Hansard -- Monday, April 7, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 2 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		6039
	Burnaby Lake women's rugby team J. Nuraney

Introductions by Members		6039

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6039
	Economic development in Okanagan-Vernon area T. Christensen Psychiatric centre in Kamloops K. Krueger Jewish Educational and Cultural Centre in Victoria S. Orr

Oral Questions		6040
	Health care wait-lists and waiting times J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Emergency care case at Prince George Regional Hospital P. Nettleton Hon. C. Hansen Energy plan and resource development W. Cobb Hon. R. Neufeld B.C. Arts Council funding L. Mayencourt Hon. G. Abbott Health care services in remote and rural communities J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Marijuana grow operations and electricity theft D. Hayer Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply		6043
	Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources (continued) L. Mayencourt Hon. M. Coell J. MacPhail J. Bray G. Trumper I. Chong

Second Reading of Bills		6066
	Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16) Hon. R. Neufeld J. MacPhail W. Cobb J. Bray

Committee of Supply		6071
	Estimates: Ministry of Management Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		6080
	Estimates: Ministry of Management Services Hon. S. Santori R. Harris J. Bray

J. Nuraney: I have the great pleasure in announcing to the House that yesterday afternoon, the Burnaby Lake women's rugby team won the coveted West Coast Women's Rugby Association championship with an impressive score of 22-0.

I had the great pleasure of attending that game. It was very well played and demonstrated the true spirit of teamwork and sportsmanship. As we excel in sports and athleticism, I would like the House to join me in congratulating the Burnaby Lake women's rugby team for this very well-deserved win.

K. Krueger: This is perhaps not so much an introduction as a warning that members or guests walking into the Finance minister's office should avoid glancing to the left for fear of eye damage, because there is this dazzling light off a diamond ring in that office. Melanie Hughes, one of the assistants of the Minister of Finance, has graciously consented to give her hand in marriage to my legislative assistant, Steven Puhallo, a little cowboy from Kamloops who I never dreamt would do this well in Victoria. Would the House give them all their congratulations.

H. Bloy: It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today. I have a few friends, like the hon. Minister of Labour. I have two lifelong friends up in the audience here, whom I've known since elementary school, and they're so kind as to allow me to stay there when the House is in session. Also, they're celebrating their thirtieth anniversary today, so they've come to the House to celebrate. If you could please join me in making them welcome. I would like to announce their names: David and Sue Brooks.

J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to welcome to the legislative chamber today Mr. Theodore Hawryluk. He is a person with a disability. He will be joining us during estimates, and I'll have much more to say about Mr. Hawryluk and his disability in estimates. Would the House please make him welcome.

T. Christensen: Each spring the Vernon Morning Star's reporters do a great deal of work to put together the newspaper's annual business review and forecast. On March 26 the Morning Star's regular Wednesday edition included a four-section, 116-page pullout business review titled "There's no Place like Home." The lead article is headlined: "Optimism Springs to Life in Valley." To avoid being accused of misrepresenting the media, I'm going to quote directly from the article:

The article goes on to highlight the expansion of some of my constituency's most prominent employers, telling the reader of the millions of dollars being reinvested by Tolko and Riverside to keep those companies competitive, the continued expansion of Okanagan Spring Brewery that experienced double-digit growth last year, and that Owens-Illinois is investing $5 million in its Lavington glass plant to ensure its long-term success.

Turning the pages, you read of the ongoing success of the Coldstream Ranch, notwithstanding the challenges a dry year presented. We learn that optimism is growing in the fruit industry. The newspaper reports on the outstanding success of the Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre in its first 16 months of operation and of the continued penchant we have in the north Okanagan for celebration, whether for the Funtastic Summer Festival or the Vernon winter carnival.

It's most unfortunate that I'm limited to two minutes, for there's a great deal of good news in Okanagan-Vernon, as reported by the Morning Star. I thank the Vernon Morning Star editors and reporters for examining what is happening in their back yard and my back yard. Their work clearly demonstrates that the north Okanagan is home to a vibrant economic, social and cultural community and that there is no better place to be.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and mine, and for all of our constituents in Kamloops and Kamloops–North Thompson, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the people involved in the construction and opening of the psychiatric residential…. [Applause.] That doesn't come off my time. The psychiatric residential rehabilitation centre in Kamloops.

I was delighted to join the Premier and the Minister of State for Mental Health in opening the South Hills Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centre on Friday. This marks the completion of the first phase of our government's promise to build a centre of excellence in Kamloops. This was a promise that was made by four previous Premiers of British Columbia and, until now, a promise

that had been unfulfilled. It's a $4.2 million facility which will provide homes for 40 patients from Riverview and will greatly improve the health care successes in mental health rehabilitation.

Kamloops will enthusiastically embrace and welcome the patients when they begin arriving later this month. South Hills offers a modern, home-like setting which is significantly different from the outdated institutional setting at Riverview Hospital. I'd like to share the impression that was made by reading a quote from the Kamloops Daily News: "With hardwood floors, maple trim, skylights and glass block accents, the buildings appear more a luxury hotel than psychiatric hospital." This is how our government is caring for mental health patients. I'm absolutely delighted to know that many more facilities such as these are going to be built by our government.

Phase two of the Kamloops centre will begin construction a little later this year, and I look forward to attending that opening as well. This will complete a $20 million promise by our government, a tangible and remarkable demonstration of good faith on the part of the Premier and the Minister of State for Mental Health.

In 1863, 140 years ago — imagine, before electricity, motor cars, telephones, video games and all that good stuff we've become accustomed to — a small group of Jewish families came to Victoria to supply those passing through en route to the gold rush. These families built the first-ever synagogue. This is the oldest continuously used Jewish house of worship in Canada, and yesterday Congregation Emanu-El hosted the official opening of the new $1.3 million Jewish Educational and Cultural Centre adjacent to the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue.

Rabbi Harry Brechner and many special Jewish people invited first nations, political, religious and community leaders to take part in the simcha of the century, aptly themed "L'dor va L'dor" — from generation to generation. The simcha gadalah is the big celebration, and it was a wonderful success. The new Jewish Educational and Cultural Centre will have classrooms for Hebrew studies, adult cultural and religious studies, a library, preschool and — the first ever for Vancouver Island — a mikvah, translated as a ritual bath.

Thank you, Congregation Emanu-El, for adding such a wonderful addition to our community. Shalom.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to introduce to the House Bryson Stone and 40 members of the Kinsmen Clubs of British Columbia. They've been here for lunch, and they're here to watch question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: Last fall I asked the Minister of Health Services about the growing number of British Columbians on wait-lists. He assured this House that he had put in place reforms that would bring those numbers down in the months to come — after he blamed the doctors' job action for the lists rising. Can the minister explain why, then, according to the government's latest numbers — the government's latest numbers — there's been a 21 percent increase in the number of British Columbians languishing on wait-lists than when they took power?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think one of the things I made quite clear last April, when we rolled out the redesign of the health service delivery in the province, was that there were no quick fixes. I think the member knows this very well from her time as Minister of Health. I guess the unfortunate part is that the change to a new and more modern health care system didn't even happen while she was the Minister of Health. We are getting on with that job. I made it quite clear, and it's in our service plan, that there would be some short-term disruption of wait-lists, but clearly we're putting the kind of systems in place that are going to give British Columbians more timely delivery of the health services they need and deserve.

J. MacPhail: Interesting, Mr. Speaker. Other than blaming the doctors last time, that's exactly what the minister said a year ago.

Now, in every category save one that the government measures, wait-lists have grown since this government took power. There are 4,000 more British Columbians waiting for cataract surgery. There are 4,600 more people waiting for orthopedic surgery. There are 2,000 more waiting for general surgery, 500 more waiting for gynecological surgery, 200 more waiting for hip replacements and 500 more waiting for knee surgery. There are 5,000 more waiting for eye surgery other than cataract surgery.

Can the minister point out to us where in the New Era document it says that under a Liberal government, the number of British Columbians on wait-lists would grow?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we are doing in the health care system throughout British Columbia is actually building networks of care and not the fractionalized, disjointed system that was in place while she was Minister of Health. That change, we know, is disruptive. We know that it is also necessary if we're going to start to deal with some of these really profound problems that have built up over the last decade of neglect in terms of health care management in British Columbia and the lack of leadership that we saw from that government when she was Minister of Health and when she was in cabinet.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will give great comfort to the thousands more that are waiting on the lists now than when this government took over. But it's not just the wait-lists that are going up. The amount of time that people are spending on those wait-lists is up as well.

Here's according to the government's own numbers. It takes 2½ more weeks to get cardiac surgery than it did when the Liberals took power. It takes six weeks longer to get knee surgery. It takes almost two weeks longer to get dental surgery. It takes 1½ weeks longer to get orthopedic surgery.

It's been 691 days since the election, 691 days of decline in our health care system. Will the minister just admit what his own numbers tell him? In the new era, there are more British Columbians spending longer on surgical wait-lists.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as I indicated in the answer to the first question, we are finally making the kind of changes that are necessary to deal with this. We're trying to bring physicians together, specialists together and surgeons together into groups of care so we can actually start to ensure that patients get timely access.

That is not a quick fix, and we made that quite clear to everybody last April when we first rolled out this design. We are seeing some very positive results out of that. We are seeing specialists that have been recruited into communities around British Columbia for the first time ever. We are seeing new diagnostic equipment that is up and running in communities throughout British Columbia.

As a direct result of those changes, we're actually, for the first time in over 12 years, going to be able to start to deal with some of these fundamental underlying problems with the system.

P. Nettleton: I, too, have a question for the Minister of Health Services regarding health care delivery in northern British Columbia. About a week ago Gladys Lillian Brown was receiving dialysis at Prince George Regional Hospital, and she fell. The shunt came out of her arm. She was clearly in need of treatment, but she was released. At her residence she was bleeding under the skin, she was without a pulse, and she had to catch an ambulance back to the hospital. Then she had to wait six hours to be admitted, during which time she suffered a heart attack. The Prince George Citizen today reports that early Saturday morning, Gladys Lillian Brown, age 75, died at PGRH from choking on her own vomit.

Mr. Minister, is this the kind of health care northern residents should expect from your government?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, I am aware of this particular case, and I have read the article that was in the Prince George Citizen. My sympathies and condolences go out to the family. The northern health authority is investigating the circumstances around this untimely death.

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

P. Nettleton: Yes. I'm glad the minister mentioned the northern health authority, because a woman has died, but the only information I can get, that I ever get from any query to the communications officer of the northern health authority, is: "That's confidential."

Last November a small surplus for the northern health authority was forecast, so my office called today for an update. Again the answer was: "That's confidential." Can the minister update northern residents on the concluded fiscal year for the northern health authority? If it was a deficit, then more funding may have kept Gladys Lillian Brown alive. If it was a surplus, then why aren't these funds being used to save lives?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member knows the requirements that everyone in the health care system must observe when it comes to patient confidentiality. Indeed, if the health authority had released confidential information about a patient's circumstances, that would have been highly inappropriate.

I think the member probably knows, if he would check the date, it's now April 7. The fiscal year for the health authority ended less than one week ago. Certainly, all of the information about the health authorities will be presented this year in terms of their final year-end numbers in a much more timely way than they have ever been presented since regionalization was first introduced in British Columbia. I know that as soon as the information is available, it will be made available to this member.

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Within the last couple of weeks some of your staff held public information meetings around

Williams Lake. We had a good turnout, and I thank your staff for the excellent job they did.

We in Cariboo South have great potential for mineral and coalbed methane exploration. We need the development of these industries to provide jobs and revenue for support for health care and education. Unfortunately, one of the biggest development hurdles, of course, is access to sufficient power sources. Can the ministry tell us how the new energy plan supports future development of these industries and access to hydro in my riding as well as the rest of the province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the member is quite correct when he says that there are huge resources in his constituency. Around the whole province there are huge resources that we need to develop in a timely fashion and in an environmentally sensitive way, so we can continue to have the health care and education that we require in the province.

We're encouraging development of coalbed methane mineral resources. We also have put into place an energy plan that brings forward, again, energy from a corporation that is publicly owned, which the people of British Columbia own — B.C. Hydro — and that has oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission to make sure that our rates remain the lowest we possibly can. It's a cornerstone of our energy plan.

It's another cornerstone to incorporate independent power producers across the whole province, so they can provide or help provide to industry low-cost power so that we can develop those resources. I think we have a good plan that the member's constituency is going to be happy with well into the future.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Active involvement in the arts is a very important part of our community in Vancouver-Burrard, but it's true in the rest of British Columbia as well. To support the goal of a healthier and more creative community, we made a commitment in the New Era document to support the B.C. Arts Council through increased grants. I wonder if the minister can tell me, given the fiscal constraints we're under here in government, whether we're going to be able to keep that promise.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is right. There are enormous benefits to active arts and culture communities, whether it's my hometown of Sicamous or the member's hometown of Vancouver. Arts and culture are critical to having vital communities in British Columbia.

I'm also pleased to note that prudent management has its rewards. I know prudent management wasn't something we were accustomed to in that period, say, from roughly 1991 through 2001. Certainly, since that 2001 period we have seen prudent management. One of the benefits of that is that we've been able to protect, at $11.1 million, our funding from this government to the British Columbia Arts Council.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not going to mention the fast ferries in this answer, member. I think that's way over the top to do that. I can't imagine using the fast ferries in this particular answer.

I will, however, make a note of this. We have, in addition to protecting the $11.1 million, also brought into play a $5 million Olympic arts fund that's going to be of enormous benefit to the arts communities in British Columbia through 2010, when we host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. We have also brought into place a book publishers tax credit, which is going to be of enormous value in enriching the cultural community in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: We look forward, as our economy improves in the province of British Columbia…

Hon. G. Abbott: …to seeing even more support to the arts and culture community.

J. MacPhail: Continuing on health care, we now know that more people are waiting longer for surgery. We know people aren't getting the care they need in the north and that there are deaths arising from it. I want to talk about Cortes Island.

The government said that they were going to promise small communities health care where they need it and when they need it. Cortes Island has just learned that its doctor on call is no longer to be, that this government has cut the services and the payments to the doctor on call so that Cortes Island has no physician services for many hours during the week and the weekend. How is that in any way the new-era promise, where this government promised people that they would get health care when they need it, where they need it? Did that exclude Cortes Island?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of physician compensation in this province, we increased the budget for that in this last year by 20.6 percent. British Columbia actually has the highest per-capita payments for doctors of any province in Canada. In fact, we're about 19 percent higher on a per-capita basis than Ontario. We're about 42 percent higher on a per-capita basis compared to Alberta.

Just recently I rolled out the new rural and remote physician compensation arrangements in British Columbia to make sure that remote communities can be covered throughout this province. Physicians through-

out both the remote and the urban parts of this province saw a significant increase in their remuneration.

D. Hayer: My question is to the Solicitor General. Marijuana grow ops are a serious problem in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead and in neighbourhoods throughout British Columbia. It seems to me that one way to identify grow ops in residential areas is for police to check residents' hydro bill records for a pattern of unusual power consumption. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents whether the police and B.C. Hydro share information to identify potential grow ops in residential neighbourhoods?

