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am not familiar with the specific group or the specific reasoning for levels of funding. I would caution the member to understand that this is a grant program. In actual fact, therefore, it's not an entitlement program. People apply for their grants each year and are processed each year based on the merit of the program that they want funded or the amount of funding they want for any individual program. One of the cautions we always tell organizations when we actually send them their money is to make them understand that this is a grant for a particular

year, not a year-on-year-end funding envelope because direct access, as it was conceived by the former government and has been continued by this government, has been about grants to charities to put broad-based community benefit programs back into communities. What we will do for the member on this particular issue…. The director is here. He's made note of it. He will provide the member in writing with the details with regard to this particular organization at his earliest convenience. When there are 5,000 organizations getting various amounts of money out of a $133 million fund, it's pretty tough to pick one out and say that's the reason.

J. Kwan: Fair enough. What I'll also do, at the end of the estimates process, is send a copy of the letter I've received to the minister so that he can respond more specifically to that issue around the 70 percent cut for the organization.

Also, another group who has just sent the information over is the Inner City Women's Initiatives Society. They have been denied a direct access grant, and they were informed of the decision on January 27, 2003. This is another issue this particular organization has raised. I wonder whether or not the minister would have information on this one. Or is it similar to the previous one, for which the minister will ask his staff to look into the matter and get back to us?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a variety of reasons an organization could be denied direct access funding year over year. It could be that they haven't used the funding from the previous year and have put it into an account when it was supposed to go to programs, or it was used improperly for what it was directed within the grant. It could be that the financial statements or the status of the organization is not in order, or it could be that the program they're asking for money for is maybe not eligible, versus another year. What we will do for the member is….

There are two things you should be aware of. One is that if an organization is denied, there is an appeal process. They can appeal the denial. We will provide the information as to how they can do that. At the same time, we will provide you with the information with regard to this particular group and answer your questions.

J. Kwan: In fact, the documentation — I'm just going through it because it was just sent up to me — does highlight some of the reasons, in a January 27 letter to them, why they were denied access to the funds. The reasons range from the amount being asked was too high…. It goes on to talk about issues around non-funding of new programs and other eligibility criteria around different eligibility categories to which it would apply and so on. They, of course, in their own letter also put in their points of view on disputing the government's analysis of that. I will pass this letter on to the minister too, and perhaps the minister can get his staff to respond directly to the concerns that have been raised and the rationale to counter the government's decision in denying the funding to this particular group.

I'd like to actually move on, on the gaming side, to another sort of situation. I know of community groups who have been directed by government to go and try and find funding or resources elsewhere. This instance particularly relates to the area of child care. Organizations, as the minister knows, have been receiving funding cuts as well as a reduction in subsidies that impact parents and families in accessing child care support. To that end, some of the child care organizations have tried really hard to look for ways of how they can reduce costs to their organization.

One of the ways they came up with was to see whether or not they could get savings, and they're attempting to do that through administrative purposes. They are amalgamating — not the organizations but only the administrative piece of the organizations — in order to see if they can find some savings in doing that. One organization — I suppose you can say the head organization — will be doing the administration of, let's say, a subgroup of five child care centres who are delivering their own programs under their own non-profit society's mandate and so on. But in that process, the subgroups, the five groups, who are applying for gaming moneys have been told that they are no longer eligible because the umbrella group — the head group that is administering the funds for these five groups — has already received its maximum grant opportunities for gaming.

It doesn't make sense to me, because those non-profit groups have not become under one group. They are only getting the administrative piece assistance to see if they can save costs, yet they've been told they are not eligible for gaming. Could the minister please advise if that is still the case, or is there some error that's been made, and those groups ought to be eligible to apply for their own gaming funds?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, we feel we've addressed that concern in the way we're managing the program now. The challenge was, as a few of them came through — because direct access is program-based…. Let's say organization A, which is a non-profit society, applies for money for a program and is funded by direct access. That's fine. Organizations B, C and D could do the same for programs. They're delivering programs into the community. The challenge came along when the organization would apply for the administration costs — that being the umbrella group — and then get funded for some direct access money, and those same organizations again applied for administration that was already being delivered by a single body.

We think that for the day cares, the program delivery is eligible. We think that they're able to do this. If the member's got a specific example, I'm sure we can sit down and work through it with her. I know I've come across this question. As we went through this

J. Kwan: There may well be a misunderstanding. As I understand it, the group that I'm referring to — the head group that is doing the administration — is Britannia. Under Britannia there are a number of child care centres that have gone to Britannia to ask them if they would take on the administration piece to see if they can actually save costs.

The issue here is this, with Britannia as an example. They themselves have their own child care centre, which they run and have administration for, among other programs they also operate. They have made an application under their own name for their own organization. Having taken on with the other child care centres in collectively trying to find savings, they are applying, on behalf of the other groups, for the gaming funds for the other groups. Yes, part of it is administration, but even that administration still applies for these smaller groups. They still have administrative costs, right? They don't just say, "Okay, here you go, Britannia. Take it all," and there are no administrative costs associated with that. There may be reduced costs, but the cost is still there.

It really is not the case, though, that there's double-dipping. It sounded to me like maybe the issue the minister had raised is double-dipping. This is not the case. They're separate entities. They have their separate programs, to which they are applying for gaming funds — for their own respective programs. That's the issue that I want to canvass with the minister.

If we don't do this here at that level of detail about this particular group, I'd be happy to sit down with the minister's staff, go through that and see if that matter maybe has already been resolved or find ways in which we can resolve that difficulty.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the member has identified one of the problems of the previous way we handled these. If you had all day cares in a single quarter and you could measure the applications and the programs in a single quarter and you could work through those, that would be one thing. What we have now is that you might have organization A apply in April, one in September and one in December. At the same time, you're getting the other application, and then there could be some confusion.

What I would like to do with this Britannia one…. I mean, obviously, we can't solve it in this debate this afternoon, but we could look at Britannia, find out what the issues are and see how we can address those concerns. It's not the intent, by encouraging groups to share administration, that we hurt the programs they're funding through grants. One thing we have done, and people should be aware of it…. It is a grant program. Therefore, they shouldn't rely on their annual operating budget for grants as much as they should be looking at grants to provide the services of the programs in the community, which is the higher end on the scoring of the eligibility.

I guess you could run into some difficulties with it, but not knowing the exact and actual application — how many groups and who they are — it's not possible for me to give you the final answer. I think what we can do is arrange to look at Britannia and have someone sit down with the member or with the organization and see where these problems are running into and see if there's a way to solve them.

J. Kwan: Then I just want to make sure on a broad policy basis. In this instance I'm talking about Britannia, but there are other groups who may well be running into these kinds of problems as well.

On a broad policy basis in terms of this, if there is an umbrella group, a group who administers funds for a variety of non-profit groups…. This umbrella group, in doing that…. If they run their own programs, they are entitled to apply for gaming funds for their own programs. They are also entitled to apply for gaming funds for each of the individual organizations for which they are administering the funds on behalf of those organizations. Alternatively, those organizations themselves could make the application — just as long as they're not applying for the same funds for the same administrative tasks.

That is to say, the umbrella group is not applying for administration funds for those five organizations, and those five organizations individually are applying for administration funds separately. That, I can understand, is double-dipping. If that's not the case, if one group or the individual five groups are applying on their own for administration for their own programs, they're entitled to do so, and it does not preclude the umbrella group from applying for administration funds or gaming funds for their own programs, for their own organizations.

Hon. R. Coleman: As long as they're a group that is eligible to apply. One of the mistakes some of these groups made is not what the member is describing but another situation, where two or three came together and decided to become one society. When they became one society, only one society could apply for the gaming funds. If they're a non-profit society and they're eligible for the funds, they can apply. Whoever helps them with the application is entirely up to them as far as I'm concerned.

We would measure those based on the merit of the program that they wanted to deliver within the community. If you are the management society but you also have your own stream of programs, I see no reason why you wouldn't be eligible to apply for that stream of programs as well. We will certainly sit down and look at this particular example and see if there are any difficulties with it.

J. Kwan: I just want to be clear that that is the case. Otherwise, it's almost like the smaller groups, who are looking for ways to save moneys by getting a man-

agement group…. That's actually a better word than the "umbrella" group, because "umbrella group" actually implies that somehow they've amalgamated into one group. By looking for ways to save moneys by a management group, they're actually penalizing themselves by losing out on access to gaming funds. I appreciate the confirmation that in fact these groups would not be penalized and that they would be entitled to apply for gaming funds as long as they're not one organization.

In a similar vein but in another area…. This would be in relation to women's centres. The women's centres, of course, have also received tremendous cuts in funding for their programs, and many of them are struggling deeply out in the community. A source of potential revenue was, of course, the direct access gaming funds. First of all, the issue that they raised with me was that these funds came four months later this year, and the amount allocated was less than half of the previous year's. Many were told, after applying in April 2002, that they would not receive funding until March 2003. There's a huge time lag in terms of when they actually receive the funds. The freeze of the funds, of course, adversely affects these organizations, and that, in addition to the provincial government cuts in this area, has a tremendous impact on the ability of these organizations to even survive. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, part of it is my fault, and part of it is the fact of sheer volume. First of all, I did put a short freeze on the issuance of gaming funds in April of last year while I tried to do a review of the program to see how I could make it sustainable. It was obvious that I wasn't going to be able to accomplish that in that short period of time, so I lifted the freeze. In addition to that, there were 1,000 more applications for direct access last year than there were the year before, so the whole sheer volume of the additional people that were wanting money from direct access had an effect on the processing time.

To the credit of the branch, they are back down to 12 weeks and with the quarterly intake are confident that 12 weeks is the achievable goal at the outside, being the worst-case scenario for the processing of applications in the next fiscal year. I think that the delay happened because of sheer volume — obviously trying to adjust to the process, to make it somewhat sustainable and to get us through to now, where we've actually been able to fund approximately 400 more groups this year than last. In the coming year I would expect the same pressures on direct access funding as in the past.

People have to understand that there is only so much money in the fund and that there are more people asking for it. I wouldn't be surprised if some groups don't get as much as they did the year before, because other groups are accessing funds as well. Somehow we have to manage the fund to keep it fair for charities and at the same time try to make it a balanced approval process.

J. Kwan: I take it that when I read out the February 27 documentation earlier, that is essentially the new government policy around gaming. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's basically part of that interactive relationship with the charities — saying where we think we can get to and what we're trying to accomplish. I would hope that we would be in a position to send out the total policy to charities within the next week or so, including the other items of discussion the member mentioned.

What the member refers to is part of the ongoing information sharing that goes back and forth and is also part of the discussion to try to let people not get misconceptions about…. There's one thing I've learned about non-profits, having been a member of a non-profit. The concern and rumour about a change is always stronger than what may be the reality. I think it's the role of the ministry and the branch, as we process through this, to try to let charities know where we think we can get to, and that would be part of that. But the whole policy is much more relative to what the member and I have discussed here today than what's in that particular document.

J. Kwan: I just want to ask the minister further questions around the gaming piece. In terms of consultation on changes to policies around access to gaming funds, what kind of consultation has the minister embarked on? Who has been consulted? The reason why I ask — and perhaps that's the reason why there's so much fear, I guess, and speculation and rumours out there about people maybe having heard this and that — is that people feel they have not been asked or consulted.

If that was done for people to understand what the impacts are with potential changes, then for a lot of these questions, on which we receive tons and tons of faxes and e-mails from people asking these questions, we could eliminate that fear in the broader community. Can the minister advise what kind of consultation process he has embarked on? Does he anticipate he will embark on a consultation process to let people know and also do an analysis with them so that they know, with these potential changes, what the ramifications might be?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's been pretty much an ongoing process for about 20 months now. Since I've became the minister, I've had different charity groups talk to me and what have you, but I'll give you just a more recent sketch. There are 20 major provincial groups with large numbers of people who were all consulted with the branch. They met with the branch, and they talked about the possibilities. Some of the ideas were floated, and they came back. Obviously, we listened, because

The B.C. building council had 250 people at the meeting that they met with. There have been hundreds of letters in correspondence that has come in from groups over the last number of years. I have spoken to provincial organizational meetings throughout the last 18 months, asking these groups to give us input with regard to charities and how it is working for them, how it isn't working for them and how it can be improved.

Now that we've been able to put this thing on a platform where we know how we can manage it, that we make everybody still eligible and that we have more money in actual fact next year than this year, I would anticipate that we will now be able to go forward and, again, listen to charities as we go through. I don't think this ever stops. With grant programs, you have to listen to the affected groups and how things can be improved for them on an ongoing basis.

They are the groups that are on the ground, giving the volunteer time to their communities. The goal of the ministry and of the minister was always to try and protect the money to charities in this province, to value them and to find ways to improve it for them. We will continue that process, and that means having whatever discussions with whatever group wishes to have those discussions with us, ongoing.

J. Kwan: It's interesting to note that one of the groups consulted was the building association. That is interesting to note. I'd like to ask….

Hon. R. Coleman: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I said building, and I didn't mean it. It's B.C. Bingo Council. There are 250 people with the B.C. Bingo Council — sorry — not the B.C. building council. I wouldn't know why…. I apologize for that.

J. Kwan: I was completely perplexed as to why the building council was consulted with some 250 people. I am glad for that clarification. It does my heart good.

Mental health service providers — were there any representatives in that consultation list?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were organizations that deliver services in the mental health communities at the different meetings we were at or that the branch was at, but whether it be a specific mental health organization, I couldn't give you the name at the moment. There were people we heard from, both by correspondence and what have you, and we've tried to take all of this into account.

Actually, I think by taking it into account, that's why we didn't make anybody ineligible, why we didn't change the eligibility of people, why we really did work to protect the bingo top-up so that all the charities would still remain whole and that we could move forward with a program that people will find easier to understand as we go forward and in the future adjust to the needs of the community as it changes.

J. Kwan: I'd like to make a request of the minister, actually, to contact the mental health service provider, which is the Association of Mental Health Service Providers. It's an umbrella group which includes, for example, the Canadian Mental Health Association, Coast Foundation, Katherine Sanford Housing Society, Kettle Friendship Society, Lookout Emergency, Mental Patients Association, St. James Community Services, Theo B.C. and Triage Emergency Services and Care Society.

They have written a letter to the minister with their concerns around proposed changes to the charitable gaming eligibility criteria, and they have cc'd this letter to the Minister of State for Mental Health, the CEOs of the Vancouver coastal and Fraser health authorities, as well as the gaming policy branch and all Vancouver and Burnaby MLAs. In it, aside from some of the concerns they have heard that there might be changes in these areas — which I won't go into again, because we've already dealt with that — they do highlight the issues around consultation and perhaps, more accurately, the lack thereof.

They're asking for assurance from the government that changes will not be introduced until there's a clear assessment of the impact so that people know what the impacts are for the potentially affected groups as well as other funding bodies that may have to pick up the resulting shortfall in finances. They're asking for consultation from the government, and I hope the government will undertake that and ensure that they are involved and that discussion is in place with this group of people.

Of course, ultimately, it's not just with this group of people but, broadly, with all the non-profit associations out there that would be impacted by the changes in gaming funds. I think people hope for that from a government that proclaims to be open and accountable. When those changes are being put forward and especially when they don't know what those changes are, there's a lot of fear and consequently a lot of speculation as to how they might be impacted.

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member wants to provide us a copy of that, we'll arrange for that meeting to take place. We have no problem talking to any group. I'm sure once we've met with them and they find out that there's no change in eligibility that will disqualify their organizations from applying for funds, a lot of their concerns will be allayed.

The one thing I've noticed in dealing with all of the sectors with regard to grant money is that rumours abound and abound. Those concerns are always there. That's why it's pretty well been open-door if an organization wishes to meet with myself or the branch to discuss their concerns. The director will take that list and make arrangements for those meetings to take place.

We will be moving forward obviously, because we're starting the fiscal year on April 1, and we do need to move into the application process and the processing process for this year so that no charity is doing without money in the next year and we can get it out to them within 12 weeks.

J. Kwan: I would ask the minister to also touch base with one other organization, and that's the Learning Disabilities Association. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition, had the great opportunity to meet with them. Some of the issues that they raised with us at that time the minister has already answered in terms of the delay and so on, but I would appreciate it if the government would actually undertake to touch base with that group as well.

Again, these community groups do such great work, and they're under such pressures, particularly funding pressures from government cuts, and the destabilizing of potential changes in gaming funding resources impacts them significantly. Potentially, even the matter of delay in accessing the funds could actually shut down an organization, just because they can't keep it going until the funds arrive. Those are the kinds of difficulties that people are faced with. I would appreciate it if the minister would touch base with this group, as well, and speak with them about their concerns.