Hon. R. Coleman: If they'd stay on the meter, it would probably be easier to track them, but they actually bypass the meter directly, which creates a huge fire hazard. We estimate about $50 million a year is actually stolen from B.C. Hydro and B.C. taxpayers. Police and Hydro do work together on information-sharing. They do work together on certain strategies they put into place. We don't actually publicize those strategies, so the guys we're trying to catch can't figure out what we're up to. We're not going to do that today. I can tell the member that the patterns lead us to investigations that do help us take down grow ops, and we'll continue to enhance those investigative techniques for both Hydro and for the police.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning the estimates for the Ministry of Management Services. In Committee B, the large House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources.

The Chair: We're going to have a short recess through the call of the Chair.

L. Mayencourt: I have a lot of people in my community who are living in the category of persons with disability and, most particularly, those individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Prior to the introduction of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, there was a schedule C category for people, and there was a lot of concern in my community and throughout the province about schedule C. At the time that we were debating that bill, you made a commitment that of those individuals that had gone through the schedule C tribunal process, which was quite lengthy and quite involved and caused a great deal of stress for people who went through that, their benefits would be protected.

I wonder if the minister could tell me: have you been able to maintain those schedule C benefits that were hard-won by those individuals? Have they been maintained in this current year and into the future?

Hon. M. Coell: I can give the member…. There were a number of people grandparented, as you know. The numbers for schedule C. There were 652 grandparented; for the food portion, there were 2,492 grandparented; for bottled water, 1,709; and for vitamins and minerals, there were 2,509. Those persons were all grandparented into the program.

L. Mayencourt: That's an important point, because for my community, those people went through a rigamarole and a process that was very, very involved. They had to really prove that they were in need of these benefits, and so I'm grateful for that.

Under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, we replaced the schedule C with the monthly nutritional supplement, and I wonder if the minister could tell me how many individuals have applied for and are currently receiving the monthly nutritional supplement.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a clarification — and I may have given the member that information. There were 652 grandparented. The food number, the bottled water and the vitamins and minerals — those are new, under the new program.

L. Mayencourt: I take it by the minister's answer that, in effect, more individuals have been able to access that particular program.

L. Mayencourt: One of the complaints that I heard constantly from individuals in my community with respect to the old process, where they went through a schedule C application process, was that they were almost invariably declined. They went through an appeal process which was ultimately always appealed by

the Ministry of Human Resources, and then it was sent on to the B.C. appeals branch, I guess, for resolution.

In all of the cases, it seems that the B.C. Appeals Board always found in favour of the client that was applying for those benefits. That was kind of a real cumbersome process that was developed over the course of the previous four or five years.

I'm told by people who had gone through the process that the process took between eight and 16 months. I am wondering if the minister can tell me: if I were a person living with a disability today and applied for and qualified for the monthly nutritional supplement, how long would that process take from the time of applying and being evaluated to the point that I actually started to receive those benefits?

L. Mayencourt: That is a very significant improvement in the overall time that people wait for these kinds of benefits because, quite frankly, people are in great need. If they have need of this monthly nutritional supplement, they are in fact in great need, and of course their lives are…. The majority of these individuals are living with a life-threatening illness — either HIV/AIDS or perhaps Crohn's disease or other illnesses that decrease their ability to intake food and maintain body mass — so I think that's a great improvement.

The next area that I wanted to ask about was…. I understand that we now have an ability for persons living with disability to actually retain more of the money that they earn, and I wonder if the minister could just say a little bit about the earnings exemption. I understand that that has increased, and I wonder if the minister could just say how we've been able to manage that.

Hon. M. Coell: When we took office, the earning exemption was at $200. That would be that a person with a disability would be able to earn $200 on top of their income assistance and keep that $200. What we wanted to do was encourage people, if they can, to work — to work even part-time — so we increased that to $300 and then this year have increased it to $400. Someone now, with the status of a person with a disability, can earn up to $400 a month and keep that over and above the income assistance and other benefits that they may get.

L. Mayencourt: Another question that I have has to do with employment opportunities and, specifically, around training opportunities. I had the pleasure of working with Destinations, which is an agency in my community that provides job training for individuals that need to develop some skills and improve their appropriateness for the workforce.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit about the number of programs that he supports financially through the ministry in terms of getting people job-ready.

Hon. M. Coell: In this year's budget we have $110 million for employment and training programs. Of that, $24 million is specifically earmarked for people with disabilities, and there is a range of programs in there dealing with everything from volunteer work to part-time work or for services — job placement into permanent employment — as well. There's a spectrum of programs that are being developed and are all going out for RFP in the next while. Some have been done. As I say, there is $24 million in there for persons with disabilities, and that's an 80 percent increase in that budget since we took office.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you for that piece of information. A lot of this gets centred around the lower mainland, and I wonder if the minister can speak to the issue of where those job-training programs are being offered. Are they being offered, for example, in the Prince George area? Are they offered around the province?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry has just recently moved to have five regions. It was previously nine regions. It now has five regions that match up with the health regions and also the regions contemplated by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The programs will be distributed. The $24 million will be distributed throughout the province. What we will be doing in the RFPs is trying to distribute that money as to the number of people on our caseload for persons with a disability.

L. Mayencourt: There are individuals who do not have a disability that are living on income assistance, and I'm sure the job-training programs for them are great. I know that some people with the persons-with-a-disability category are taking advantage of some of those training programs. There's a little bit of a grey area in between those who have persons-with-a-disability designation and those who have not, and that's for the persons with persistent and multiple barriers to employment.

I can recall that there's some really excellent work being done in the downtown east side by organizations like Tradeworks and many others out there — the Coast Foundation and so on. I know when those groups applied for the job-training dollars, they didn't make it, simply because it seems that the measure of their success didn't measure up to some of the goals or targets that had been set. Yet the successes that those agencies can provide us with — while they are smaller, perhaps, than other agencies — are significant, and so I am concerned about whether those types of agencies, particularly those in the downtown east side and the downtown south, are going to have access to the training-for-jobs dollars.

Hon. M. Coell: I may have mentioned it before. What we're looking at is a continuum of programs, and we're working with the Vancouver agreement with the downtown east side on some pilot projects looking specifically at the types of people you've mentioned.

Mr. Chair, if I could introduce my staff; I failed to do that: Robin Ciceri, deputy minister; Randy McDonald, who is the executive director of corporate services; and Andrew Wharton, the assistant deputy minister.

Hon. M. Coell: The caseload as of February, which would have been the last month that we published it, is 122,513.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could break those down into the categories of social assistance, please — the larger categories.

Hon. M. Coell: I can break the caseload down for the member: single men, 50,096; single women, 33,125; couples, 5,223; two parents, 4,859; single parents, 24,969; child in the home of a relative, 4,241.

J. MacPhail: And the children would be listed in the categories of two parents and single parents? How many children are there under the age of 18?

J. MacPhail: So children are about 30 percent of the number of people who are on welfare. Is that right — 55,000 of 183,000?

J. MacPhail: How many people under the age of 18 are being diverted from foster care to social assistance? I know the minister was in the room when I was discussing this with the Minister of Children and Family Development. It arose out of an article in the Vancouver Courier dated March 9, I think, so I'm sure the minister will have had time to see it. It was reported by Family Services of Greater Vancouver that 15- and 16-year-olds were being diverted to welfare. I know there are independent living arrangements now, but this was a much different report. Has the minister had a chance to look into that?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, I have, and children in need of foster care are not being diverted to the Ministry of Human Resources. There has not been a significant increase in 15-to-16-year-olds receiving income assistance over the last six months. There are 22 16-year-olds and one 15-year-old receiving income assistance as of February 2003.

J. MacPhail: And that's income assistance, the minister said. So did the minister have a chance to follow up with Family Services of Greater Vancouver on that issue?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry does, on a regular basis, have discussions with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, but we haven't discussed that newspaper article with the agency.

J. MacPhail: When were the changes introduced into social assistance in terms of qualifying changes and rate changes? Was that April 1 of 2002, or was it earlier than that?

My next question to the minister is going to be a comparison of the categories prior to the rate changes, or the rule changes, and now. I just wanted to know when they were introduced.

J. MacPhail: I guess what I would be interested in looking at, then, is the same statistical breakdown of the caseload for February '02 — you know, the category of single men, single women, couples.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have the information from the previous year's estimates with me, but I can take that as a request and get back to the member with that.

J. MacPhail: I have quite a bit of area to explore on this, because the ministry is claiming great credit for getting people off welfare to work. Surely there's tracking that goes on, and I wanted to see how it worked per category — where people were, etc. It's a substantial area of exploration.

Hon. M. Coell: The only thing that I have is January '02. And I have the total B.C. employment and assistance cases, and that's at 155,556.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the minister will appreciate how important this is, with major changes going through in April and the government claiming success in the area of moving people from welfare to work. I'd like very much to see the changes in the categories. The number of children will be an interesting…. Anyway, it's the only way that you can discuss trends. I'll carry on, and perhaps the ministry can, in the course of the next hour or so, get those statistics so that we can have that discussion.

To begin with, though, I'll just ask my questions that in a way flow from this. The rule about only being able to claim two years of social assistance in five kicked in, I understand, on April 1, 2002, as well, so we've completed year one of the policy. Can the minis-

Hon. M. Coell: I'll take that on advisement and, hopefully, get that within the session today.

J. MacPhail: The ministry plans to reduce its budget by 30 percent by '04-05. Where is the ministry at in terms of that target?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, last year's budget was $1,671,801,000. This year our estimates are $1,417,493,000, and so we're on target to meet our estimates this year and our three-year plan.

Hon. M. Coell: The three-year plan that we announced in February of last year calls for a budget of $1,220,593,000.

J. MacPhail: What are the plans for getting to that next step? It's interesting to note that job creation in this province hasn't picked up the difference. In fact, looking closely at the statistics of the job creation even of the last month, it was more about people leaving the province. There were jobs created, but they were jobs in the science and technology area. Well, maybe people are moving from welfare to work in that area, but looking at it, I didn't suspect they were. So there are many people leaving this province.

But what are the plans in terms of getting to the next $200 million budget cut? What are the plans for changes in regulations to income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: We don't foresee any further changes to regulations or to legislation. As the member will remember, the major changes were made last year, and we're in the process of implementing them. I don't think there's anything new on the horizon.

I would just comment on the job creation — that there were 78,000 jobs created last year, some part-time, some full-time. This year I believe there were 12,000 last month and 18,000 this month, so the trend is in the right direction. One of the things I've emphasized is the job opportunities that range between 400,000 and 500,000 jobs a year opening up in the province. We want to make sure we have the training programs and employment programs in place so our clients will be able to take advantage of those opportunities and, as the economy improves, to take advantage of the opportunity of the new jobs as well. So there are "available jobs" and "new jobs," and we want to concentrate on our clients being ready, able and eligible for those opportunities.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's why I actually wanted the statistics, so we can talk about that in detail and not just spin. I want to see the trend of who is moving off welfare and whether they're people who actually have jobs or not, by category, etc. It's actually key to the nature of my questioning, and also the two-years-in-five is key in terms of preparing just what needs to be done this year, because I would assume…. I'm a little taken aback seeing there's nothing planned for this year, because we could have — I don't know — a thousand, 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 people hitting a wall this time next year of being ineligible for welfare by the government's own rules. So I want to know what the plans are for that. Perhaps we can discuss it in those terms.

Hon. M. Coell: The program that was put in place last year and the three-year plan involve a number of people who don't have time limits. I can get that list of people for the member. For those people who are employable, the time limits are part of their eligibility, and what every one of those people will have is a job plan. They'll be enrolled with job placement or training for jobs, so there's a whole number of things. We want to work with people who are employable and, over that two-year period, make sure they have the skills and the capability of finding employment.

Two years is a long time, and it may not take a lot of people that long. I realize that, but just for the member's information, the time limits do not apply for persons with disabilities and their dependents, for persons who are 65 years or older — and we do have some on our caseload, not that many — for children in the home of a relative, for persons in receipt of hardship assistance, for persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment and for persons who have been admitted to a hospital or special care facility for extended care. So there are a broad range of people for whom income assistance time limits aren't a variable.

For the people for whom it is a part of the income assistance eligibility, as I said, there are the job placement, the job training and especially the employment plans. From, I think, a good perspective it gives our staff a way of helping people who are employable right from the day they come into the office and need assistance. The employment is part of the plan, and the plan is worked on with the client and our staff member.

J. MacPhail: So all of the parents and all of the couples are exempt from the two-years-in-five rule?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the question is — and I may have misunderstood you: the children of the parents are exempt…?

J. MacPhail: Children in the home of a relative are exempt from the two-years-in-five. That's 4,241 children. However, there are another 55,000 children whose parents collect welfare; they're either as a couple

or as single parents. That group, in my understanding, can only collect welfare for two years in five. Is that right?

If the children are under three, the parents are exempt. If the children are over three, the two-in-five is part of the eligibility, but they would only receive a reduction in rate of $100 a month. They would still be eligible for income assistance.

J. MacPhail: Okay. But when one is collecting welfare…. I am fortunate enough to never have had to do that, but $100 a month per…. I think on a family basis it's more than $100 per month, but it's a huge cut. So what are the plans for these children?

Hon. M. Coell: The member asked what plans there are. I think I would go back to that the plans are that you have a two-year window to work with individuals. We have $110 million in this budget — $110 million for job training and placement programs.

These are people who are employable and for some reason need income assistance, whether it's bankruptcy or divorce or whatever leads a person to need income assistance. These are employable people. We want to make sure we help them into employment, because their families will actually do a lot better if they work. I think all the studies we've seen across Canada and the surveys we've done show that people who leave income assistance make two to three times more money than they were making on income assistance.

J. MacPhail: How many people have applied for welfare and not qualified in the last fiscal year?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry has never tracked that, and we didn't last year as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm hearing all sorts of anecdotal stories, which I promised I would bring up here, about people who are ineligible for welfare because they own a car or they own a house. Most of them are in the forest sector, this sector that the government takes such pride in saying they're going to do such wonderful things. They also don't hold out any hope of getting a job real soon in their community.

What happens to those people then? Let me just be very clear. What happens? Are they supposed to move? In towns like Terrace, one-third of the houses are on the market, so you can't sell your house. I believe the rule change now is that people are being told to sell their house, and they have to sell their vehicle.

So there are no statistics, even informal statistics, being kept in towns like Terrace or that of the number of people who are coming for help and are ineligible?

Hon. M. Coell: Most of the clients, I think, that you're describing would be on employment insurance. We do have, as the member knows, the labour market agreement with HRDC of $290 million. As I said, the ministry has never tracked those who apply and do not meet the eligibility test. It's something that we didn't increase doing this year. We just followed previous practice.

J. MacPhail: Well, much has changed, and sorry, these people have run out of employment insurance. There are cases of families that are tragic. These are people my age that have worked all their lives, but their employment insurance has run out because there's no work in this northwest corner, and they're ineligible for social assistance because of the tightening up of the rules.

It is interesting that the minister can claim such credit for people moving from welfare to work, but he relies on the old standard of "that's the way it's always been done" to find out how many people, because of unemployment, are now ineligible for coverage under social assistance. I expect there's a reason for that. It's because that bad news would outweigh whatever good news there is in the other area.