Hon. R. Coleman: Of course we'll do that, but I just want to caution the member. The direct access funds are not a panacea for everybody's funding woes in British Columbia. There's only $62-point-some million that has to go out to probably 3,500 charities next year. It is not something whereby people should be looking at it as their long-term funding. It is a grant program; it is not an entitlement. It is a program that's based on the value of the program you are giving in any given grant application year to the community.

It's not just to the member opposite. It's for all members to understand that this is what this program actually is. What it was intended to do and what it does is fund programs with broad-based community benefit within communities for charities — whether it does it with a variety of charities. Obviously, when it's 5,000 organizations, it's a pretty wide variety. It's not something that should be always relied upon as being the exact amount of money from year to year because of the pressures or the measurement of individual programs within categories of funding. One of the concerns I had when I became minister was with people who thought that if they got X number of dollars last year, they should get the exact same dollars this year if they weren't providing a program that those funds were actually directed to.

To the member: we will sit down with the organization, and I'm sure our discussions have probably allayed their fears, because most of their questions will be the questions that have been floating out there for most organizations. My concern has always been how sustainable direct access is if another 1,000 additional organizations, like we had last year, actually applied for funding. It starts to become where the money starts to outstrip the applications.

B. Locke: My question is more of a broad-based question. In Surrey we have had significant and rapid growth. In terms of social safety net dollars, your ministry funds a number of worthwhile programs that enhance the work of the police, victim services and other community-based programs. My question is, and my concern is: how are those funds allocated so they are delivered in an equitable fashion amongst all communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was exactly that question that led me to ask for a review of victims programs last year — how they were measured in the community and how we were going to measure them in the future. That's what we've been doing. In your community we fund a community-based program, which is a specialized victims program and police-based victims programs.

We did find communities which had, for instance…. One example is Columbia River–Revelstoke, where we had a specialized victims program in a community with under 5,000 people along the Highway 1, where we had a tremendous amount of fatalities and serious motor vehicle accidents and no police-based program. In speaking with and visiting the community, it became very clear from law enforcement people that the real benefit program in a community of that size and in that location would be a police-based victims program, because the police were dealing with substantial victims of trauma and needed to have some support. We readjusted the funds, so we could get a police-based victims program in there for them.

I'm pretty comfortable now with the community and police-based victims programs and the measurements we have in place, and we will measure them over the next year to see how they're doing.

J. Kwan: I'd like to switch gears to a different area. This is in relation to a report that the minister might actually have a copy of. It's called To Serve and Protect: A Report on Policing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. It is put together by a group called Pivot, which is advancing the interests and improving the lives of marginalized peoples through law reform, legal education and strategic legal action. First of all, let me just ask the question: has the minister received a copy of this report?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the ministry has just received it. We have encouraged the people in the report, because there are some serious allegations in there, to provide the information through the normal channels — either through to the Vancouver police department or, if they're uncomfortable with providing it to the Vancouver police department, to the

police complaint commissioner — so the allegations can be properly investigated and dealt with.

J. Kwan: The report actually brings forward some very disturbing information. In fact, the letter they have written to me includes some of these concerns, which I'd like to express in this House on behalf of the group and ask the minister some questions following from it.

It goes on to ask about the government's legal obligation to address these concerns and looks forward to, of course, a response to the matter. This is the letter that was sent and the document that was sent associated with it. There are lots of issues around it for individuals in terms of police misconduct, brutality. There are some affidavits in here — excerpts, if you will, in the report — that talk about it. Also, there is a series of recommendations.

I'm wondering whether the minister — aside from having other folks look at it, because it is my intent to actually send this document to the police complaint commissioner and have him review the matter and then respond to it as well…. Is there any inclination from the government, from the minister, with respect to addressing this issue from a ministerial point of view and also looking at the recommendations that have been put forward and perhaps making changes relating to the recommendations?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is well aware, because the member was in the former government that came up with the police complaint process, that the Solicitor General does not investigate the police. The member is aware of that. My understanding is that a copy of that report has been sent to the police complaint commissioner's office. If it has, I will check. If it has not, I will make sure one does.

There are 50 allegations, as the member said, within the report. They should be properly investigated. "Properly investigated" means that there has to be some specifics given to the police complaint commissioner so that the investigation takes place or to the chief of Vancouver, who is dealing with the other incident the member mentioned.

There is a process, as the member is aware of, as to how police complaints are handled in the province. They go to the department that the complaint is against. It can be dealt with internally. It can then go up to the police complaint commissioner's office. If there is an allegation, obviously the people who have the allegations against them have the right of the burden of proof for somebody to actually provide the specific names, times and information with regard to that.

I won't comment on the other investigation that the member mentions in the letter, because that is an investigation where the report has gone to the Crown with recommendations from the Vancouver police department, and it would be inappropriate for me to do that. It would also be inappropriate for me to judge the recommendations in that report when there is a police complaint commission process in the province. The member can rest assured that the information will be reported to the appropriate people.

Just so everybody in the House understands, the police complaint commissioner does not report to the Solicitor General. The police complaint commissioner is an officer of the Legislature and reports to the Legislature. It was structured that way to make sure it was an independent office with independent oversight. Hav-

ing been on the committee that selected the first police complaint commissioner, I am familiar enough with the situation to know this is something that has only been in place for about three and a half years.

We've just hired a new police complaint commissioner who has exceptional credentials and who, frankly, will look at the information and deal with it in a manner that's appropriate under the legislation.

J. Kwan: Actually, I have the report with me. The recommendations? Yes, there's a recommendation that calls for an audit, if you will, or an inquiry, if you will, around some of these issues, but many of them, I think, actually fall right within the realm and the policy decisions of the government and, therefore, the Solicitor General.

Before I get into all those recommendations, let me just backtrack a little bit here. It is rather shocking, really, if you look at the report and the information that's been provided from the report. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report. The report, as I mentioned, investigated or analyzed some 50 statements from individuals who experienced abuse by the authorities — namely, the police force — ranging from beatings, torture, unlawful detention, illegal strips, illegal entry into the homes and abusive language to unlawful confinement, and the list goes on.

To give you a flavour on the issue around torture as an example — infliction of torture — 12 of the 50 statements reported incidents in which members of the Vancouver police department used excessive and unjustified violence that meets the United Nations definition of torture. Six individuals reported broken bones or teeth. Eight others described incidents in which beatings took place after they had surrendered or were placed in handcuffs. This, of course, exceeds the authority under the Criminal Code, which is outlined clearly around the use of force.

Seven out of 50 statements indicated that individuals were being told to get out of town. This is categorized under "marching orders" and "starlight tours," as the street lingo is used in that instance. People were told to get out of town, had no-go zones imposed on them or were being arbitrarily transported by paddy wagon to a different part of town. Each of these limits on personal mobility breaches the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and can only lawfully be imposed by a court after a full and fair hearing. No hearings were ever held for these individuals. The police played judge and jury right on the street.

Some of the folks in my own community, as an example, when they were told that they had to get out of this part of town for whatever reason, might actually have been there because they're homeless, and they were actually seeking shelter in the area. There was an affidavit in here that actually indicated a case where a particular individual later on came back to the area because he was trying to access the shelter that he had registered to stay at. Then he ran into the same officers who had told him to get out of town to begin with and, of course, suffered the consequences of not abiding by the police marching orders.

Strip searches. Seven of the 50 statements reported incidents of illegal strip searches, where the police appear to have lacked any reasonable grounds for subjecting the person to the humiliation of being stripped naked and probed. Each of these incidents exceeds the narrow limits put on strip searches by the Supreme Court of Canada. In one incident the individual was left naked in public while the officers laughed.

Others include harassment of observers, which perhaps is one of the most chilling. In those seven cases, citizens who stopped to bear witness to incidents were ordered to leave and in several cases were threatened with illegal confinement or assault if they did not obey. While those acts constitute breaches of an individual's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they also demonstrate a clear intention by the Vancouver police department and its members to hide their abusive acts from public scrutiny.

There are many of these issues that have been highlighted in the report. It's not my intention to read every one of them, and I would certainly urge the minister to read this report, because it is revealing. I would actually urge all members of the House to read this report, because these are some of the issues that we're faced with in our community in the downtown east side, although not the only issues.

Now, getting back to the issues around the recommendations, the minister actually said that the recommendations should be properly dealt with elsewhere. I would counter that, and I would like to perhaps then ask the minister about the recommendations that have been put forward by the report to see what his response is. I think some of these recommendations fall right into the realm of the responsibility and the mandate of the Solicitor General.