With whom is the minister working to reach his budget reduction for this year in terms of getting people off welfare?

Hon. M. Coell: I just want to be very clear. We're not telling people that they need to sell their house to get income assistance.

One of the things that we're working towards is employment. I think that is very evident in the structure of the changes we made to income assistance — that employment is a major part. I realize that the previous government — the member being the previous minister — started down that road. We have, I think, improved on the process, but it will still need improvement as the years go by. When you look at the types of capabilities people have on income assistance, that may change. You're right: there are downturns in the economy that affect different people, and you'll have to look at that over the years to come.

But the ministry wants to make sure people succeed, and we want to make sure people find employment in British Columbia. As I said, it's sort of a two-pronged thing. You have to make sure that the economy is actually growing and that there are jobs there, but you also have to make sure that people on income assistance have the confidence and the skills they need to move off. From everything I've seen in my years in government, once someone leaves income assistance for work, they're going to be making two or three times more than they were on income assistance. You can't stress that benefit for individuals and families enough, so we'll continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, perhaps through you, Mr. Chair, the minister could tell me what he is telling people about selling their house, because they're being asked to have a lien put on it. Isn't there a lien being put….? Perhaps the minister could clarify that.

Hon. M. Coell: That was something that was in the legislation last year and will not come into effect until later this year. What it is, is that a lien on a house where someone has equity in that house will not be put on until the seventh month of being on income assistance. We want to ensure that people requiring short-term temporary assistance will not be affected by the lien. Someone on long term who has a lot of equity in a house, we would want them to pay back the income assistance once that house is sold.

Hon. M. Coell: Manitoba and Ontario have similar requirements for property owners, and, actually, Manitoba has been using liens for over 35 years.

J. MacPhail: And in Ontario, it's extremely controversial. In fact, I heard that it had been delayed. But if the minister is saying it's actually been implemented, that's news.

So come this October, there could be…. Because it's anecdotal evidence, I was trying to confirm it with some actual statistics. But the anecdotal evidence comes in every day in huge numbers about people, particularly in the northwest, who have been in the forest sector and some coastal communities as well, whose EI has run out and who are ineligible for social assistance, and they have been…. So now, if indeed they want to…. Well, maybe it's that they're ineligible around their car. What's the rule change around the car, which this government has brought in?

Hon. M. Coell: The asset limit for singles actually went up from $500 to $1,500, and the asset level for a car is $5,000. In the past you could actually own a Porsche or a Rolls-Royce and still qualify. We wanted to make sure a car was valued at $5,000.

J. MacPhail: So, okay, these forest workers actually have cars worth more than $5,000. That's absolutely right. Just the same way that all the MLAs from the north say: "Oh God, you southerners don't know about it. That's why we need to remove the luxury tax and make people buy bigger cars…." So they have it.

They're told that they have to sell their cars and then, in the future, that there will be a lien on their house. I think this is something that the minister should try and track. Is there any opportunity for him to work with these people in the transition funds that were set up under the Forestry Revitalization Act?

Hon. M. Coell: The member is correct. There is a forest transition fund. It has a cross-community membership. It has IWA, our staff, workforce adjustment activity, and we're also working with EI and HRDC.

Hon. M. Coell: We have a staff rep sitting on the federal community committee.

J. MacPhail: What I meant was: what contribution in terms of changing the rules of qualification will this ministry be contributing?

Hon. M. Coell: We're just in the process of developing how the workplace adjustment program will work. At this point that's the main focus.

J. MacPhail: The people who are having to fill out the review form to qualify for benefits under disability benefits level 2 — if they don't return their reassessment forms, many believe that their benefits will be cut in June by $300 a month. Many believe that they will also lose their enhanced medical and bus pass and will no longer qualify for their housing and, therefore, will be forced to move.

Hon. M. Coell: There are 800 forms to be returned. We have contacted 700 of those people and know at what stage the form is in, and we'll still be contacting the further 100.

J. MacPhail: When was the reassessment deadline moved to — March 15, was it?

J. MacPhail: So 800 forms are still to be returned. What is the status of benefits, come June 15, for those 800?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, there are about a hundred people that we haven't contacted or haven't been able to contact yet, but we'll endeavour to do that. We want to make sure everyone gets their forms in so they can be adjudicated by June 15. As I said, with the 700 we know exactly where they are, whether they're with a doctor or a social worker or actually in the mail in some cases.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know, but what if they don't have their forms in by June 15?

Hon. M. Coell: The only ones I could comment on would be the 100. If they don't submit, their rate would go down. The other 700 — we know they're submitting, so they will have an opportunity to be adjudicated.

J. MacPhail: Is there some reason why the minister won't say those 700 rates will not be reduced prior to adjudication? Can the minister guarantee that for those

700 people — and I'm hoping it's 800 people — their rates will not be changed until adjudication?

J. MacPhail: How much did the ministry and government in total spend on this reassessment review of people with disabilities?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, the review process is underway, and it won't be completed until after June. At that point we would have an assessment of what it cost and what the numbers are for any changes.

J. MacPhail: The ministry spent a bunch of money in '02-03. How much did the ministry spend in '02-03 on the review process, and how much have they got budgeted for '03-04?

Hon. M. Coell: In this year's budget, for this financial year, it's $3.8 million. As the member knows, we just finished the year-end of '02-03. Reconciliation is underway, but we will have an accounting for any additional costs for adjudicators and related staff expenses.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Then there's also money the ministry has given to support agencies to assist as well, so that will be included. Doctors' fees. Does the $3.8 million include doctors' fees?

J. MacPhail: I assume the $3.8 million is in addition, then. That's this year's money, and there will be several hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions for '02-03.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes. There will be costs in '02-03. Those will be in the reconciliation report.

J. MacPhail: In this category of people that I asked about for February '03, is there a separate category for people with disabilities getting DB-2 benefits? How many cases and how many people are there?

Hon. M. Coell: Last year there were 45,366. This year, as of February 2003, there were 46,392.

J. MacPhail: I assume they're not part of the 122,513 cases that we talked about earlier. Or are they?

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell me how many people are in those cases then, please?

J. MacPhail: Okay, this is very interesting. So the figures for '02-03 across the board will be…. I really do need them. Already there are 56,000 people under DB-2 and 55,000 children, which is almost two-thirds of the number of people — maybe not quite, but almost 60 percent of the number of people — so I'm very anxious to know where the ministry is going to cut another $200 million out of its budget. How many people were there last year — we can get that figure, February '02 — on DB-2?

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister gave me a figure for the year '02-03 of 45,366 cases. I'm wondering how many people were DB-2 last year.

Hon. M. Coell: There are two areas in the budget, and I'll take a bit of time to explain this. There's the temporary assistance, where people are expected to work and/or are temporarily excused. The continuous assistance is for persons with persistent multiple barriers and persons with disabilities not expected to seek work.

The budget for continuous assistance for this year is $444.35 million. There will be some people with disabilities who are being paid out of the temporary assistance account. These will be people who are actively looking for work or involved in the $24 million worth of training programs for people with disabilities, so there is a budget of $16.25 million to be added to that $444.35 million. That would give you your total.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have the figure for what the budget was for the — I guess it was eventually — 14,000 people whose cases needed to be reviewed under disability? Was it 14,000 that it eventually was? How much assistance were they getting for '02-03?

Hon. M. Coell: You could calculate that. We never did in putting this budget together. There is a budget for persons with disabilities. There would be 47,486 in the estimates. That's the budget of how many people would be on disabilities this year.

J. MacPhail: I heard the minister saying he'd received 6,000 new applications for DB-2 or something, and it's gone up a thousand. What's the discrepancy there? I asked — and my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked — week after week, and he kept

on saying there were 6,000 new applications. It looks like there's a thousand that qualified.

Hon. M. Coell: We've actually received 8,000 as of today. Every year we have about — I'm thinking back four or five years — 10,000 go off the former DB-2 category, so we figure that will be consistent. You generally have or have had about 6,000 come on per year, but you have between — as I say, depending on the year — 5,000 and 10,000 go off DB-2. We suspect that will be the same with persons with disabilities.

J. MacPhail: Why was the minister relating this to a question about the review? I remember him giving this answer in the Legislature to a question I was asking about these particular reviews. It's really irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with the question about the review or not — the minister's answer about how many applications come in or not. I guess it did obfuscate those that were listening for a while.

I make it so that 111,000 of 183,000 people are either children or people with disabilities on the…. We really are looking at where this government's going to have to cut $200 million out of — I assume, unless they're going to start attacking people with disabilities and children — about 70,000 people on welfare. Am I missing something?

Hon. M. Coell: Through the Chair, I'm not sure I caught a question there. There was a comment, and the member can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the rate of growth. If you look at the disability caseload over the last six or so years, it was ranging at an increase of about 10 to 14 percent a year. We're projecting an increase of about 2 percent.

Hon. M. Coell: There are a couple of reasons for that. I think that almost doubling the amount of money we're spending on employment programs for disabilities will enable more people who have disabilities to leave income assistance.

As I said earlier, in the average year you have 5,000 to 10,000 people leaving income assistance. Most of that is for employment. What we want to do is add employment opportunities, and more people will find employment. That's one side of it. The other is that the change in the legislation and the change in the definition will have an effect on the level of increase. The previous increases of 10 to 14 percent were not in keeping with national averages, which were actually about 2 to 3 percent.

J. MacPhail: You're right. British Columbia was a much kinder place to people with disabilities in the 1990s — much kinder. There are many provinces where people with mental illness are not included in any coverage. So you're right. It was a much kinder, gentler place in the 1990s for people with disabilities, and the tightening up…. Frankly, I don't understand the minister somehow suggesting that it's employment that will move people with disabilities off the rolls and into the job market. He just said that people who could work were working and did work throughout the 1990s. People with disabilities don't want to do anything but work, but the employment opportunities aren't there. What success, then, has the minister had specifically with people on DB-2 moving from DB-2 to work?

Hon. M. Coell: The emphasis for this year's budget is on employment programs for people with disabilities. As I said, since we took office, there's an 80 percent increase in employment programs strictly and specifically for people with disabilities. That is going to be a major employment opportunity for people with disabilities. I quite agree. I know many people with disabilities who want to work and have a difficult time getting employment, and we want to level that playing field. As I've mentioned and I think the member probably knows, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 50 percent higher than for people without a disability, so we want to make sure we emphasize programs in this year's budget. Previously, there wasn't the emphasis that I think needed to be there. So as I say, we've increased by 80 percent the budget for programs for people with disabilities, and that should help.

It's one of a number of things. You still have to have the jobs being created in the economy. The other area that I want to spend some time on, and I know the ministry does, is to assist businesses in understanding the specific needs of people with disabilities. To that extent, I have put together a minister's council — all the information is on our website on that — which will help develop programs to enhance a business's ability and desire to employ people with disabilities. There are businesses in our province…. I was meeting with people from the Royal Bank who have a tremendous program for hiring people with disabilities, and my own ministry does. But there are lots of opportunities that are untapped in the community, and we want to make sure that those programs are there and the assistance is there for people with disabilities.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking for specifics. This is the completion of the second year of this government. I'm asking for specifics that validate his point that people are moving into jobs because of this government's employment programs for people with disabilities.

Hon. M. Coell: In the past, the ministry didn't track people leaving disability for employment. I suspect they would have because they started with tracking some specifically for income assistance. The RFP is just going up on the Web for these programs this year, so it will be next year before we see any of the benefits and any of the tracking for people who are enrolled in the programs and who find employment.

Hon. M. Coell: In November we had $6.7 million of RFPs, and July 1 of this year there will be $14 million.

J. MacPhail: So is that a budget, then, this year of $14 million, not the $6.7 million? Or is it a budget of $20 million?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and give a little bit of a detail here. In this year's budget, '03-04, there's $2.34 million worth of direct persons-with-disability programming. Then, as well, there's $14.1 million. Then in the public sector training, there's $320,000. Then in the pre-employment services we have $6.75 million. Then in an innovations fund, there's half a million dollars — a total of $24 million in this year's budget.

J. MacPhail: So how many people will that help? I just divided 20 million by 14,000. The reason I did that was because I thought the overall employment budget would be $20 million, and there were 14,000 people who had to hand in a review. I assumed there was some reason why — although the auditor general is going to look into all of this — those 14,000 were targeted, and I thought the reason was that people would think maybe they can work. If you divide 20 million by 14,000, that gives you $1,428 per person for training. What are some of these training programs that are going to move people with disabilities into the workforce, and how much are they costing, and how much is given per person?

Hon. M. Coell: The 14,000 that the member mentioned is part of the review. It's not part of the job training programs. As I say, $24 million are being developed for programs to assist people with disabilities, and it would be our hope that…. The previous government had some programs — I think it was about $13 million for people-with-disabilities programs — and that got a certain amount of people back to work.

As I say, they didn't give us any background as to how well they were working. I suspect they were working to some extent. But we want to make sure that our RFPs are accountable and that at the end of the day we can say we spent this money, and these people actually got employment and here's how they got employment, and that there's a continuum of programs in there to meet the various needs and the varying needs of people with disabilities.

J. MacPhail: I'm just trying to find out a reason why you're doing this review. I assumed you picked these 14,000…. Is it 14,000 people? Let me just get the right number. Is it 14,000 people who eventually had to hand in the review?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll be detailed, because I want the member to get the details she's asked for. As she knows, the new legislation, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, introduced a new definition and a designation for persons with disabilities. The B.C. Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act focuses on impairments that restrict a person's ability to perform daily living activities. This definition is more consistent with human rights case law than the former definition under the BC Benefits Act, which used unusual and continuous monthly expenditures.

There is a legal requirement for the minister to review the former disability 2 caseload to determine the eligibility under the new legislation criteria. The definition in the previous Disability Benefits Program Act had many undefined terms, and the application form and the medical assessment was, we believe, too simplistic. There was no specific list of assessors in the regulations, and policy allowed for a broad range of assessors including teachers and school counsellors.

As the member may know, the new legislation specifies that assessors be health professionals authorized under and enacted to practise a profession such as medical practitioner, registered psychologist, occupational therapist or physical therapist. People with mental disorders were not specifically included in the definition.

The review. We went through all of the cases, as the legislation required, and found that there were 14,000 people at the end of the day. We just did not have enough information on their files to make the new designation, so the review process required those 14,000 to give us more information on themselves for the definition to be given to them.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure that will be work in terms of rewriting history, but that is a complete rewrite of history — a complete rewrite of history — starting with the June 2002 briefing note that the minister himself and his staff had about cutting people off DB-2.

In terms of the review, then. It was interesting to note that the minister isn't doing it to help people and that there will be special resources to provide them for moving from welfare to work. It's basically, I guess, to see whether these people are disabled enough or whether they've been actually laggards in terms of fooling people about whether they're disabled or not. I recall very clearly at the time that, even though I worked closely with the community to expand the definition and worked very closely with the community, they were still upset. Many people were upset about how qualifying took place or how people didn't qualify. It will be interesting to see what the results of the review are.

The $24 million, then, isn't to deal with the 14,000, and none of the programs are in place yet. Well, some of them are in place. When is this migration from DB-2 to work expected to take place? I'm trying to figure out whether any of the $200 million cut in this ministry's budget will come out of DB-2.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, it won't. If you look at the estimates and the budget, there's actually an increase.

J. MacPhail: Which gets me back to my point that I made before. The minister actually went off on another tangent, which was fine, thinking that I was asking about what part of the 60 percent of the caseload…. He thought I was just talking about disability 2.

I was talking about the entire caseload. The entire caseload as of February '03 is 183,312 people, of whom 55,000 are children and 56,500 are people with disabilities on DB-2. That's 111,107 people of 183,000, so fully 60 percent of those to whom the government pays welfare are either people with disabilities or children.

That means that the 40 percent are going to bear the brunt of a $200 million reduction, I would assume. What plans are for that? The minister says it's just going to carry on. How does that work, where you take $200 million out of 71,000 people's pockets?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm glad to clarify for the member. The reduction, when you look at the estimates for this year, is in the temporary assistance, the expected-to-work and people who are employable. The caseload would go down in that category, and the reduction in the funds in that category as well.

J. MacPhail: Yes, so he's confirming what I'm saying — that the $200 million-plus budget cut in his ministry will come out of 40 percent of the caseload. It excludes children, and it excludes disability 2. I mean, that's a huge, huge reduction. So what are the plans — just carry on the way we are now?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I understand what the member is saying. If she remembers, we actually were under budget in this ministry by a significant amount. And if I look at caseloads, we need to get, this year, to a total caseload of 118,500 people. The year we started off we were already at 122,500 people.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, what was the budget for this year, then? The minister told me it was $1.4 billion — the actual expenditure. So what is the actual expenditure versus…?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the caseload we're looking at for this year is 118,500. We were, last year…. We haven't gone through the reconciliation yet, and the final numbers haven't been published, but an estimate would be that we were under budget by $164 million. So a lot of that comes out of last year's savings.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm sorry. Could the minister just give me a figure for the budget for '02-03? The expenditure — sorry.

Hon. M. Coell: I was just doing some math. I should have borrowed that member's calculator as well. As I said, we haven't done the reconciliation, and the final budget hasn't been published, but it will be approximately $1.5 billion. This year's budget is $1.417 billion.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Yes, but '04-05 is $1.2 billion — right? Let me just start again.

For '02-03 the budget will be around $1.5 billion. For '03-04 it is around $1.4 billion-plus, and for '04-05 it is $1.22 billion. So starting off this year, you have a budget of $1.4 billion. But my point is that you have to have that budget down to $1.22 billion just 12 months from now.

So what are the plans? No matter which way you cut it, there's going to be a couple of hundred million dollars cut from the welfare budget in 12 months.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the member is not quite correct. The budget…. In 12 months we have to be at $1.4 billion; in 24 months we have to be at $1.22 billion. Both of those reductions are coming out of the temporary caseload. Again, you can see where the assistance in continuous stays pretty level during that time, with an uptake in '04-05. But the reduction in our ministry will come from putting people back to work, out of the caseload of temporary assistance.

J. MacPhail: The minister is quite correct to correct me. Over the course of the next 24 months his ministry gets cut by $300 million — $100 million this year and then another $200 million the following year. So over the course of the next 24 months, $300 million will be cut from the welfare budget. As I understand it, that's like, over the course of the next two years…. What is that? That's a 22 or 23 percent cut over two years coming out of 70,000 people, the temporary assistance caseload. I asked the minister what plans he has for that, and it's sort of: carry on the way it is. So if we're not just booting people off welfare, what's the increase in employment training programs over just the next two years?

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate that question, and I'll try and answer it in a little bit of detail. When we became government, we looked at and did core reviews of all ministries. One of the things this ministry decided to do was to make its changes upfront. As you remember, major pieces of legislation were introduced last year that changed the direction for income assistance. The projected caseload is…. In total we would like to see it down around 100,000. The employment programs that are stated…. We looked at a three-year window of $330 million over that time and guaranteed those programs. We refined and retooled many of them and put an emphasis on people with disabilities this year to try and beef up the employment and training opportunities for people with disabilities.

Those programs and the legislation were all introduced last year. As I said earlier, we don't foresee any new changes to legislation, any new changes to regulations. Those changes were made, and with the projection of carrying through and putting an emphasis on employment for people who are employable. I think that, in many instances, managing the system that was

J. MacPhail: So that's the long answer for: "There's no new money — none — for employment." I guess this $300 million cut over the next two years will be people being cut off welfare with no help from the government in moving to a job.

Maybe they'll get a job themselves, but let me just explore that a bit, then. The minister wants the caseload down to 100,000 by next year. How many people is that?

Hon. M. Coell: We would anticipate about 160,000 people. It is an estimate, because you don't know the size of families coming in and out of income assistance.

J. MacPhail: So 160,000 people. I need just a second to do my calculation for my next question. Mr. Chair, I calculate that as 4 percent of the population on social assistance. This is the government's goal. What's the rate of welfare use in other provinces — every single one, please?

Hon. M. Coell: While my staff is getting those numbers for me, I'll maybe just give the member details. When you look at the 24-month period, the caseload as of February was 122,000. Our caseload target for this year is 118,000, so that's a reduction of 4,000. Well, our employment programs alone this year were well over 10,000 people finding employment. That's an easy number of people to find work for. The following year, you'd see a reduction of 18,000 people, and last month we created 18,000 jobs in this province.

There are opportunities for people on temporary assistance who are employable. They just need the right training and the right employment opportunities, and they will quickly move off income assistance and start to earn two to three times more than they were on income assistance.

J. MacPhail: I love fun with math too. I love statistics, but the minister's made a couple of leaps there that are leaps of faith, quite frankly.

The reason I want to know what the participation rate in the welfare system is by province is because I want to know how this government, with the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec, manages also to have the lowest participation rate. It might be called an out-migration strategy.

Hon. M. Coell: Unfortunately, I don't have anything newer than March of '02 for British Columbia. I can give that to the member — the percentage of people on caseloads. In Newfoundland it's 9.8 percent, in Prince Edward Island it's 5.4, in Nova Scotia it's 6.5, in New Brunswick it's 6.7, in Quebec it's 7.5, in Ontario it's 5.7, in Manitoba it's 5.2, in Saskatchewan it is 5.5, in Alberta it's 1.8, in British Columbia it's 5.9, and in the Yukon it's 3.4. So there's a variety from 1.8 percent to 9.8 percent within Canada.

J. MacPhail: I think if the minister will check, these rates of participation in the welfare system are fairly constant. The provinces made their big cuts in welfare, except in British Columbia, throughout the 1990s, so they're relatively constant.

Here we have British Columbia who next year wants to have a participation rate of 4 percent. The only province that would be lower…. Believe you me, that stat on the Yukon is changing. The only province that would be lower is Alberta, 1.8 percent. Everybody else is around 5.5 to 6.5 percent. What magic is this government doing that will have a participation rate on welfare of 4 percent and the highest unemployment level west of Quebec? How does that work?

Hon. M. Coell: A number of comments. Last year, as we said earlier, we saw 78,000 jobs created. Two months ago we saw 12,000 jobs created. The month previous, 18,000 jobs created. What we're trying to do is make sure that the B.C. economy prospers by the changes government makes to how B.C. is governed.

One thing I want to talk about is the bank of jobs that my ministry has right now. This month, this day, we have 7,000 available jobs only available for income assistance recipients. Now, we have contractors who…. Part of their contract with job training and job placement is actually to go out and find jobs. One of the abilities for our clients, now that they have an employment plan…. Then, they didn't have to do that. They could just come and get a cheque, and we didn't help them find work. Now part of the income assistance program is an employment plan that's worked on and that they have to work on with our staff. They have to work with many of our contractors.

We have some very, very fine contractors throughout the province who diligently look for work, for opportunities, for our clients and place them into it. Their jobs are good paying. As I say, there are 7,000 of them available today. When I look at this year's caseload reduction of 4,000 with the contracts that we have, with the emphasis on helping people with disabilities with employment and with the change in direction of the economy of creating jobs rather than losing jobs, those make me very optimistic that we'll reach the targets and that people will find employment in B.C.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. The job growth rate throughout the 1990s far exceeded what this government's doing in the first two years. Maybe over the course of the decade they'll match the job growth rate of the 1990s, but they're nowhere near it now.

There is a correlation between unemployment and welfare when you have a safety net that actually meets the needs of people who are subject to the vagaries of the economy. It made sense that the participation rate in welfare in British Columbia was the — one, two, three, four, five — sixth highest in '02, because its un-

employment rate was also the sixth highest. That's the correlation. There's no work, or there's not enough work for a body of people.

What this government wants to do, with absolutely no plan whatsoever for reducing its unemployment — none…. This government doesn't participate in job creation. It likes to take credit for it. This government doesn't do anything to create jobs. With the unemployment rate still being the sixth highest in the country, they want to move to the lowest welfare participation rate — except for Alberta, the lowest. And there are no plans on how to do that — none.

This job creation that this minister is talking about…. It's very hard to pin down specifics. I'd like to know what possible credit this government takes for creating 18,000 jobs or 12,000 jobs or having the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec. What this government is doing is that they're going to ask people to leave the province. They're going to force people out of the province. That's what they're going to do. There's the evidence right there. They're still going to have the sixth-highest unemployment rate, and yet they want to have the second-lowest participation in welfare.

That is saying to people who may have been affected by, who knows, the actions of this government — in the forest sector, for instance, where everybody admits there's going to be medium-term pain…. They're going to say to the people of British Columbia: "Move somewhere else. Get a social safety net somewhere else, because we're not interested in providing that social safety net to you."

How many people are going to be affected by the regulation change October 1, when this government is going to put a lien on people's homes to recover welfare payments?

Hon. M. Coell: This is just an estimate, but we are debating estimates: about 1,600 people.

J. MacPhail: I'd appreciate that information about how this breaks down regionally. I expect we'll find that in the interior and the coast — those great areas that this government claims to have so much concern for — those people live there because the unemployment rate has been so high for so long, yet they did buy a house in their earlier lives when they had jobs.

Under the new changes to the disability form, applicants are given 20 days to appeal. Are there any resources being provided for people to appeal, given that there have been huge cuts to legal services and advocacy services?

Hon. M. Coell: We have made no cuts to advocacy payments from this ministry. The person has 20 business days to ask for reconsideration, and we have ten days to get back to them. After that point, you would have seven business days to initiate an appeal, and then we have 15 business days to hold that appeal. So the time line is much more condensed for the appeal process.

J. MacPhail: Is the ministry doing any tracking of those who had a review and were declared ineligible — about what happens to them after that?

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member could expand on that question for me, please.

J. MacPhail: I'm worried about people falling through the cracks. These are people who have disability 2 payments. They are reviewed, they are denied, and they are declared ineligible for disability 2 payments. Do they automatically go onto temporary assistance, or what happens? Are we keeping track of them?

Hon. M. Coell: We will be doing that. If someone applies for disability assistance and they're not already receiving it…. If they didn't receive persons-with-a-disability designation, their EAW would also do a screen for persons with multiple barriers to see if they fit that category, and if need be, they would do an employment plan with that person. Someone who is on the caseload now, who applies and doesn't meet the criteria, would also have an immediate appointment with their EAW to do a scan to see about the persons-with-multiple-barriers designation as well.

J. MacPhail: Earlier today, during introductions, I introduced a man who was here for question period: Theodore Hawryluk. He actually asked me to read this into the record during introductions, and it wasn't appropriate. But let me read it to the minister now.

I'd like to ask the House to rise and acknowledge the existence and presence of Mr. Theodore Hawryluk. Mr. Hawryluk owned and operated several businesses before becoming disabled in 1996. From 1996 until September 2002, Mr. Hawryluk was a volunteer news broadcaster at CFUV radio in Victoria to — as he puts it — give something back to his community.

After receiving his 23-page re-evaluation, Mr. Hawryluk has become very depressed. His days are now filled with fear and anger — fear that for the sake of a few dollars the province is losing its soul and anger because the backbenchers sit back and say nothing to defend the rights of those that are least advantaged.

Mr. Hawryluk is not from my constituency, by the way. Mr. Hawryluk is here today to watch people earning three times his income cut his income by 25 percent. Mr. Hawryluk dares any one of us, me included, to live as he does on $786 per month. Try to remain happy and motivated while being threatened with a reduction to $610 a month.

Mr. Hawryluk is extremely anxious and wishes desperately to be a productive citizen but can't because

of his disabilities. What happens to Mr. Hawryluk if he loses his DB-2 benefits? When he meets with his EAW, does he automatically get the social assistance, or does he have to come up with an employment plan and wait three weeks?

Hon. M. Coell: It really depends on the individual case, but what we're trying to do is adjudicate within an eight-week period, which is sort of traditional. Some have been longer than that, but if we got a review form in at this stage, we would be looking at eight to 12 weeks before we got back — but, I suspect, closer to eight.

If you received a letter saying, "Thank you very much for the information. It assists us in helping with the designation. You've been approved for the designation, " then nothing would change. If someone received a letter saying that there wasn't sufficient information to make the definition, then they would have an appointment very shortly with their EAW and look at the screen for persons with multiple barriers to employment. Also, if someone was able to work, they would do an employment plan and go through the employability programs.

J. MacPhail: Is there a possibility that people who are now declared ineligible for DB-2 could be cut off for a few weeks or months?

J. MacPhail: What happens to them? Do they automatically go on temporary assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: There is a three-month notice once someone has been given…. If they sent in the review form and were approved, then nothing changes. If they did not receive the designation, then they would have three months from that point before any changes, and that would give them time to come in, speak to the EAW about the persons-with-multiple-barriers-to-employment designation or do an employment plan and be in the employment programs.

J. MacPhail: Yes, all right. So in the three-month notice, they have to appeal. If they lose their appeal, then do they…? Sorry, I'm not completely up to speed. Isn't there a three-week waiting period before you go on temporary assistance? Do they have to do the three-week waiting period?

Hon. M. Coell: No, that's not the case. Someone would just be moved either into the persons-with-multiple-barriers category or into the temporary assistance category.

J. MacPhail: How much money has the ministry budgeted to assess how many of the recipients currently receiving disability benefits will qualify for the employable category?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure I understand the question, but we have $3.8 million in the budget this year for the assessment part of the review process.

J. MacPhail: So the $3.8 million includes the work the EAW is going to do after they've been turned down?

Here's how I've been told that people think it's going to work. A person is on DB-2 now. They get the notice saying: "You're not eligible for DB-2." They have the right to appeal. If they lose the appeal, they'll have to go in and be reassessed for everything with their EAW. How much is the ministry budgeting for the transition after they've lost their appeal?

Hon. M. Coell: That would just be part of the everyday function of the ministry. There's no additional cost to that. That would be within our staff allocations.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister put on the record now what the definition for persistent barriers to employment is?

Hon. M. Coell: For the member — and I'll take a moment here — persons with persistent multiple barriers are those persons who meet the following criteria: have received assistance for 12 of the last 15 months; have severe multiple personal barriers to employment; and have a medical condition, excluding addictions, that has lasted for at least one year, is likely to continue or recur frequently for at least two years and seriously hinders their ability to search for, accept and continue employment; or have a medical condition, excluding addictions, that has lasted for at least one year, is likely to continue to recur frequently or for at least two years and by itself precludes their ability to search for, accept or continue employment.