The first recommendation deals with the mandatory reporting of force. It suggests that all officers who use force should be required to file a report documenting the reason for and the extent of the force, and these reports should be made publicly available with identifying information. That's recommendation number one from this report, so maybe we can just start with that. I'd like the minister's comment on this recommendation.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, these are serious allegations. Since they are serious allegations, the information should be provided as appropriate information with regard to these allegations so they can be investigated. I've already described the bodies for doing that.

The member can walk through that report for the next 45 minutes if she wishes. I will not be making policy decisions on the floor of the Legislature with regard to a report today. The police services division has that report. They will be giving me a briefing on their review and the recommendations in the report in the near future. That is the appropriate time for me to deal with them.

J. MacPhail: I just want to make a historical point on behalf of what my colleague is trying to do here.

Last year the members of the Liberal caucus reprimanded my colleague and me for missing the estimates of the Solicitor General and important policy matters that could have been discussed at the estimates at the time. In fact, I think the Solicitor General himself reprimanded the opposition caucus for not discussing policy matters during estimates.

It is with that in mind that this year we have taken the opportunity to discuss the very things that the Solicitor General said we should have done last year. Here we are. That's what we're doing.

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding of the estimates debate is to debate the budget of the ministry, the service plan of the ministry. That's what we're doing here today. To read the text of a report that's just been received by my ministry, which my police service division is reviewing and will be sitting down with me on, and to ask me to make the policy decision in the Legislature during the estimates debates…. I know that when the members opposite were in government, that was not something they would do. It's certainly not something I would do, because I would want to look at those policies within the ability to perform, how the policies fit with existing policy, how they fit in with the operation of police and police services in the province. It's certainly not something you would do in a vacuum.

I am more than happy, after my meeting with police services division and a review of this report and the recommendations that this member wishes to identify to me — and she can put them all on the record if she wishes — to look at the recommendations she thinks my ministry should be looking at and to update the member on their status after I have reviewed the report with my ministry. We are not in a position today to debate that report, because we have not had it long enough, and we've not had the opportunity to substantively review the report.

Having said that, the allegations are serious. The allegations are serious enough that the persons that are making them should be going to the appropriate authority. If they're uncomfortable with going to the Vancouver police department, they can go to the police complaint commissioner. We can facilitate that meeting. The police complaint commissioner is an officer of the Legislature and has to make the decision on what he will investigate based on the statute he is responsible for.

I'm more than happy to make sure the police complaint commissioner has a copy of this report. I am told it has gone there, but I will make sure it's gone there and give him the opportunity to review it and take whatever action he deems appropriate.

R. Lee: I have a question on speeding. The minister took some steps last year to address reckless driving. It seems that the number of accidents has decreased, but we still read in the news media about tragedies caused by illegal car racing. Are there any considerations to impose even heavier penalties on illegal car racing and speeding in general?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member is aware, we put in place 48-hour seizure of motor vehicles on the first offence of speed racing last year and, on the second offence, seizures of up to 30 days. We have had 60 drivers who have had their vehicles seized since that was put in place. By calling a 24-hour line with the superintendent of motor vehicles…. The superintendent of motor vehicles is allowed to suspend a driver's licence on the side of the road for up to two years with regard to dangerous driving involving speed racing, and 180 drivers have received those roadside driving suspensions for racing.

In addition to that, there are other penalties under the Criminal Code where we get into dangerous driving and criminal negligence. I think we've actually put in place…. In addition to some of the other reviews like the graduated licensing, which is still under review right now, there are initiatives that will help us to reduce speed racing. I mean, obviously, this is an activity that we'd like to see go away completely.

Ironically, today I was provided with a copy of a legislative document. I believe it's from New Zealand or Australia, where they are actually looking at a piece of legislation to seize vehicles and do the same thing we're doing in North America with regard to speed racing between young people.

It is a challenge that will be ongoing and that we'll try and deal with. I think we've tried to manage it in an appropriate manner through education and some penalties. Police have not asked for any additional tools at this stage with regard to it.

Our attitude is that there's a zero-tolerance policy with regard to speed racing in B.C. We would like to see our young people not participating in it because of the danger that is there. I think we need time to see how the initial steps that we've made actually work their way through the system.

R. Lee: My other question is on substance abuse. Many of my constituents are concerned about substance abuse or drug problems. Are there any plans to raise awareness among youth on the damage to their health due to substance abuse and the problem of addiction?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have some programs that the police do, like the DARE program and educational programs in the schools. In addition to that, there's an ongoing relationship, I guess…. I would think most of the abuse or addiction issues would rest with the Ministry of Health Services or Health Planning or even Mental Health because of the people who are addicted. Through this ministry we do encourage our police to participate in whatever education programs there are to reduce the abuse and use of drugs. We will continue to do that. To deal with substance abuse and addiction is going to require, as everybody knows, a comprehensive plan cross-ministry and cross-jurisdiction — whether it be municipal, health authorities and governments at all levels, including the federal government — to find long-term strategies.

There has been some of that going on already with the health authority and with some of the issues being dealt with in Vancouver. I think we're all watching to see what programs could come forward and measure the ones that are successful and apply those in additional communities.

R. Lee: Continuing on education, often the education of youth, seniors and also women about public safety issues…. There is sometimes a lack of information in the community regarding education for those groups. Are there any plans in the ministry to have some kinds of programs among those groups for public safety and personal safety?

Hon. R. Coleman: The ministry funds programs for Block Parents, Block Watch and crime prevention societies, which are educational programs that go back into the communities and which lead to programs, as the member describes. We're continuing to do that. We actually doubled the amount of money we gave to the B.C. Crime Prevention Association last year, quadrupled Block Parents, doubled Block Watch and tried to get the moneys into the communities at the base, where the programs could be best delivered to as many people as possible.

R. Lee: My last question is on car theft. There are some kinds of suggestions on putting locks into the steering wheels of cars. Also, that would sometimes prevent car thefts. Also, for drunk drivers I heard that in the U.S., they have some device to put on the ignition system so that you cannot start a car if you are drunk. Are there any programs in cooperation with ICBC, for example, to reduce car accidents and also car thefts in those areas? That's my last question.

Hon. R. Coleman: There were a variety of questions within the question. I'll try and deal with them. Insurance companies do actually give discounts to people on their comprehensive with regard to providing either alarms or locking devices on vehicles so they can't be stolen. The member also mentioned the interlock device, which is a device that's recommended by some organizations with regard to impaired drivers not being able to start their vehicle if they have alcohol on their breath. We are looking at that as part of our overall review that we're doing with regard to impaired driving, whether they be repeat offenders or whatever the case may be.

The third one the member asked about is auto theft. We do have an auto theft task force that has been operating in conjunction with police, which they've put in place. It's had some success, particularly in pushing back at auto theft. When you're dealing with auto theft or other issues in and around that, whether it be in a relationship with the Insurance Corporation or the police, it has to come to a fully integrated model that can target enforcement to where problems are at a given time versus being stuck behind borders of municipalities and unable to react to crime. It's part of our integrated policing strategy. We will be looking at how we can deal with auto theft, with sex offenders, integrate a homicide investigation team — those sorts of things — as we move forward in policing.

J. Bray: First, I'd just like to offer an observation on the service plan in general. I think the Solicitor General and his staff are to be commended on a very detailed service plan that sets out a lot of very clear targets and measures and that provides a lot of information for people to have a look at. I'll certainly be directing my constituents to the service plan.

There are a few areas in the service plan that I'd like to canvass a bit further. For everyone's benefit, I'm looking at page 11 of the Solicitor General's service plan. This is an area that talks about public safety. Certainly, in our community we've had a few stories recently about some issues about offenders who have completed their sentences and are back on the streets, so it's a very topical issue in my community.

My first question is…. There is talk of an objective of reducing the risk of reoffending, and one of the strategies is providing core programs that target offender risk and need. I wonder if the Solicitor General can give us some examples of what those core programs are and how we are assessing them for ongoing success and improvement.

Hon. R. Coleman: There were two questions in one, I guess. One is with regard to people like sex offenders who have finished their sentences and are going back into the community. We do have an information notification policy with regard to people that we think have a likelihood of reoffending through assessment, those who have not taken some form of therapy while they've been incarcerated. We do that on a regular basis. We also, at times, do observe these people with regard to their possibility of reoffending to stop it before it happens. Those are all police issues that are based on risk management and how we will do policing with regard to those.

As far as the other programs, basically, they are…. I'll give the member some examples. We have some sex offender programs for counselling, spousal assault programs, anger management, respectful relationship–type programs. Our programs are implemented and used based on the latest research as far as being able to gain success. They are in an ongoing evaluation process and will continue to be evaluated. We think that with the way we've actually structured our programming with regard to offenders now, we will actually be able to get some evidence of the success and the evaluation of our programs so that in the future we will be able to adjust them to make sure they are as effective as possible.

J. Bray: I'm pleased to see that there is a focus on the reoffender and providing better programs. On the service plan, there is an outcome measure of a percentage of offenders who do not reoffend. My reading of

the chart says that the base result is 69 percent — the current analysis of people who do not reoffend — and I see that we move in the out years to 70 percent of people who do not reoffend. I'm wondering if the Solicitor General might advise us on what steps his ministry is taking to help improve that number and why we might not see even a greater number of offenders not reoffending in the out years of 2005-06.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is based on our risk needs assessment, measuring our core programming and looking at what the historical figures are. We feel we can continue to achieve the 70 percent of offenders who do not reoffend. Having said that, we should let the member understand the risk of statistics within the corrections system. We actually have other programs…. We may actually see from our core programming a further reduction within certain categories of people in our corrections system.

At the same time, we have to recognize that within the system, we have some challenges where our recidivism is driven by a lot of mental health issues and addiction issues, which are in addition to our needs assessment and our core programming. We are trying to address all of those as we move forward to improve on these numbers.

J. Bray: Moving on to page 20 of the service plan, I know that the member for Vancouver-Burrard had canvassed some issues around gaming. I just want to ask the Solicitor General, if he could…. There's a very significant efficiency that is highlighted in the maximum time to process the charities' complete applications for gaming proceeds. Last year it took six months to process an application, and I see that this year the estimate is down to 12 weeks. By the year '04-05, the target is actually to process those applications within ten weeks, which is a significant improvement. I'm wondering if the Solicitor General could explain how those efficiencies are being achieved and what this will do for charities in my community that rely on programs such as direct access.

Hon. R. Coleman: The six months I addressed earlier in comments to the member for Vancouver-Burrard with regard to the freeze that was temporarily on and then the fact that we have just a huge increase in applications. The efficiencies we've achieved are because we've said to charities that in the future, there is going to be certain documentation they've been sending us every year that we don't need every year. Once we have their constitution, unless they make a dramatic change to it, I don't know why we would ask for it so we could file it again in our paper flow. That's one example — and how we deal with the reporting aspects, then how we're actually increasing our efficiencies through some electronic filings we're working on and how we'll move forward to make it more seamless for charities to apply.

J. Bray: The final area I'd like to canvass is found on page 23 of the service plan. It's dealing with the area of liquor licensing, etc. What I note in the service plan is that for inspections of licensees in terms of enforcement of our current liquor management policies, I see the baseline data showing that there are 12,000 inspections. I'm seeing a steady increase in the number of inspections to occur over the next couple of years — up to 15,000. I'm wondering if the minister can advise me how we're able to actually increase the number of inspections and what the goal of that increased activity is.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a number of reasons. One is that we went from 19 classes of licences to two in this province on December 2, which allowed us, frankly, to streamline a number of processes. Our requirements for how you do an application…. In December, to the credit of the branch, we also changed over without a whole lot of problems — basically, with no glitches — to a new computer system that is absolutely fantastic with regard to how we can take applications on line. The information is available to the licensees — how they can process, where they can go and how they can do it. I've actually visited the site and tried it, and I can tell you that it is a very good system.

By changing the two licence classes, we eliminated a number of the rules that existed in liquor that our people were doing inspections on or trying to deal with in the field and weren't necessarily concentrating on the inspections we wanted them to do. Another aspect of that is we have added some inspectors as a result of the efficiencies we've achieved, which have given us the funds to actually put more people in the field.

Our inspectors are concentrating on under-age drinking, overservice, overcrowding and illegal sale of liquor. Those are the four public safety missions within the ministry with regard to liquor. Rather than spending their time on what in the past could have been something as simple as looking at the colour of furniture, the type of coaster on a bar, the size of a television, the colour of a sign and those types of issues, we felt we had to focus our liquor inspection and our operation on public safety. We've done that. I know we've done that, because I'm now hearing minor complaints coming back from industry that we are being a little too diligent on the public safety issues, and of course, I make no apologies for being diligent on issues relative to public safety with regard to those four primary goals.

J. Bray: I guess the next thing on the service plan related to that, which is an interesting observation, is that there's an increase in the number of inspections. I appreciate that the Solicitor General has outlined that, in fact, inspectors are now going to be actually looking at the real public safety issues as opposed to some of the technical rules. Certainly, that's welcome in my community, but I'm noticing that as we have the number of inspections increasing, we're seeing a decrease in the number of contravention notices that are expected to be issued. I'm wondering if the Solicitor General can

address that and answer my question: is it the assumption that as compliance monitoring is more focused and as licensees realize that we're now paying attention to the critical issues of public safety, we're expecting more voluntary compliance by licence holders?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, to a large degree that is true, but at the same time, when you focus on the true public safety issues when you're doing your inspections, it focuses you on the things that are important to protect people in our society as a public safety issue. When you do that, I think you will get a better understanding of the liquor sector as to what the rules are and what it is we expect them to perform on. By doing that, and at the same time as you transition out of a bunch of silly rules, inspectors will come in looking for specific things on public safety. In the past an inspector could probably go into almost any establishment with a number of the other rules that existed and find some form of contravention. That's not the intent. The intent is to have them focus on any contraventions with regard to public safety. I think that as we move forward doing that, the industry will have a better understanding. That will lead to better compliance for us in the field and a better-managed liquor sector overall.

J. Bray: Thank you. My last area, then, and my last question are…. The whole issue around liquor licensing and the fact that government has been making some announcements have some people in my community concerned, I think, that the only people who make any decisions around liquor policy are, in fact, the provincial government and provincial legislators. Clearly, there are a lot of dedicated public servants that are actually looking after the public safety aspect of liquor distribution and liquor sales. I'm wondering whether or not the Solicitor General could advise my community what role the municipalities play with respect to liquor licensing in terms of bars and pubs and how the public, through their local governments, can be involved in shaping the decisions that are made at local levels, if they are.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I would hope that the local government will understand that a healthy, well-disciplined hospitality sector is good for tourism and their communities and can create jobs and an environment of enjoyment within the community. Having said that, as we move forward, it has been clear all along…. One of the things municipalities have complained about, basically from a lack of understanding, was that there was going to be a whole mess of new bars created in British Columbia as a result of going to two licence classes.

A liquor primary licence in B.C. is as hard, if not harder, to achieve today as it was prior to going to two licence classes. There is still a public process. The province will not approve an application if the application before us does not meet local zoning bylaws. As a result of that, there may be changes to some local zoning bylaws by municipalities if they want to control where stores may be placed. At the same time, if land is zoned for a use, that discussion will take place at a local level, I'm sure. We also want to have evidence that a particular application is not contrary to the public interest so that the general manager has and maintains that statutory authority.

Licensing for liquor in B.C. is a responsibility of the province and will remain the responsibility of the province. Licences will not be issued by municipalities; they'll be issued by the government. We think there's a strong local process. It's clearly defined with regard to licensing, and now that most municipalities have been brought up to speed with that understanding, they're getting more and more comfortable with it.

R. Visser: As the minister knows, several communities in North Island have expressed concerns about changes to the police funding formula. Small communities under 5,000 are understandably concerned about any shift in costs and the impact that'll have on their budgets and their bottom lines. Conversely, though, others — well, in my riding it's namely one — are concerned that there are still inequities in the system. Could the minister just give us a bit of a brief on where we're at with that policy in this budget year?

Hon. R. Coleman: The issue is one that's been out there for a long, long time. In the province of British Columbia a community, when it hits the population of 5,000, pays 70 percent of its policing costs. The federal government pays for 30 percent. When they reach 15,000 in population, they start to pay 90 percent of their policing costs. Communities under 5,000 and in unorganized and regional districts pay nothing for their policing costs, so basically today there are about 700,000 people whose policing is paid 100 percent by the province.

It has been an issue at UBCM, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, for a long time. When I first became the minister in June of 2001, I went to my first UBCM meeting later in September of that year. I met, with the Premier, with a group of 14 communities that were about to go — in their minds — over 5,000 and were concerned about this all-of-a-sudden substantial cost that would be added to their tax roll for policing. At that time we said we would try and move forward to find a fairer formula for the policing of those communities in conjunction with those that do pay and those that don't pay.

There are a number of specific inequities you could point to around the province where it is quite dramatic. We were made aware of all of those. As we moved forward last year, we actually looked at the possibility of putting into place a new funding formula for police in this fiscal year. That proved to be a little more difficult than, I think, most people understood.