I'd just take a moment longer for the member. An individual's personal barriers are those that are beyond a person's control, cannot be overcome despite all reasonable attempts by the client — excluding medical conditions — and directly prevent the person from maintaining employment now or in the foreseeable future.

J. MacPhail: That's persistent barriers to employment. What's the definition of multiple barriers to employment?

Hon. M. Coell: That's persons with persistent multiple barriers, and there's just that one category. I'm sorry if I didn't add the multiple barriers in. So there's just the one category: persons with persistent multiple barriers.

J. MacPhail: Are those 10,000 spread throughout all of the categories as well? When you say you're budgeting for them, are they part of the…? Or are they just part of the disabilities category?

Hon. M. Coell: It's part of the continuous assistance category, but it's a separate category. I think what the member is looking for is: are those people part of the 46,000? They're not; they're on top of that. That would be 56,000.

J. MacPhail: So a person who loses her appeal for being kicked off DB-2 would be screened for being eligible for the persistent-and-multiple-barrier category. How many people are in the category as of last year? This year you're budgeting for 10,000. How many were in the category last year?

Hon. M. Coell: This is a new category. It's not the previous DB-1 category that was cancelled; this is a new category. We're budgeting that 10,000 people will be in this category. Some of the DB-1s will be in this category; probably a majority of them will be in this category.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Could the minister update me on when the change is going to take place and where the DB-1 people have been? When does the change take place, when he says it's a new category…?

Hon. M. Coell: The new category actually started September 30. We had started receiving applications at that date.

J. MacPhail: How many are in the category now? So all DB-1 people had to reapply for multiple-and-persistent-barrier category. I understand that's correct.

How many as of now or the last time you kept stats, February '03, are in the multiple-and-persistent-barrier category?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, that new category came into existence on September 30. We've budgeted for 10,000 in that category, and as of today just about 9,000 have been approved and are in that new category.

J. MacPhail: So how many does the minister anticipate will move from DB-2 to the persistent-and-multiple-barriers-to-employment category?

Hon. M. Coell: At this point we don't know, because none have moved from the former DB-2 caseload to persons with multiple barriers. They're all still on the caseload as persons with disability.

J. MacPhail: What's the timing for completion of the review of people with disabilities?

Hon. M. Coell: We've told people that we would have everyone notified by June 15. There may be some exceptions to that, but June 15 is the date that we're focusing on at this point.

J. MacPhail: And then the appeal period after that? The minister is nodding yes.

Hon. M. Coell: The review started September 30 — or October, as the member suggests.

J. MacPhail: We're in our seventh month of this review now. By the time the minister expects it to be completed, it will be nine months. Then there's the appeal period after that. I'd say that's a lot of anxiety for people to have to go through — a lot of stress. What groups is the minister working with to establish the appeal process or to make sure the appeal process is working as smoothly as possible?

Hon. M. Coell: The appeal process was set up under the administrative justice project. A new tribunal was put in place by the legislation last year. We're continually getting input from people with regard to the appeal process. We'll make changes as need be.

J. MacPhail: The minister has an advisory group, he said earlier. What changes have been made in the appointments to that advisory group in the last six months?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member may be confusing the two. The appeal board is quite separate from the minister's advisory council. It's specifically on employment and employment strategies for people with disabilities. The two are not connected in any way.

J. MacPhail: Oh, okay. His advisory council is not assisting him with this appeal process. Who is, then? Is he consulting with the Canadian Mental Health Association?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll just take a moment, if I may, to outline the implementation of the appeal tribunal. It's an independent office with its own budget and staff. Its contracted lawyer provides legal assistance. Its chair reports to the minister through an annual report. Case details, of course, are — the same as the previous appeal tribunal — confidential.

The minister's council, as the member was commenting, is separate from this group. They're volunteers. They're people we looked at from around the province who had the ability to, I think, effect some change with business practices for hiring people with disabilities.

J. MacPhail: How is the minister going to ensure the independence of the…? How long have the re-

J. MacPhail: How many are there? How long have they sat? How many cases have they heard? How many regions are there? Could the minister please give me the details of the regional tribunal hearings — how many decisions in favour of the appellant, how many denied?

Hon. M. Coell: It's really a small window from October to December, and I do have the information. The ministry has moved from nine regions to five regions — I think I mentioned that earlier — more in line with the Ministry of Health Services' regions and the Ministry of Children and Family Development's regions. It came into effect September 30, so we're looking at a window basically from October to December. There are 192 members of the tribunal. They have had in that short period of time 299 tribunals; 156 have confirmed the ministry's decision, and 79 have rescinded the ministry's decision.

One thing the member might be interested in is that over 65 percent of the issues are resolved at the reconsideration level in the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Which occurs before the tribunal level. So in three months there were 192 members, 299 tribunals. What was the three-month cost for running the tribunals?

Hon. M. Coell: The estimate for the employment and assistance appeal tribunal for '02-03 was $2.241 million, and the estimate for '03-04 is $2.417 million.

J. MacPhail: Is there a review going on, or is someone monitoring the new appeal process? My understanding is that there is no judicial review of the appeal process anymore.

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry has not initiated any judicial reviews, but some clients may have. We wouldn't be aware of that.

J. MacPhail: I remember one of the sticking points, in terms of acceptance of the regional tribunals, was that the appellant used to have the right to choose one member of the tribunal. That is no longer the case as I understand it. Does the minister still appoint all members of the tribunal?

J. MacPhail: Has there been any feedback on that? What monitoring is the minister doing of the appeal process? Who's he working with?

Hon. M. Coell: The employment and assistance legislation lays out the rules by which the appeal tribunal must conduct appeals. The appeal tribunal clearly operates independently from the ministry, but we do monitor the processes and procedures to ensure that they're operating effectively. The chair of the employment and assistance appeal tribunal monitors the appeals when appeals are filed and when decisions are rendered. If delays occur, I will meet with the chair to discuss the processes and procedures. One of the things that we were trying to do with this is to make a more timely appeal process, and I think that's taken place.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister reiterate again how much more timely it is, then?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the timeliness would be that an appeal must be held within 15 days of the date a notice of appeal is delivered to the employment and assistance appeal tribunal — so 15 days.

J. MacPhail: Is that being met? I'm sorry. Did you say the appeal has to be heard in that time? If so, is that happening? What's the time line to the rendering of decision?

Hon. M. Coell: It is 15 days unless both parties agree to an extension. Sometimes, if someone has a doctor's appointment on that day or something, they might extend it. We would make a decision within seven business days.

J. MacPhail: I want to move back to the…. That's the appeal process that people with changes in their disability 2 status will have to follow. Is that correct? The minister is nodding. The training opportunities that the minister will offer people. I'm thinking now of these people that will be moved from DB-2 into other opportunities. I'm glad to hear that they won't have all of their welfare cut off. But other training — where's the training taking place? Are they on the job, work experience? Does the ministry have any training programs left at universities or colleges?

Hon. M. Coell: The goal of the ministry — and I think the previous member's goal was probably the same when she was the minister of this ministry — is

to have a continuum of programs and strategies for people on income assistance and for people with disabilities.

As we've stated earlier, there is the $330 million commitment over three years, of which $24 million is for persons with disabilities and employment strategies this year. The first part of that program is really the job plan. Now, as part of income assistance and through the last year and this year, we're developing those programs and then going back and seeing where there are any gaps in services and trying to plug those gaps.

There's been a series of RFPs. The member may have noticed that. Then there are some just going forward now, $14 million worth for persons with disabilities. There's been a series of RFPs that have been spread out over the year so that contracts don't end and start all at the same time.

We have the public service training program which has been there for a number of years and still is there, the employment program for persons with disabilities, the supports to employment, the pre-employment services, the innovations fund, the employment initiatives or confirmed job program, the orientation sessions, work connections, employability skills and the volunteer incentive program, which is more likely to be taken up by persons with disabilities. We have the self-employment program, the work-based training modules, Job Start and the job placement programs, which are the contracts that have been there for a number of years, and as I've said, we've retooled and refined them after review. Then we have centrally managed funds, which would be the community assistance program, which are programs out in the community throughout the province. We will continue to look at that broad range of programs to see where new opportunities can be found for people on income assistance and people with disabilities as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm interested to know what the effect on the ministry's employment programs has been with the cuts to ABE, adult basic education, around the province and/or the charging now for tuition for adult basic education.

Hon. M. Coell: We pay tuition for persons with disabilities, and they can access ABE as well. There haven't been any changes in that category.

J. MacPhail: There have been changes to the ministry's budget. That's what I'm interested in. Tuition wasn't charged for that before.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm sorry. I wasn't specific enough. We will pay for that. There's no charge for that, but there hasn't been a big uptake in that as well.

J. MacPhail: But there is a difference. I mean, people with employment programs under the Ministry of Human Resources are now being charged for what used to not be charged against them. The greater government would provide for free adult basic education, and now this ministry's budget is being charged for that, so that probably means less service can be given. I'm sorry. Did the minister have a figure for how much is being paid for adult basic education?

Let me ask this other question. This government is now charging tuition for apprenticeships. Is there any money being paid for that?

Hon. M. Coell: In this year's budget we have $2.34 million for direct payment for those services the member was mentioning.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's unfortunate that the changes this government brought in to charge for tuition and adult basic education are taking money directly out of the programs moving people from welfare to work, to the tune of millions of dollars. What agreements does the minister have with various employer groups to continue to provide on-the-job work experience? Could I have specific names of programs, please?

Hon. M. Coell: I may have mentioned some of these, and I'll give a little bit more detail: the confirmed job program, the orientation sessions, the volunteer incentive program, the self-employment programs. Then the two major ones are the training for jobs and job placement programs. Those partner with the chamber of commerce and the tourism factors. We've expanded that to two other partners. One, ASPECT, the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training, will deliver in the Fraser North area. KOPAR Administration Ltd. will deliver in central B.C. and Prince George, northern B.C. We've got the two major groups that were actually put together by the previous government, which are still in place, and we've added two partners with that: ASPECT and KOPAR.

They in turn partner with businesses small and large within their community. I can give you an example, if the member would like, of some of the service providers the training for jobs pilot program has. Malaspina College is one, and Changes Training Centre, A. Horton Consulting Services, North Okanagan Enhancement Society, Training Innovations Inc., Steele O'Neil and Associates and Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C.

We partnered with the home builders and the college here in town on a program called hard hats, which takes people on income assistance, gives them a broad range of skills in the construction industry and then guarantees them a job in the construction industry. We just had our first graduation class at Camosun two weeks ago, and there was a group of people who went through this program. They have the ability to look at cabinetmaking, at welding, at roofing — those sorts of things — and then they decide which they want to get more involved in. At the same point, the industry finds them a job at the end, so they leave income assistance after that short training period.

School district 64, on the North Shore, is one of our partners. There's Spectrum Community School, Sprott-Shaw Community College, the Open Learning Agency, Career Connections and, as I said, ASPECT and the Kelowna Economic Recovery and Employment Development Association as well. That gives you a mix of some of the training programs our partners have hooked up with.

I think one of the important things for us as politicians to know is that we've got to make as many contacts as possible out there if we're going to provide the jobs. We can't just think that government can do it. That's one of the reasons why our ministry partners with so many other agencies — so that we can try and find the best possible employment opportunities for people on income assistance.

What I hope you'll see this year — and we've talked about it a bit — is that increase for programs for people with disabilities. We'll expand that partnership, as well, through the minister's council and through other contacts that we've made over the years. I think you'll see us continuing to expand the amount of people we work with and contract with. The bottom line is: how do we find jobs for employable people who need them?

J. MacPhail: Do any of those programs, the employer programs, deal specifically with people with disabilities who suffer an episodic illness, where it's recurring but periodic?

Hon. M. Coell: That's one of the reasons we had the rapid reinstatement as part of the legislation — part of the regulations — so that if someone with a mental illness, as a good example, could work for a short period of time and wanted to and found they couldn't, then they could rapidly be reinstated back onto the persons-with-a-disability assistance.

The increase in the earning exemption to $400 from $200 is to do that, so if someone is able to work for a couple of months, they can actually earn enough. Then if they can't work, they're not losing the ability to do that.

I think there's a number of different avenues that you try and focus on, with earning exemptions being one, for people with periodic recurring illnesses — the ability to…. As I say, the minister's council is for businesses to understand that if they take on an employee, this may be something they have to work with the employee on. There's a number of things we're going to do with the minister's council with workplace accommodations, too, over the year to try and find areas where we can help people with — I would say — their ability to work periodically. We want to be able to enhance that for them.

J. MacPhail: Yes. My question was: is there any interest from the employers in working on that?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I met with the business learning network this morning, and we're…. Between that contact and the minister's council and the terms of reference, which are on the website for the minister's council, those are areas where we want to enhance businesses' receptiveness — I guess, more than anything — to people with disabilities and to people with unique disabilities that will challenge both the person and the employer to find ways of dealing with the disability that allow them to be employed at the same time. So, yes to the question.

J. MacPhail: I have several questions from disparate areas, and then that will be it on these estimates for me. I am disappointed that I have not had the information about the caseload, unless the minister has it now.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. The minister is saying yes. There was a rule that was put in place that in order to be eligible for claiming your child for welfare payments, the child could not be truant from school. Could we have the status of that rule?

Hon. M. Coell: That policy hasn't been implemented at this point. We're still working on it.

Hon. M. Coell: I didn't notice that the member wasn't paying attention. We haven't implemented that policy. We're still working on it.

J. MacPhail: Has there been feedback from school districts about the advisability of proceeding on that policy?

Hon. M. Coell: No, I don't believe we've had any feedback from school districts.

J. MacPhail: In communities like Port Hardy, people on disability are having difficulty getting their reassessment forms filled out because of the difficulty of getting appointments with GPs and psychologists.

Is the minister going to provide some sort of remedy for this issue either by extending the deadline or by increasing resources to communities like Port Hardy?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the undertakings we took in the last month or so was to actually contact everyone we hadn't heard from. As I said earlier in the estimates, we have heard from all but a hundred people who we were expecting to have the review form in.

There were about 700 that we now know are either at the doctor's or the health professional's office, so they'll be coming in. We're looking at a case-by-case basis. If there's someone in Port Hardy that the member knows about who is one of those hundred, I'd be interested to know so our staff could contact them directly.

J. MacPhail: Is the ministry currently working with the auditor general's office on the review that the auditor general is conducting of the disability benefits review?

Hon. M. Coell: Staff have spoken with the auditor general and will be working with the auditor general during the review.

J. MacPhail: When did the benefits change for people on social assistance for MSP coverage for podiatry, optometry, etc.? That's number one. When did the change kick in, and what has been the change in usage?

Hon. M. Coell: The regulation changes were September 30. I don't have the detailed information that the member is asking for, but I will get it to her.

J. MacPhail: The changes are, as I remember them, that there's a visitation limit that now has to be shared amongst all of the supplementary medical services. Could the minister explain the change, again, that took place September 30, 2002, and is he tracking usage?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I was a little confused between what Health Services changes were and what ours are.