First of all, we went to UBCM this year and certainly had a larger crowd than 14 municipalities with regard to policing costs — probably closer to 250 or maybe 300 people — that attended a UBCM forum on the Monday, with two options we had laid out as far as

funding formulas were concerned. There were lots of concerns in it about, "Why do we have to go to 70 percent right away?" and all of those things. We looked at how you would collect it, how it could be dealt with and what tax rolls. All these complexities came into our discussion after UBCM.

We have advised the municipalities under 5,000 in a regional district that we will not be putting a funding formula in place for municipalities this year and that we're going to go back out for further consultation on a formula — one that may have to be graduated — and how we can deal with grants for communities that are a lot smaller which would be hugely negatively impacted as a result of it and those resource-based communities that are seeing their tax rolls drop because of a drop in the forest and mining industries.

We feel we need more time to do it properly and strike a balance. We think we can get there with that. At the same time, we feel we can still move forward on our regional models of policing that we think are going to find efficiencies and better policing in regional areas around the province, because those are not driven by the dollars coming in but by law enforcement looking for proper ways to police communities in a way that's most efficient and best for the taxpayer.

S. Orr: I have two questions. My first question is under Corrections. I have looked in the service plan under "Goals and Objectives," and I want to ask you a question about people that are serving their sentences under electronic monitoring versus incarceration. This is an issue in my riding, because we have had issues where people are under electronic monitoring and have left their homes after the hours they were not supposed to. It is an issue.

I do notice in the service plan, when I was looking at the performance measures and the targets, that with programs that are in place, we are hoping for a decline in both community supervision and also people that are in adult custody. I would love to see that. You know, you state very closely that that's sometimes quite difficult to say due to caseload, and it's all dependent on court sentences. What I really want to know is: what are the cost savings, and how do you feel about the safety of people that are in the electronic monitoring program?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, on the cost side, it's about $150 to $180 a day for someone that's incarcerated in one of our institutions in B.C. Electronic monitoring costs us about $10 a day. The only time somebody goes into electronic monitoring is if the courts order it or if the B.C. Board of Parole, because of certain circumstances, orders it. Those are the only two ways it can be done.

We have 107 people in B.C. on electronic monitoring today. It is monitored 24 hours a day. There's a proximity thing. I've seen the equipment work, and I think for the most part it's actually not too bad. In addition to that, we have about 13,000 people on probation, monitored by our probation officers in B.C., that are outside electronic monitoring.

Basically, we do it based on risk assessment, safety to the community. Assessment is made by our Parole Board or by the courts when somebody is put into our system. The Parole Board basically looks at the safety aspects based on risk management. We do know that the prisoner we get in our correctional system, versus one who goes into the federal system, has an average stay of about 90 days max and that we have a lower-risk offender who comes into it versus who might be in the federal system.

My next question is something that is a little bit near and dear to my heart. It's to do with the film industry. I live in a large urban centre, and we have a lot of movie theatres. A lot of movies that are being made these days are pretty bad. There's a lot of bad stuff in them as far as I'm concerned, personally. My question comes under compliance of consumer services, and I'm going to refer to page 17 of the service plan. It's under the strategies, goals and objectives. What it says is: "Improve quality of consumer information on film classifications and warnings." Then I go to the budget, and in your section of the budget, on page 52 under "Film classification" there is a reduction in the budget from 2002-03 to 2003-04.

My question is…. Given what I believe is happening now in the film industry — that is, a lot of pretty bad movies with a lot of people having to classify them…. I'm not quite sure how you do that, actually. But the fact that people now have to classify more and maybe a bit firmer, a bit harder, a bit tougher…. Could you explain to me how we can keep on top of this issue when you've had a reduction in your budget?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of things that have an effect on this. One of them is that we have moved to see some success in cross-jurisdictional harmonization initiatives with regard to some classifications of films, so we're not having to view every film in British Columbia. At the same time, we've had a lot of success within the video games side where we've had a commitment to parents that was put out by the industry with regards to the video games side. There were no costs in there, but we've just noticed now that we're getting some good success there.

The branch actually recovers most of its costs of operation from charging the people to classify films, and our focus would be on two things. One is the educational aspect of what the classifications mean. In the mainstream of films within our theatres there's pretty good understanding about what PG-13 means or what 18-plus means or what "restricted" means. I think there's a pretty good understanding of that. Our branch, therefore, spends its time concentrating on films that are unclassified and that would go into the marketplace and might have some — as you say, member — bad stuff in it.

There was one recently that we had some discussion over, where a film was classified in other jurisdictions as being, basically, restricted. We didn't accept that classification by itself. Because there was a lengthy scene with regard to a sexual assault and rape within that particular publication, we actually put that classification on but added a restriction on the viewing in any theatre that it was in. Where there was more than one theatre in place, there would be staff at the door to make sure nobody under the age of 18 could possibly get in to view the film, because we felt that this was a particularly insidious act and how it was presented with regard to that particular film….

That's what the branch concentrates on, and I think it's important that they concentrate on the priorities to protect our society from those types of activities versus what would be mainstream films.

S. Orr: Thank you, minister. I have no more questions. I just want to say that I'm glad to hear what you've said about that. I'm glad to hear your very good working knowledge of this particular issue, because it is becoming a bigger issue, and it is certainly affecting our youth. I am glad to see that you have a good handle on something that I think is absolutely, in lots of cases, quite obscene.

The Chair: Maple Ridge–Mission. We've got all kinds of Vancouvers going around.

I have a couple of questions around liquor policy, if I might. I've got quite a number of e-mails and I've had a lot of phone calls to my constituency office from those that are licensees, both from just constituents and actually from municipalities. Maybe I'll start by asking about the relationship between the rural agency stores and the LRSs, the old beer and wine stores. I know one is licensed through your ministry and the RASs are licensed through another ministry. I'm just wondering, minister, if you could tell me what the relationship is between the ministries when it comes to licensing these? Is there some kind of information that crosses? Or how do you deal with that to make sure that…? Are there rules around how rural agency stores will develop in small communities along with LRSs? I'll start with that kind of a question.

Hon. R. Coleman: We do share information back and forth between the ministries, and my licensing branch has a pretty good working relationship with distribution.

The rural agency stores were changed, as the member knows, last year. There were some geographical things with the description and what constituted a community — which included, I believe if I'm not mistaken, a church, a general store and something else — and a distance away from a liquor outlet that could provide the function of about ten miles or something like that. That was removed last year so rural agency stores could be applied for in resort areas like Sun Peaks and Big White, or those types of locations across the province, to service the tourism industry.

The LRSs are not tied to a geographical restriction with regard to where a rural agency store may or may not be. They are out there attached to liquor primaries that were already in existence. We specifically made the choice that the licensed retail stores would be with the liquor primary because we knew what the compliance record was of liquor primary operators in the province. Therefore, we felt if we had good compliance there, we could feel comfortable with compliance and providing an application to and an approval for an LRS.

There's no geographical restriction. We do share the information, and in actual fact for the member's information, we actually now generate community maps. Because our information in our computer system is good enough, we're actually generating maps of areas and communities so that we know where the rural agency stores may be but, in more cases, where the LRS, the applied LRS and the existing government liquor store chains are, to see how this is sort of moving forward — how communities will be served by what we're doing and how we can improve it in the future.

R. Hawes: Just so I can get back to…. I get calls from both sides — rural agency stores who are concerned that the hotel across the street or something in a small community might open an LRS. But I also get calls from licensees that have LRSs who are really concerned that there might be a rural agency store opening up across the street. What you're saying is that this is just based on competition. There's no distance and there's no other real rationale other than that it be a rural community. Would that be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: The rural agency stores are in, frankly, rural communities. It's not like you could put one in Maple Ridge–Mission, Maple Ridge or Mission or Vancouver if you wished to continue to expand your boundaries into Vancouver, as the Chair alluded to a moment ago. The licensed retail stores are attached to liquor primaries, and they make their choice based on their business case. Now, as we transition through, there may be some cases where the two may exist in a smaller community and we may see some market adjustments take place, but we're not going in to dictate what those market adjustments should be.

R. Hawes: I just want to be able to give the right answer to the people who are asking me these questions, certainly particularly the LRSs who are concerned. I know there have been some cases where an

RAS has had a simultaneous application in process with an LRS, and both are looking for protection from each other, or they're looking for market exclusivity. I guess what you're saying is that they won't necessarily have market exclusivity and they'll make their own decision based on a business case, which is fine. That tells me what to answer.