If someone has access to schedule C in our ministry, they would get 12 visits for physio and chiropractic or massage over and above what MSP allows for.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, that's the question, and MSP doesn't cover it anymore in certain areas. But the usage of it — will that be an MSP question?

Hon. M. Coell: We do track it. It is very small; it's not a large number. I could get that number for her. We don't have it here, but I could get that number to the member.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, those conclude my questions. It is a year of great change, '03-04, in the social assistance system not only for people on temporary assistance but also for people on continuous assistance. I am pleased that the auditor general will be doing a review of the disabilities review initiative. We, from a public accounts point of view, will be watching that very carefully.

I said to the Minister of Children and Family Development that when the economy recovers — if the economy recovers, and I certainly hope it does — it would be my wish to have extra resources assigned first to the Ministry of Human Resources and their clientele, and then to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. So I repeat that for this minister.

My riding is one of…. I love my riding. It's an eclectic riding, it's a diverse riding, but it also has pockets of extreme poverty that in my view…. And certainly, the community advocates whom I've worked with for years say that the changes in human resources and social assistance have affected the community deeply and in a very troubling way. So I will be anxious as I watch the changes unfold throughout '03-04, and I hope that by '04-05 this government can see its way clear to try not to have the narrowest and smallest and shallowest social safety net in all of Canada.

Hon. M. Coell: I will make sure that the information I promised the member this evening gets to her office. If she doesn't mind, it might be late this evening, but I'll make sure it gets to her office.

J. Bray: I have several questions stemming from the ministry's service plan, and I hope not to be too redundant on any of the earlier debate.

Certainly, as I've commented before during estimates debates, the first thing I'd like to do is acknowledge…. Service plans are often documents which people sometimes think are just sort of little add-ons that ministries do. In fact, they are very important aspects of planning and service delivery, and a way of accountability for both ministries to use but also for the public to gauge the success of the ministries as they outline their plans and meet their objectives.

I want to acknowledge that the Ministry of Human Resources service plan is excellent, and it's clear that staff who work for the ministry put in a lot of time to really develop a well-thought-out, well-rounded service plan. One of the great things is that it's a very useful tool for the public. One of the detriments for ministers is that it creates a lot of opportunities for further debate, because there is so much information in the service plan. So I will try to follow the service plan as best I can with my questions, and as debate happens, we may move around a little bit.

The first thing I note during the strategic context in which the plan was laid out…. On page 4 there is some talk about some new initiatives. The first one I noticed is employment plans and the whole concept of employment plans, and I'm wondering if the minister can provide some more information on what these employment plans are, what the goals of the employment plans are and why this is new from what's occurred in the past for recipients of income assistance.

The employment plan. I'll give you an example. I've taken the initiative to go and visit a lot of our offices over the last year. I was up in Port Alberni on Friday visiting with our office, and one of our staff said something that really struck me. She said: "The employment plan is a way for us to work with our client in a posi-

tive way. You're looking at not just pushing paper, but you're actually now allowing our front-line workers an added tool to help people." They were very much in favour of the employment plan aspect of the program.

So I think it focuses our minds as a ministry, and it also focuses our client's mind that temporary assistance is temporary and that our goal is for them to be employed and making two to three times more money in an employment situation than on income assistance. For me that's the key of it.

I think the last speaker mentioned it — that people on income assistance generally don't want to be on income assistance. They'd like to be working. So if right from the beginning of someone walking into our office, we say, "We've got a plan, we've got programs, and we've got the ability to help you find employment and support you in that employment," whether a person is without disabilities or with disabilities…. I think there are some challenges that used to be there with our front-line staff, which the employment plan actually takes away and adds a benefit.

J. Bray: The reason why I started with this particular area with respect to the service plan is that, as the minister knows, prior to this current chapter in my life I actually worked, starting as a financial assistance worker, in the Ministry of Human Resources and ultimately ending up as a policy analyst and an area manager. So I have worked with the same clients the minister talks about both as a front-line worker as well as somebody developing overarching policy and some of the implementation strategies accordingly.

In my 13-plus years of working with the ministry, we had a variety of tools — and sometimes I'll use that term loosely — to deal with this particular area of how you actually take somebody who you don't know coming in, applying for income assistance, and develop some form of strategy that will, at the end of the day, attach them to the labour market or at least maximize their ability for independence.

I recall there were forms that were called the life forms, which were literally just a one-page series of boxes that you ticked off yes or no, that you applied to everybody evenly regardless of their individual circumstances, regardless of their age, regardless of anything else. At the end of the day the only thing the minister was monitoring those years was just how many forms were completed, not actually the outcomes.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide us with some idea of what this employment plan looks like. What's the process when a client is in the office with their financial assistance worker? What does that process actually looks like? The minister, in his previous answer, talked about a collaborative and supportive approach, so what does it actually look like? What is this going to mean for clients when they're working with their financial assistance workers?

Hon. M. Coell: Just in general, it's about an hour-and-a-half interview, so it's not a simple tick off the boxes. They spend between an hour and an hour and a half.

The employment plan uses an employability screen and a client employability profile. These have been developed to assist with employment planning. Staff work to fill that out to find out what strengths and what capabilities someone has, what their education history is, what their work history is. Then they look at the age, the ability to work, what training programs might be necessary. Then they refer them, as well, to the training programs. We've got a variety of job placement and job training programs that are out there, which are contracted. Part of the job plan is to do that.

One of the things with a plan, too, is that it can have an educational component in it if someone is young. It can have just the recommendation to go and work with the job placement programs, which as I was saying earlier have 7,000 jobs available today.

I think that when a government can say they care about employment, they have to be able to show they care about it. I think the best way we show we care about it is to actually produce the jobs and produce the training and the employment programs for people to actually get those jobs.

I hope I'm not being too lengthy for the member, but that is the continuum of programs and the continuum of assets that someone on income assistance has today that they didn't have before.

One of the things that sounds particularly interesting about this model is at various times — and the minister has heard me in debate before talk about this — the ministry designed its interview process from what I often referred to as a deficit model perspective. In other words, a client who was already probably feeling under some strain to be applying for income assistance and all that entails then endured an interview where essentially they were asked to list all their deficits and all the things that were wrong with them as a way of trying to assess their particular situation.

It sounds like what the employment plan is really doing is trying to match assets to assets. It's looking at what strengths and abilities the client already brings to the table, which in many cases is quite varied, and then tries to match that up with the services that are available in the community or directly through the ministry to enhance that profile for that individual to maximize their ability to be independent. Is that a fair assessment of how the employment plan perhaps differs from previous strategies to deal with attaching someone back to the labour force?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, I would say that's a fair assessment. If I can maybe just add to it. This government isn't going to give up on people, and I've said that before. People in British Columbia deserve a chance to achieve their greatest potential. The greatest potential isn't always full-time work for people with disabilities, but it is to achieve their greatest potential, whether that be part-time work or volunteer work. For those who

can work, we want to make sure British Columbia is a place where people know that if they try and if they work hard, they'll succeed.

The ministry's focus on employment is because we believe in people. We believe that people, given the right opportunity and the right chances, will find employment and stay employed, and their lives will be enhanced because of that.

J. Bray: Actually, I've got one more question, and then I'm going to cede the floor to some colleagues who I know also have some questions.

In the new initiatives section of the service plan, there's also mention of electronic service delivery and that this initiative provides a foundation for improving services to clients and increasing public access to information. Certainly, the ministry has for a long time talked about how to use technology to enhance the services to clients, and there have been various proposals over the years. I'm just wondering if the minister, because this is a very exciting venture, could update us as to where the ministry is at with respect to electronic services delivery, potential kiosks, information kiosks and those types of strategies to make the ministry more accessible to clients and the public.

Hon. M. Coell: I know the member at one time worked for the ministry, so he would know the state of disrepair that our mainframe computer is in and that some of our computing systems haven't been updated, and we're in a process of updating.

But we've done some interesting things in the last year with regard to service delivery. I think of the child care estimator that was up on the Web, which someone could actually go to and figure out what they're eligible for right on the computer. The other one is the income assistance estimator that's right there. Someone doesn't need to come into one of our offices. They can go to the Web and find out whether they would qualify for income assistance or child care. Those are the sorts of things that we want to put in place.

The deputy has just handed me something here that she thinks I should read, so…. [Laughter.]

The ministry recognizes that the alternative service delivery solution requirements are not unique for many other public sector organizations, and the ministry expects to leverage solutions by other ministries. We have been doing that and working with other ministries throughout government to try and find some solutions.

One of the exciting things, I think, about the alternative service delivery is in the opportunities from rural British Columbia — not just in this ministry — so people can actually apply over the telephone in the future or can apply using a computer at the local government agent's office or a library. So there are a lot of opportunities there. You know, if you look at a glass half-full or a glass half-empty…. Maybe we were lucky that we didn't spend a lot of money and change service delivery, because the ability to change in a really positive way is enhanced every day in the technology field.

G. Trumper: I would like to thank you for the time that you gave on Friday to our community. I think it was a very good visit. I think that you learned a great deal or listened to what was taking place. I think it was very positive, and especially when I believe it was Job Wave that said they had had 250 placements in a period of time. In a community such as mine where we have a very high unemployment rate, we also have a lot of people who have been on social assistance at some time, and it covers a whole spectrum.

One question that I would like to ask you has to do with this two-year independence. We do have, particularly in our community — and I'm sure it's true in many other communities — quite a percentage of young people who go through an alternative school system to get their grade 12. These are young people with no families and no assistance. They come from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and then they come on to…. Once they're 19 they have a problem in the fact that there is some assistance if they wish to continue to finish their grade 12 part-time, but if they wish to finish the whole thing in a much shorter time, which will enable them to go out and get some employment or whatever, there is a problem there. Could I ask the minister whether there has been some consideration given to looking at that area? I fully understand that we don't want to have people on assistance going to school full-time for a considerable length of time without some parameters or some levels that they have to achieve, but we do have this issue particularly with 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds still trying to get their grade 12 diploma.

Hon. M. Coell: Persons under 19 can attend school if it's part of their employment plan, and that seems to be working well. Is it people over 19 that the member's requesting — and she's nodding her head — who may not have finished school but want to finish school? That is an area that we're looking at. I honestly don't have an answer for her at this point, but it is an area that we're looking at.

G. Trumper: Thank you very much for that information. It is quite an important issue in my area.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for this opportunity to canvass his ministry in a number of areas that I need some assistance on. I apologize if the matters have been raised earlier, but I would hope that perhaps my areas are unique.

I know the minister's aware, for the past number of years, of a matter that I've been pursuing — I believe that this may affect other constituents in my colleagues' ridings as well — dealing with persons with disabili-

ties, in particular. While the increase in the income exemption threshold is certainly lauded by people throughout this province as well as members in this House — allowing persons with disabilities to earn that little bit more to improve their quality of life — and is supportable, it is based on a person being employed to earn those dollars — that $200 which is now $300 and soon will be $400. It's absolutely the right move, and no one would disagree, but again it requires a person to be employed.

The issue that I have raised in the past and continue to find is creating an inequity is those who are persons with disabilities who do not find employment through employment programs per se but who are self-employed. In particular, I have a constituent who does have a disability and is a self-employed person in furniture repair. His ongoing frustration is that while he can't earn enough to support himself and will always require government assistance — and there's no question on that — he is required to declare his gross income as earnings for the purposes of the income assistance office.

The trouble, of course, and the problem arise when, in fact, he is required to show earnings in one particular month of some $800 but may have costs of supplies, parts, tool expenses, overhead or what have you of up to — let's say — $600. In effect, that month he's earned $200 — definitely under the radar screen, allowing him that exemption. For the purposes of reporting, he is required to report $800, and therefore his disability income would be clawed back. It's an inequity that needs to be addressed. In a subsequent month he may earn the same amount, but his expenses may be beyond that, because he may be required to have an outlay for the economies of scale to buy a number of furniture repair parts and, in fact, could be cash-short that particular month. Again, he would be required to report his gross income.

That inequity exists. For some time I have offered the suggestion that we take a look at this the way we would take a look at a person who is getting other kinds of tax credits from government — our government or the federal government — in that their income is annualized and that it is the following year on which we make an adjustment, if that were possible.

I do recognize that there are persons with disabilities who would want to be able to benefit from the new changes our government is making — very positive changes — but for the fact that the income they're able to earn is structured in a way that it is not directly through an employment office or an employer, and they are exempted or precluded from this benefit. I'd like to raise this matter with the minister once again to find out whether or not we are able to move forward in this direction and what progress has been made since last year.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a bit of background. I appreciate that the member brought this issue forward last year. We said we would look at it. The member may know that there was a self-employment training program that was implemented in 2001. It wasn't very successful. It will actually end this September. By September we intend to have a self-employment program for people with disabilities. That will also be a pilot. We should be able to implement something by September. I agree — and I think everyone agrees — that if we can encourage someone to work part-time, there is a chance they may find success in that business and move off income assistance as well.

There's sort of a two-pronged approach there. We would like to be able to have a program that encourages people to work and, at the same time, encourages people to work part-time in their own business if they can manage that. It's something that the member brought forward, something that we looked into, and we should have some pilot projects starting in September to replace this one for people with disabilities.

I. Chong: Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, I want to thank him and his staff for looking into this matter. Certainly, it is one that I think will arise more and more as we offer other assistance to persons with disabilities who may wish to undertake self-employment opportunities that are available to them. As we provide other support to them, I think this will provide for more independence on their part. I think this new pilot or program that is offered in September will certainly be one that will be lauded across the country, and maybe we'll lead Canada again in an initiative such as this.

The other issue I would like to raise is one I heard the member from Port Alberni raise a moment ago. It has to do with a two-year independent rule. I had the opportunity of meeting with staff people in the Ministry of Human Resources not long ago — in fact, when I was on my constituency week break in my constituency. I asked specifically if there were some areas that were problematic or that could or should be looked at from time to time as we make changes that will make our program better. What came up was the two-year independent rule. Sometimes the difficulty was having to prove it is a problem.

I'm wondering if the minister is able to share with us, in fact, if the difficulty is with proving it, whether there are exemptions that are available or what might be possible. These are not necessarily those who are just turning 19. It could be others who have worked on and off. Again, because of the nature of their instability in the workforce, they have not been able to show they have a two-year independent rule. Is there a way of allowing for some leniency while the proof is being obtained so that a person is able to get some temporary assistance while that is being sought?

Hon. M. Coell: We always try to be flexible and work on a case-by-case basis in instances like that. I don't know whether the member wants me to go through people who are exempted from that, but I can give that information to her. But you have to work on a case-by-case basis in that case. Can you maybe expand

I. Chong: They can be particular cases, and maybe it would be better time spent if I spoke to the minister directly on those case-by-case bases. I want to be able to canvass some other areas with him at this time.

Another matter that was raised and brought to my attention was where we have been able to find a job — whether it's through Job Wave B.C. or Destinations — for persons who were on income assistance and who, in fact, received employment. For some reason, that employment was terminated within a very short time period — say within two to three months. Of course, the difficulty is if a person does find employment, they are required to then pay back the dollars that they earned to the income assistance office. What has happened in the past is that when a person starts to work, they start to incur other costs. Certain costs could be getting the right work clothes. It could be requiring they now have transit costs that they didn't have, and therefore they buy a bus pass. It could even require they now take a lunch they have to pack to work, when they previously were at home and their food supply was whatever was at home.

What has happened in one particular case that I'm aware of is that a person did find a job. We were able to place her, but within about a month and a half, unfortunately, due to some allergies and other environmental factors, the person wasn't able to work. The income she earned was required to be clawed back, but she didn't have this income anymore because she had spent it on exactly these things — a good pair of walking shoes to get to work and some clothes for the new environment.

What was suggested was whether there could be an interim three-month period, for those who do find employment, where it's not deemed to be full-time employment until such time as three months have passed. That is generally a probation period that many employers offer. That way, we will allow those people to earn income in those three months and continue with their income assistance just to help them get that leg up to ensure they're going to be on solid footing. That's opposed to, within that three-month term, being terminated and then finding out they have to pay back dollars they don't have or having them go back on income assistance but having the cheque clawed back, virtually leaving them penniless. If there were any consideration for that or if the minister is aware of any other problems he has encountered with this, I would ask, Mr. Chair, that he offer some insight or some suggestion on this area.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the simple answer is that we're constantly refining our approach to income assistance. I'll take the suggestions the member has made into consideration and discuss it with my staff, but at this point I don't have an answer for her with regard to that.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for allowing me to raise this and for seeing that the ideas we present here during estimates debate are areas that the ministry may wish to consider in making our income assistance that much better for the citizens of British Columbia.

One other area that was also raised was that of transit and whether or not it would be also considered to allow those who are employed to be able to have access to a transit pass for the first month. Again, we definitely want people to succeed who have been on income assistance for a long time and are entering the workforce, and sometimes something such as transit becomes a problem. If that were considered, as well, in the whole scheme of making our income assistance package better for people that we wished to move off income assistance, I leave that for the minister. If he wants to look at that in conjunction with the matter I just raised earlier, he can provide that answer to me at a later time.

One other item that has been raised with me is the emergency needs assessment. This, I understand, is still available. However, it is available for brand-new intakes only, and I was wondering whether or not there are any changes contemplated for that. Emergency needs are always a difficult issue. In the Human Resources offices, I know the people who work there have a very difficult task at hand when they are determining those who, in fact, require emergency needs and assessing them in that matter.

Certainly, some people come in every month thinking they need an emergency needs assessment, so as I say, the job ahead of them is very challenging. But where it's restricted to new intakes only, I'm wondering whether or not we have found there's a need to have a second look at this and whether the emergency needs assessment can be looked at for those who have had to use it in the past but who may, on a more infrequent basis — whether they're still allowed to, once in one year that something occurs — be able to access this.

As I say, things happen sometimes in people's lives, which is why they go into the Human Resources offices looking for emergency funds. If it's limited to brand-new intakes, then we have people who are left without knowing where they should be going, and they often end up in the MLAs' offices. While we try our best to help them, it would make sense if we were able to provide some emergency needs to those people, if it is monitored that they are very infrequent. I wonder if the minister can share with me whether, at this time, that is being looked at.

Hon. M. Coell: A number of questions there, and I'll try to answer them all.

The ministry, in November, released a new program called the confirmed job program. That provides a one-time grant of up to $250 for anyone on income assistance who can demonstrate that they have secured a job leading to independence but need assistance in buying essential items required to begin work. That's

new. Those items could include transportation, safety clothing, work boots and those sorts of things. That's new this year in the ministry, and I think that will help. We have funding to assist up to 4,000 clients in that program.

The other area that the member asked about was the emergency needs assessment. That's if someone shows up in our office saying that they basically don't have any money, that they don't have any place to sleep or any food. We have an emergency needs assessment, and there's money available for people in that circumstance. We also want to make sure that if there's a need for a transition house or if there's a need for a hostel immediately, our staff will work with them to do that.

The other is the crisis supplements. As the member mentioned, people have crises, big and small, in their lives every year whether they're on income assistance or not. It is much more difficult if you're on income assistance, because the amount of money you're receiving is a lot less than you would get working. We have, I believe, $7.5 million in a budget this year that people can access if they have a need or a crisis in their family or as an individual. They would go and work with their employment and assistance counsellor. That fund is available for everyone as well.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister and his staff again for being able to work with me on a number of issues that I've raised throughout the year. I look forward to his announcement in the near future about the pilot projects that he has to offer persons with disabilities or self-employed.

Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank him and his staff, and I'll yield the floor to my colleagues.

J. Bray: Carrying on with the service plan, I just have a few more questions. I think I may be the last person for questions.

On page 16 of the service plan under goal 4, "B.C. Employment and Assistance Services provides supplementary assistance for eligible clients," the first strategic objective is: "Homeless individuals have access to safe emergency accommodation." I'm wondering if the minister could provide me some information as to what services exist in the capital region with respect to shelters and what's actually available for people in the situation of homelessness.

Hon. M. Coell: The budget for shelters and hostels for the ministry is $12.5 million. That is spread throughout the province. We also have a cold and wet weather strategy that increases in the winter months for British Columbians.

In the Victoria area, Cool Aid is a major contractor for shelters and hostels. We spend about $1.5 million in the greater Victoria area, or the capital region area, on shelters and hostels, and that funds about 90 beds.

J. Bray: The minister mentioned Cool Aid, which is really a terrific community resource that we have. I know that the minister has actually spoken to this House before, recently, about the work the minister and his staff have done with Cool Aid to ensure that a vital service continues with respect to women at risk, and that's Sandy Merriman House. Although the hostel and shelter portion carried on, there was some work that needed to be done to provide the day program, as well, for women at risk.

I want to just take this opportunity to thank the minister and his staff for working so hard with Cool Aid to ensure that happens. It's good to hear that there are the resources in the community for homelessness, because in Victoria that's certainly been a fairly significant issue. I think it's important to highlight that there are resources here that are active and operating to meet that need.

This will be my last question, because the other issues have been canvassed by other members. The next bullet down under goal 4 talks about individuals and families having access to short-term disaster assistance through the emergency social services program, the ESS. program. I think this is one of the areas that people often don't realize exists within the ministry or within the community. At times of large and small disaster, this incredible program actually kicks into gear.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide us with two bits of information. The first is just a basic explanation of the emergency social service program that his ministry administers. Second, does this program kick into place only if there's a large-scale disaster like a flood or an earthquake over a large geographic region? Or is this service available for something as small as an apartment fire or a house fire, where people find themselves all of a sudden in the middle of the night without their home or clothing or anything available to them?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm glad the member mentioned this, because there are literally thousands of British Columbians who volunteer for this program. Many of them are staff. When you see an apartment fire, you always have the emergency social services there helping people to find accommodation for the night and working with our ministry.

Many times these people don't get a chance to be thanked, so I'm glad that the member mentioned it. The volunteers for emergency social services are an important part of the social fabric of this province. They're there, as I said, for a house fire or for a flood whenever they're needed, whenever they're called on, whatever time of day and whatever day of the week. They're a tremendous asset, and we're very grateful to have them working with this ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: Just before I move a motion, I'd like to thank my staff. We have 2,310 staff members in the ministry who are very dedicated. They have done a tremendous job in the last year of transition with this

With that, I will move that the House rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

As I announced during first reading, the bill allows for the creation of the Coalbed Gas Act, which will remove uncertainty over the ownership of coalbed gas and create economic opportunities for investment in British Columbia's heartlands. Creation of the Coalbed Gas Act is an important part of this government's heartlands economic strategy and fulfils our throne speech commitment to open up coalbed gas resources in this province. This untapped natural gas supply offers tremendous potential for British Columbia, and its development is a critical part of our new energy plan.

In the past, investment was hampered because of legal uncertainty as to who owned the coalbed gas. Is it the natural gas owner, or is it the coal owner? Provincial policy, established almost 20 years ago, is that coalbed gas is a natural gas and, therefore, owned by the natural gas owner. This legislation enshrines that policy in law. The Coalbed Gas Act brings resolution to the question of ownership of coalbed gas in British Columbia. Specifically, the act establishes in legislation that coalbed gas is natural gas and always has been owned by the natural gas owner.

Coalbed gas potential in British Columbia is estimated to equal 90 trillion cubic feet. Although there is no commercial production of coalbed gas as yet in Canada, interest in British Columbia is growing. Already we have ten experimental projects underway in the province — nine in the northeast and one in the southeast. An exploratory well has also been drilled on Vancouver Island. These legislative changes will unleash the potential of our vast coalbed gas resources by creating the stability and certainty for investment. Energy demand is rising, and new sources like coalbed gas have the potential to diversify British Columbia's energy supply.

In order to develop a thriving coalbed gas industry in British Columbia, it is necessary to resolve the issue of ownership. Enshrining the ownership rights of coalbed gas in legislation will remove this uncertainty. This is consistent with policies of other jurisdictions within Canada and internationally.

This government is committed to the development of coalbed gas in an environmentally responsible manner. Our government has been working with industry, first nation communities and other stakeholders to provide ongoing, up-to-date information on this exciting resource opportunity. Coalbed methane gas is a clean and environmentally safe energy source, and British Columbia is fortunate to have a huge potential of untapped coalbed methane for development.

The United States now derives 8 percent of its annual natural gas production from coalbed methane, demonstrating that coalbed methane gas is becoming the fuel of choice in the new millennium as energy prices increase. Coalbed methane gas represents a local source of energy for British Columbia that can support local markets as well as providing employment and economic development for the people of this province. B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission, which regulates and monitors all oil and gas activities in the province, will have the lead with respect to regulating the development of coalbed gas.

The creation of the Coalbed Gas Act sends a clear message that this government is taking action to open up new economic opportunities across the province and is working with industry to revitalize our economy. This legislation will help set our provincial economy in motion by expanding business opportunities, increasing trade and creating well-paying jobs for British Columbians living in our heartland communities. I look forward to the passing of this legislation that will place B.C. as a leader in development of this exciting new natural gas supply.

J. MacPhail: I look forward to hearing other members in the Legislature as well.

I was interested in hearing the comments of the Minister of Energy on Bill 16, Coalbed Gas Act. He is absolutely forthright when he says this act settles a conflict over ownership of coalbed methane reserves in British Columbia, but the Minister of Energy and Mines speaks as though coalbed methane is a panacea for the provincial economy.

We just heard him say in his concluding remarks that exploration represents a new day for the energy sector in British Columbia and treats the extraction process as a natural occurrence that threatens neither ground nor surface water. Well, that's the land of make-believe that the Liberals live in.

On Vancouver Island much of the land is in private hands, and, yes, the ownership is unclear. Before exploration can commence, the government and those who would extract the gas need to be sure who owns it. This bill, however, does nothing to solve the issue of coalbed methane ownership in the Courtenay and Comox area where the issue of land ownership is most key.

The minister argues that the bill creates a greater certainty for investors, but actually Bill 16 does nothing to address the greatest uncertainty that industry faces in B.C., and that is the settlement of land claims — that is, bringing certainty by bringing about treaties for first nations. Nothing in this bill addresses that issue.

What is not being talked about is what Vancouver Island, the Peace River and the Elk Valley could look like if the dreams of the Minister of Energy and Mines are realized. In the Powder River basin in Wyoming, just 82 wells pump out 1.5 million gallons of water every single day. These wells produce up to 100 gallons per minute in the first two years of operation. That is a huge use of water. There are all sorts of issues attached to the use of that amount of water — where it comes from, what other resources could use that water, the disposal of the water. All those issues we'll explore further in committee stage.

The Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection say: "Don't worry. An industry-led code of practice will make sure all is done properly." Now, just like we have new words in the New Era like "flexibility," "choice," "alternate services," this is a new New Era phrase: "the code of practice." The code of practice is what we're all supposed to rely on as being the thing that will protect British Columbians in terms of having a safe, sustainable coalbed methane extraction industry.

What the government doesn't tell you, though, is about the lack of compliance that the industry has with environmental regulations. The oil and gas extraction industry has a 44 percent failure rate, according to the last audit. Now, the Minister of Energy and Mines said to me that: "Oh no, no, no. That's not an issue." He said this to me in estimates, and he brushed it off, saying: "Oh, that doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand about coalbed methane extractions. Those violations were minimal, and they applied to one area of the province, and it really has nothing to do with the kind of issues that coalbed methane extraction would face in water usage."

Well, we've checked into that, and he's wrong. The same sort of dereliction of duty in meeting the environmental regulations around water usage, sewage and disposal with the oil and gas industry now will apply in the coalbed methane extraction process as well. The industry has a 44 percent failure rate in meeting the regulations, according to the last audit. The last audit was about one-third of the intensity of the previous year's audit. Something like 500 audits were done in 2001, and the Oil and Gas Commission — who knows why — decided to do only about a third of those audits. Would that have been due to the change of government? Hmm. I wonder.

In Wyoming there are 120,000 wells producing the same amount of methane as is projected for Vancouver Island. I wonder if the members for Comox Valley, Alberni-Qualicum, Nanaimo-Parksville or Nanaimo have explained to their constituents just what the landscape will look like with 120,000 pumps going all day every day. I wonder if they're going to get up and speak to this issue. You won't hear much about that from the minister or his cheerleaders on the back bench — last week sheep, this week cheerleaders.

The minister will argue that examples from the United States are an unfair representation of the industry, that in British Columbia coalbed methane companies will be held to the highest environmental standard. What you won't hear is that these are exactly the same companies that did the damage in the United States. The same companies that carried out the environmental degradation of the San Juan and Powder River basins are now wanting to develop here — exactly the same companies.

Nor will you hear the minister tell you that starting in December of this year, there will be absolutely no well-spacing requirements for coalbed methane projects — none. You can have them lined up in a row, side by side. This government has removed the well-spacing requirements for coalbed methane production. The government will tell you that the technology is improving, that B.C. will not experience poisoned aquifers like in Montana and New Mexico. They'll tell you that we won't have the destruction of grazing lands, as happened in the United States, and that we won't hear about the destruction of arable land because of the up to 20 tonnes of salt that can be produced by some coalbed methane wells every year. This British Columbia government would have you believe that that salt problem just won't happen here.

However, even industry sources admit that coalbed methane is a variable resource with even greater uncertainty than conventional natural gas and has potential costs as high as the tar sands. It is a resource that depends on large capital in order to be profitable. That's why the government must heavily subsidize this industry through tax credits and a flexible royalty structure. No matter how much the Minister of Energy doth protest that this is not a subsidy, the lower royalties and the tax credits for coalbed methane extraction are subsidies. They walk like a subsidy; they talk like a subsidy; they are a subsidy.

Priority Ventures has leased nearly 8,000 acres on Vancouver Island, where it hopes to begin exploration in the near future. That company is very excited about making money from high prices and government help in determining ownership — so excited, in fact, that they were placed under a cease-trading order in January by the B.C. Securities Commission. Why? Because of their failure to provide documentation in support of their estimates of methane gas reserves.

The cowboy capitalists are back; they're riding the lands in British Columbia. They're here from Texas and from Louisiana. The same companies that did the deg-

radation in Louisiana and Texas are now here in British Columbia — Priority Ventures. We've seen this far too many times in the past. They want the province's resources, they don't want to pay for them, and they don't care what happens after they're gone.