If I could, with respect to the LRS new approval since the moratorium has been lifted, I know there's a large number in application. I apologize. I was at a different meeting here just a few minutes ago, and I know there was a question asked, and maybe this was already covered. I am getting letters from city councils asking, with respect to new LRSs and the expansion of LRSs. I assume they have to comply, then, with all zoning requirements, bylaw requirements under parking, etc. As they developed, they would have to make an application and get a building permit from their city council. Would that be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, in most cases, you are correct. If the land is zoned and an allowable use is there, then the person that wants to build the LRS will probably go in with designs for a building permit because the allowable use is there. At that point, all the bylaws relative to the building permit, which would include issues in and around parking and situation on lots and setbacks and all that, would apply. If there is no zoning in place, then the operator would obviously have to go through local government and local zoning processes before we would issue the LRS. We had that position right from the beginning.

We've had a large number of applications. I'll just give the member the summary for the record, just in case that was going to lead to one of his next questions. We received 525 applications for LRSs during the period from August 12 to the end of November, at which time we closed off applications. Only people that had liquor primary operations were allowed to apply for those. Once we settle this part down, we will look at reopening that for future applications when new LRSs, in conjunction with liquor primaries, come forward for licensing in communities. They will all have to go through the local government process.

One hundred and sixty of those have been received but are not processed. They've been entered into our tracking system, but they've not yet been reviewed to determine if they meet basic qualifications. That is because most of those were received right near the end of the application date, and there were a whole number in front of them that were already in process. Waiting for the licence to be granted are 36. Some were incomplete. There were 83 of them that were incomplete, so they've been sent back to them to ask for additional information to complete the documentation. It, frankly, is quite clear and quite straightforward and quite simple, but still people do forget to send in certain pieces of paper, or they do it wrong or whatever the case may be. There are six of them out there that have applied and that we have some compliance issues with through our branch with regard to how they're operating their liquor primary. We're not too comfortable with it — that maybe they should actually be given an LRS, given their compliance record. We have preliminarily approved and granted 154. We denied 11. Forty-four have approval to construct, and 24 are where the store is operational. A licence has been issued, and the store is in operation. That would be the breakdown.

R. Hawes: Thank you, minister. I know that when the moratorium was lifted, the square footage for new LRSs was set, I think, at 2,000 square feet. I'm being asked by some of those in my riding that applied under the 2,000 square feet and proceeded with planning…. They now understand that that may be altered. Today's paper had a column — in one of the newspapers — that mentioned 6,000 square feet. That's a number I've never heard before. You know, it was written by a columnist, so it must be right. Perhaps you could tell my…. My constituents are asking what the square footage is. Is it still going to be the 2,000? Or is there any way that they could know, as they're planning what they're doing, so they could incorporate into their plans what our plans might be?

Hon. R. Coleman: The original square footage was doubled from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet when spirits were allowed into the LRSs last April. When we opened and lifted the moratorium in August, we allowed for applications under that type of criteria. Now, we have been approached by industry and by some local governments, and discussions with the branch and with the liquor distribution branch, about whether that is the appropriate square footage…. We are looking at that. What would happen is that if we looked at it and decided to change it, it would be a regulatory change. It would have to go to cabinet for a regulatory change. Since that would have to be part of a process that today would be confidential as to what we may be anticipating doing, I cannot give you a number today.

R. Hawes: Thank you, minister. That at least tells my constituents that they should probably keep their eyes peeled and their ears tuned, because there could be some changes coming.

I would like to just confirm that as these LRSs proceed, there's really no case in which the local government would lose total control. In other words, if there was an LRS proposed that for one reason or another the people in the community did not want to happen there, and they didn't meet the bylaw requirements — be it parking or whatever — they couldn't just go ahead and build without having the proper building permits. In other words, the local government still has a great deal of control here. Would that be a correct assumption?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll read this into the record so this could maybe clear it up as clear as we can possibly make it. "The application will be approved if applicants meet personal suitability and specific siting criteria, the

application complies with local zoning bylaws, and the LCLB general manager does not have evidence that the application is contrary to the public interest."

Having been in local government, the member will understand that if the land is zoned for a specific use and somebody comes in with an application for a building permit, chances are that the building permit will drive the process with regard to parking and siting and what have you. I know there have been cases where municipalities have gone back to try and out-zone densities and out-zone zonings where somebody has purchased or had property that had zoning in place. There's been some case law with regard to that.

What it really comes down to…. If it meets the local zoning bylaws…. Zoning bylaws mean that if it isn't zoned, you go into public hearing, and so you're going to have public input. Now, one would assume that in some cases where the zoning has already been approved for both a liquor establishment and an LRS at a location, even though it hasn't been built, that would have been dealt with at the original public hearing on the zoning of that particular piece of property. At some point in time there had to be a public hearing on the zoning.

It really comes down to the fact that local zoning bylaws will apply, and if you're not zoned, you don't get it.

On the changes to restaurants and licensing around liquor in restaurants. I have heard from my city council regarding the lounge capacity and where that has gone — you know, whether or not they've lost any control there. They seem to have a great concern about maintaining some modicum of control in the community. Maybe you could just let me know — or, through me, let my constituents and my city council know — the changes around restaurants and how that's being handled.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the first thing I would say to the communities is: "Relax." I mean, what we have here is that we've taken what already existed in the operation of restaurants in British Columbia, where people could come into a restaurant with the intent to eat and have a drink and then not buy dinner. That existed. That was happening in those establishments already. We have not increased the liquor seats in restaurants. A restaurant of 200 seats total is licensed today for 200 seats, and it was licensed before for 200 seats.

What we did say is that restaurants could have 20 percent of that capacity for a lounge endorsement, where people could come in and sit down and have a drink without food. Before, basically, you could do that by stating the intent to eat, and there would be one at a table out of four or whatever the case may be. It was impossible to enforce and impossible to police.

Now we've allowed for an endorsement to the licence where, in the existing capacity, you can have 20 percent — up to 40 seats, no more — that could be a lounge within the operation of the restaurant. It can operate only when the restaurant is operating. You can't shut down the restaurant side and operate the lounge like a pub after hours. The full menu has to be available, and the entire establishment has to be operational. Basically, all we did was meet the needs of an industry that was having stresses put on it because of the rules existing rather than clarifying the position within the rules, which was the ability to have that lounge.

The history of this goes back 20 years. I had 20-some years plus — actually, closer to 30 years…. I had a constituent come into my office and say: "I kept this." He's had a restaurant operation in my community for well over 30 years, and he had his lounge endorsement for his 40 seats from 1977. From there, it went to what they called holding bars; then it evaporated. Then it went to a 10 percent food-optional area, which had a number of rules and designations and confusions around it that were creating all kinds of difficulties not just for local government but also for the branch, because of the number of hoops people had to jump through even to find this.

We simplified it by saying: "Let's recognize it's there, and let's modernize the sector." It's 20 percent. We kept the capacity at 40 so that they can't become pubs and so that there's control for the compliance side, and I'm comfortable with the decision. In addition to that, we did a number of things in the overall sector to make it easier for them to do their business and for us to do ours. Ours is to concentrate on the four primary public safety issues I stated earlier: service to minors; overservice, which is serving people who are intoxicated; overcrowding; and the illegal sale of liquor.

R. Hawes: With respect to the lounge capacity, does that have to be segregated in any way from the rest of the restaurant facility? During the morning, for example, could it be converted back into just being a regular restaurant? And later in the day, for dinner or whatever, could people sit in the lounge for a drink beforehand or not have dinner if they choose, obviously? Does it have to be separate, or can it be integrated among all the tables that are designated? Is it just seats in the restaurant?

Hon. R. Coleman: The hon. member actually just described the problem we solved, and it was exactly as you describe. How do you delineate it? Do you have a five-foot wall, or do you have a six-foot wall? Should it be solid? Should it be allowed to be seen through? Can the separation be a plant, or must it be a full wall with a door? All those issues are gone.

It is that the lounge area looks different than the restaurant area, so it could be tablecloths or could be the size of tables — something very simple. And it is fluid. It can be used as a full restaurant at any time, and in the lounge-designated areas, people — a husband and wife with two children — could still come in and

sit down and have dinner in that area of the restaurant. This is just an area where you can have people who want to have a drink without food go to sit down.

R. Hawes: Can I move on to hours of operation for licensed establishments? I believe there have been some changes made there. First, maybe the minister could describe what those changes are.