There are many that are desperately wanting this province to get back on a sound economic footing. People in British Columbia are embarrassed that last year, this year and next year British Columbia will have fallen, by the government's own books, from position number five in economic growth — that's what the Progress Board said — to number ten.

Many British Columbians are hoping for an economic turnaround. Some are turning to coalbed methane extraction. The same cowboy companies who damaged the land and damaged the results of water usage in the United States are here waiting to drill. It appears that this government, being so desperate for economic activity that will actually be a plus, are welcoming them with wide-open arms. The government's willing to do anything to satisfy these companies' needs, but this legislation won't bring the certainty that's needed.

First nations are set aside. First nations, who have a legal title — a legal right to the lands and the resources of these lands — are nowhere near the settlement of treaties. That, of course, is what would bring certainty and promote economic activity in this province.

I look forward to the debate at committee stage. It will be a carrying-on of the debate that I had with the Minister of Energy and Mines during estimates. It was interesting, the number of people who watched those estimates and have provided me with many, many more questions to ask on exactly what the government hopes to achieve.

W. Cobb: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill 16, the Coalbed Gas Act.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour reminded me to comment to the people who might be listening to this debate tonight and who may be wondering why so few government members rise to debate Bill 16 and many other important bills at the House. I guess my comment is that the main reason behind that is the government side of the House talks through the subject at many, many caucus meetings.

As chair of the natural resource committee, my committee and I have had many meetings with the ministry staff — the experts in the field of methane gas — and they've been under question many, many times. It's my belief that the government caucus is well aware of the exploration procedures, and its liabilities are well documented. Methane gas is a great potential wealth-builder for B.C., in my opinion.

This act will finally remove, as stated by the minister, the long-outstanding issue of ownership of coalbed gas. In the past the uncertainty has hampered development, whether the member opposite is prepared to address that or not. This is not to say that development is guaranteed by this act, but that the opportunity for development is now possible without the jurisdictional problems.

In my riding and specifically in Hat Creek, there's a huge coalbed deposit that has been identified. Until recently it was under the ownership of B.C. Hydro. This bill, as I said, now clarifies the ownership of the gas that is found within the coal and allows for exploration to take place to evaluate the possibility of developing these energy sources for the reasons that I indicated today in my question to the minister on power sources. This bill, of course, does not preclude any of these environmental issues that will be required to be addressed before the development actually takes place. Some preliminary discussions have already taken place in my riding with the first nations and community groups to identify these concerns and discuss them with them. I look forward to the passing of this bill.

J. Bray: I, too, am pleased to rise in support of Bill 16. There are a few points that I do wish to address, but listening to the debate from the Leader of the Opposition, I must make an opening observation.

She really doesn't want any jobs coming to this province. It absolutely astounds me. Every time we move toward opportunities for investment, opportunities for jobs and opportunities to reinvigorate economies in areas that have struggled, the Leader of the Opposition finds a bunch of reasons to stand up to say why it's not a good idea, instead of perhaps suggesting there's a way to work together to ensure that those opportunities are met.

It literally makes me furious that in an area like Vancouver Island, which especially north of the Malahat has struggled with the coastal forest industry and the complete dearth of mining that's happened up there…. Here's an opportunity that people on Vancouver Island have for a potential investment for high-paying, family-sustaining jobs, and the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says: "That's a terrible idea. We don't want it." It absolutely astounds me.

I think it's about time this House stands for jobs, stands for opportunities and stands for communities around this province. We should be supporting bills like this, which provide that opportunity.

In the minister's comments during second reading debate, one of the interesting factors with coalbed methane is that it's a clean gas. We talk a lot in this province about wanting to develop cleaner sources of energy and alternative sources of energy. Coalbed methane is one of those opportunities. In fact, it's an opportunity for us to develop a cleaner-burning fuel through coalbed methane and also to encourage the use of coalbed methane down in the States, which is currently a large customer at 8 percent of their domestic usage. We should be encouraging the exploration of those sources of power that are cleaner than some of the existing ones, if that is in fact a concern of the Leader of the Opposition. She suggested that that wasn't an issue, but I'm a bit surprised, because on the other hand she talked about production and the potential hazards of production, using examples from the United States from several years ago.

I feel that it's very important that we talk about coalbed methane development, extraction and production now and in the future. In fact, the technology over the last ten years for all sources of resource extraction is far improved. The realities in the regulatory, policy and community frameworks for environmentally sensitive resource extractions are far ahead now, in 2003, than they were in 1993. There is no question, in the briefings I have had with ministry staff, that that is one of the lead positions with respect to coalbed methane extraction — that the environment is, in fact, working hand in hand with exploration and extraction, that they're not mutually exclusive and that, in fact, it's the other way around. For the Leader of the Opposition to cite examples from the United States from some years ago and draw some line from a decade ago to now in British Columbia for a potential future resource and say, "Ergo, this will happen…." I think it's just a false argument.

Certainly, my constituents always express to me concerns with respect to the environment — that we are providing the kind of regulatory framework on the ground that ensures that as we develop our natural resources, we do so in an environmentally sustainable way and that the environment plays equal part to the other factors within that. The minister has alluded to that. In estimates both the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection talked about that importance, and that's something I'll explore a bit more in committee stage. But I think that the environment is critical, especially on Vancouver Island where we also have a forestry sector, ecotourism and fisheries. It would make no sense economically to develop this particular resource without considering all those other factors, and that is something that I know all members on Vancouver Island will be paying particular attention to.

The other thing, from a south Island perspective, is that we are graduating some highly skilled individuals who are looking for employment opportunities to use their skills here in British Columbia. Here on Vancouver Island, coalbed methane extraction and development and the types of high-tech and high-end jobs required for that to occur provide a real opportunity for young people to stay on Vancouver Island, to establish their families and to have really good-paying, family-sustaining jobs right here as well as in other parts of the province. Done in an environmentally sensitive fashion, it is a wonderful opportunity for our young people. It's a leading-edge industry. There is lots of innovation. There is lots of opportunity for British Columbia not just to be somebody who uses the resource but to be a leader in the development of high-efficient extraction and production.

The other issue is with first nations. Again, the Leader of the Opposition chose to make a broad-brush suggestion that somehow first nations lose out on this. Well, I say: wrong. We have shown over the last several months as a government that we are actually working with first nations for economic development opportunities on the land base so that first nations not only get a piece of it but are full participants — that their communities are able to participate, that it provides what they are looking for most of all, which is real opportunity for permanent economic development.

On Vancouver Island, where we have some very progressive talks with the various first nations, I see coalbed methane as just another opportunity to provide high-paying, high-skilled jobs to first nations and non–first nations people alike here on the Island. It's also, I believe, an opportunity to move ahead with possible opportunities in the future for offshore oil and gas, which requires similar high-skilled, high-education jobs. I say this is an opportunity for first nations to get in on the ground floor, to build the capacity within their own communities, to take advantage of this incredible economic opportunity.

It's true. The member for Cariboo South made a good point. "Build it and they will come," is not what the minister is saying. What the minister is providing through Bill 16 is the road map — the opportunity for the unanswered questions to be answered, for the ground to be tilled and for people to come forward to invest not taxpayers' dollars, not government dollars, not Crown corporation dollars, but private sector investment. Listen: if it comes from Texas or Montana or somewhere else — beautiful. I think that's absolutely fantastic. We want investment to come into this province, because that's what creates the jobs and the economic growth we need to provide health care, education and social services.

I think it's an excellent opportunity. Bill 16 provides that level playing field and the opportunity for the world to come and investigate. If they feel they want to risk their capital in the development of coalbed methane, then that is great for British Columbia. British Columbia workers win. British Columbia first nations win. British Columbia communities win. The heartlands win. When that occurs, every British Columbian wins, so I strongly support Bill 16.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading debate on Bill 16 continues. The Minister of Energy and Mines closes debate.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, I think this is a huge opportunity in British Columbia to encourage more investment in the province, to get oil and gas companies interested in another type of natural gas in the province and to continue the investment that they do now. In fact, this year is expected to be just shy of $4 billion investment in exploration, drilling and the tying-in of production in the province. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker — and you know as well as I do — that that is significant. That creates some jobs. That creates some well-paying jobs.

The beauty of coalbed gas is that coal is found all over British Columbia basically. It actually gives some opportunities for other parts of the province to benefit as much as the northeast has benefited from oil and gas

development over the last 40 or 50 years. In the Kootenays, the Cariboo region and on Vancouver Island, there are all kinds of opportunities that will come forward. The member for Cariboo South is right when he says: "We're not doing it. What we're doing is creating the field, the environment for them to come in and invest their dollars and create a great resource."

The Leader of the Opposition made a number of statements, and I would be remiss if I didn't respond briefly to a few of them. It's a tactic of the Leader of the Opposition to try to instil fear in people regardless of what it is. It doesn't matter whether it's investment in jobs; it doesn't matter whether it's health care. It doesn't seem to matter what it is — but specifically, jobs.

There seems to be a movement by her party to not have good, well-paying jobs in British Columbia. That surprises me to a degree, because that same member tends to talk about representing the worker and that this party doesn't. I tend to think we represent the people that work in the industry as well as the people that invest in the industry, because we want to have that economic activity in the province so that it helps our communities, so that it helps people actually be able to have good, well-paying jobs, to raise their families in a stable environment. Stable jobs, actual jobs where they can go out and buy the goods and services that they need — that's what we represent. We're not trying to fearmonger.

The member talks about the Powder River basin and some of the experiences in the U.S. I have been fairly clear with that. There have been some bad experiences in the U.S. We've actually had some bad experiences in British Columbia, and it wasn't all that long ago, in building ferries. Does that mean that we should never build another ferry? No. It means you learn from your mistakes. It means that when people from my ministry go down to the U.S. and view those areas where there have been problems, they come home and say: "Look, we've seen now firsthand where some of the mistakes have been made, and there's no reason why we can't actually avoid those mistakes and still produce coalbed gas in an environmentally sound way."

As I said, there are some bad examples. But the U.S. has been producing coalbed gas for quite a number of years. We're just starting. Actually, in a way, as unfortunate as it is for a few people in the U.S. who have been hit hard environmentally, it is good for us in Canada because we can learn from those mistakes. With technology today, we can move forward.

The Leader of the Opposition said things like "industry-led practices," and that we're just going to let them go and do whatever they want on the land base. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and we have a Waste Management Act, which handle the drilling of petroleum in British Columbia and have for 40 to 50 years. Although this is a new process, a new venture, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which is probably too stringent…. In fact, if you looked at other jurisdictions that are trying to develop their coalbed methane, they don't have as stringent rules as we do. But for the Leader of the Opposition, that's still not enough.

You know, the production of water is a big part of producing coalbed methane. At one time they didn't case the wells, and they didn't cement the casing in. That is a requirement now. If you're going to drill for coalbed gas, you have to run casing to the bottom of the well, and you have to cement it in place so that there can't be any gas permeating out into the domestic water supply. The first rule is that the water has to be reinjected in specifically approved wells. That's the first rule. You just don't get to pump it out on the land base.

Now, how you can actually put water on the land base — if, let's say, an agricultural user wants to use it — is that the water has to be tested, and there are some fairly stringent rules. The Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection have worked together for a while to develop some fairly strong rules on how that water is tested. If it is potable or you need a bit of treatment and then it's potable, and if the receiving environment can actually receive it safely, then it can be put into the receiving environment. Other than that, it can't.

Some of the water is really salty. That is reinjected. The Leader of the Opposition tends to tell people that we'll just spread that on the land base. That's fearmongering at its worst. In fact, it makes me just a little bit angry. She talks about lack of compliance in some checking for the conventional natural gas or oil well drilling processes just recently. We did go through that in estimates, and I didn't brush it off. She says I brushed it off. Well, again, she's wrong. I hate to say that. I know she doesn't like to hear that, and sometimes she's not here to listen to that, but in fact it's true. I said they were serious and that the Oil and Gas Commission, which is the regulatory division, will look after that. It had nothing to do with coalbed methane. It had to do with some other things.

She made statements like: "One hundred and twenty thousand wells drilled in the Powder River basin would produce the same amount of gas as would be produced off Vancouver Island." Well, again, that's wrong. One well has been drilled on Vancouver Island. It's interesting. Until you get down there and find out what's there, you don't know exactly what you're going to be able to produce. There are estimates of how much gas is there, but you know you have to drill it to find out what's there. There might not be enough to be commercially viable.

But, you know, it's dramatic: "We want to really instil fear in the people on Vancouver Island. We want to tell them they're going to have 120,000 wells." Those kinds of inflammatory remarks are not acceptable. They shouldn't be acceptable, and the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed for saying those kinds of things.

She says the same companies we're embracing in Canada to do the kind of work are the ones that did the degradation in the U.S. Let me see. Let me think about

that. Priority Ventures. Neil Swift. I don't believe he's from Wyoming. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he is. I don't think he was part of that. She should maybe answer to Priority Ventures about that.

Anadarko, another company drilling in the northeast, spends huge amounts — in the hundreds of millions of dollars in B.C. — in exploration for natural gas and has done some coalbed methane exploration in the province. I will check if they have been involved in some form of degradation like the Leader of the Opposition tried to talk about, where people were just ruining the land base and ruining people's lives.

The one that's drilled in the southeast part of the province, EnCana, a Canadian company…. Let me see. They started drilling just prior to the election, under the NDP. They're a company that this year alone is going to spend $700 million in the province of British Columbia. I can't quite get this right in my mind. When EnCana was drilling in the southeast and the NDP were in power, they hadn't even reviewed their Waste Management Act and how to deal with water. It was okay. I assume that, because she was part of a government that was in fact encouraging it at the time. But when the government changed — and thank goodness it did — all of a sudden they become bad people. They become people who have done all kinds of wrong all over the U.S. I would be surprised if EnCana has one coalbed gas well in the U.S., but I could be wrong. These are huge companies. I will check to find out.

I want to close this debate with the fact that we want to do coalbed gas in the province of British Columbia. We want to do it environmentally sound in British Columbia. We don't want the degradation. We actually want the gas because it has no H2S in it, no poison gas. Unlike most conventional natural gas, there is no sulphur in it. I mean, there are some good parts about coalbed gas, but moving a lot of water is involved in the production of coalbed gas. We have some stringent rules that companies in British Columbia are going to have to live by and abide by. I know they certainly will.

We want to encourage that investment. We want people to come and invest in the province. Heaven forbid, I think there's nothing wrong with them making a profit, because the shareholders, the people who are actually investing the money, would like a bit of a profit. That's what makes the world go round.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? The communities…. In fact, I've had communities write me letters and say yes, they want to see it happen. They want to see some well-paying jobs in their communities. This will take a while. It's long-term, but we want it to happen. If you don't start at some point, it's never going to happen. With that, I now move second reading.

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

Bill 16, Coalbed Gas Act, 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. L. Stephens: I call estimates debate, Ministry of Management Services, by leave.

The Chair: Members, we'll just take a short recess till the Leader of the Opposition returns to the House.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I couldn't make the estimates earlier, so perhaps the minister could introduce his