Hon. R. Coleman: The changes are actually not that dramatic. What it is, is that we've said liquor establishments, operations, can serve liquor in B.C. until 2 a.m. They can operate until 2 a.m., and that really did exist before already. In some major communities like Vancouver, it's actually a problem for the people that are in the liquor primary business versus the restaurant business, because in the city of Vancouver, for some reason, they've decided a cabaret can't operate after 12 o'clock. But a restaurant, which has a licence, can go until two. Some restaurants have actually tried to introduce entertainment and act like cabarets, taking business away from the cabarets. We think it should be fair for everybody. It's 2 a.m. Local governments will come to grips with how they will deal with some of the minor changes of that in the future.

In addition to that, one of the things we got back when we were doing our consultation…. The member should understand that the consultation on two licence classes started three years before we became government, or somewhere in there. One of the issues in and around that was that there are resort areas and areas of the province or entertainment districts in municipalities where sometimes during the year they would like to have extended hours to go to 4 a.m. What we said when we made our changes is that the 4 a.m. opening is allowed, but only on application to the branch with a resolution from local government. If any local government in B.C. doesn't want to open an establishment in their community until 4 a.m., whether it be an entertainment area or anything else, they don't have to. We're not going to make it happen, because we will not allow the endorsement to allow for those hours without the support of local government.

R. Hawes: Just one last question around enforcement. I know that there have been some problems in the past in some communities — mine, I know, for sure — where enforcement has been very, very sporadic and where there have been complaints made, but it takes a long time after a complaint is laid to see anybody show up. When they do, it seems the establishments are forewarned that somebody is coming. As a result, there have been some problems in the community from certain establishments that the community has had great difficulty dealing with, and problems that the police have had great difficulty dealing with, such as when a particular bar might close and most of the on-duty policemen in the entire community have to go to that bar to keep people from killing each other as they exit. This goes on weekend after weekend.

I'm wondering now, with the change that is happening — and I understand there's a step-up in enforcement…. I'm curious. First, how is that going to work, and second, is there going to be liaison with the local police forces if there are establishments that are very problematic in communities? Can the communities look to the ministry for assistance with their RCMP to solve these difficulties?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad you asked that question. We have added inspectors. We are concentrating on the public safety issues, which are the issues that lead to the problems in communities. Service to minors, overservice and overcrowding are probably the three things that drive most of the problems in and around liquor establishments in the province, which police officers would deal with in communities.

We liaise with the RCMP in these communities, and we do inspections. Sometimes we'll do targeted inspections with regards to problem establishments. We track compliance records and the number of compliance issues we have problems with within those establishments. As we go forward, we also want to be able to establish some ability for police to actually ticket and have those tickets mean something for the purpose of collection from people that abuse the system both in and outside and as part of the ownership of establishments, and to attract that compliance as well. We're not there yet. That's some work that we need to do yet.

We do have a process today. Because we moved away from a lot of the other issues our inspectors spent their time on, we do actually accumulate that information in those files so that we can deal with the issues on a local basis, as you're describing. We do not want people running bad liquor establishments in B.C. that are causing either public safety issues or criminal activity, so we are going to be concentrating on those public safety issues as we move forward.

R. Hawes: One last question to the minister. There are establishments — I'm thinking of my own community, but I'm sure it's in others too — where the owner or the operator of the establishment takes the viewpoint that what happens inside the establishment is his concern and what happens on the sidewalk immediately outside of the establishment is the concern of the community.

Quite often, if there's a problem inside the bar or the licensed facility, they will have bouncers — or whatever you want to call them — who will eject the problem to the street. Then they just close the door and forget the problem existed, and they leave it for the community. This causes great concern in communities. To date, communities have had no ability to deal with those kinds of problems. There has been no way to come back on those licensed establishments to say that the problem on the street really originated inside their facility, and because of the way they handle it inside, they're just putting it on the street and causing the problem out on the street. There hasn't been a link.

I can tell you that I did sit through a hearing in a former life as a local government official, imploring the ministry to do something with one licensee that caused that problem, only to be told that basically that wasn't going to happen. There's been nothing that communities could do. I'm just wondering. With the new enforcement policies, is there going to be something for that kind of a problem? And if that has not yet been contemplated, could I recommend to the minister that he open a discussion — maybe through UBCM — to talk about how those kinds of problems could be handled? What originates inside the bar really can't be put out on the street and left for the community.

Hon. R. Coleman: Another question that I'm glad the member asked. We actually have a new regulation for failure to take reasonable measures to prevent a disturbance. The penalty for contravention is a suspension of ten to 15 days. We are defining, as we go through it policy-wise, how that will be applied, but that gives us some additional powers with regard to some of the problems the member describes.

In addition to that, my experience was — and this was in a life long ago — that problems in bars that came out into communities were usually as a result of people drinking too much, where that either spilled over into a domestic dispute or a problem in a parking lot or something down the street. I did see one member, who had a lot more experience in that type of former employment, nodding his head, so I suspect I'm on the right track.

That goes right to the root of our four priorities, which we made all the liquor changes to accomplish, and those are: service to minors, overconsumption, overcrowding — which does cause some of those pressures that can bring in some of the interaction of people where space gets invaded and difficulties when people are drinking — and illegal sale of liquor, which is selling liquor at a rate that causes intoxication or liquor that you're not supposed to be buying or haven't been buying from us, which is a $50 million tax problem that we're trying to face.

Interestingly enough, having said that and knowing that we're pushing back on these issues, we're getting complaints from other people — actually, even other people who are complaining to members of the Legislature — that we are now being too diligent on the issues of overservice and overcrowding — even recently with regard to a contravention that was a warning within this new regulation, which I recalled as I was sitting here. As we move forward and we actually try to rediscipline the marketplace, I think members can expect the complaints from industry will be that maybe we're being too tough, until everybody actually learns how the rules are going to be applied.

R. Hawes: I can tell you that my community will be very pleased with that. That concludes the questions I had. I just want to say to the minister that particularly the last one will be welcome news to the community I live in and, I'm sure, a number of other communities that have had problems.

K. Manhas: As I'm sure the minister is aware, there are several community youth justice societies across B.C., like the Fraser-Burrard Youth Restorative Justice Society in my community, that accept case diversions from the RCMP or from their local police. My first question is: are there any plans for the development or integration of the services these societies provide with local police or any model of integrating these services?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not sure I quite understand the question. Local police make referrals and work quite closely with youth justice societies, and that's been ongoing for some time and seems to work well. There are some discussions going on between my ministry and the Ministry of Children and Family Development with regard to future youth justice societies and where they should be, whether they should be part of the community justice package that I have or the youth justice side in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Having said that, the Attorney General actually designates the youth justice committees, so it is sort of like a tripartite ministry relationship, and we're prepared to work with them in any way we can to make it work. We just believe that all information with regard to justice issues and anything that will make the job easier should be integrated so that there's a seamless relationship with no borders, so information can move back and forth, and we can achieve success on the ground.

I understand that these organizations are eligible for startup grants from the ministry, but their operating budgets are the responsibility of the individual societies or municipalities. I know that in the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is about to take effect on April 1, youth justice is a pretty strong theme. As far as I understand, that will now create two types of diversions, one from local police that's handled currently by these community youth justice societies and, now, one from the courts. Is that the responsibility of the provincial corrections department? That adds a new type of responsibility that the province has to place in dealing with youth justice.

Hon. R. Coleman: The courts can make an order for conferencing. That's not diversion. In the courts it's actually part of a sentencing envelope. That would be delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, who have youth corrections. When we formed government, there was a decision that youth corrections would be with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and not with adult corrections.

The police can use some of these committees to do police-based diversion as they see fit.

J. Kwan: I have a number of questions that I want to follow up on with the minister regarding the report To Serve and Protect and some of the recommendations. I know the minister suggested that this is not for the purposes of policy discussion. However, the questions I'd like to ask the minister are not necessarily about policy but rather just generally what the minister's response would be to these recommendations. I'd like to go through that with the minister, as well, relating to it.

There are recommendations that should be forwarded to the police complaint commissioner. Of course, I can understand those would be reserved for the police complaint commissioner to look into, especially on the issue around having a public inquiry and so on in relation to the specific cases that have been highlighted in the report.

There are other questions, though, that are budget-related in terms of some of the actions that may arise out of this report. I'd like to ask the minister those questions.

I do note, though, that I have a series of questions to ask the minister not only in that area but in other areas as well. Noting the time, we won't have time to do that today. What I'd like to do, though, before we wrap up for the day is table the three documents that I said I would, for the minister's response directly to the associations and organizations. There are three documents here for the minister's information.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to 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.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY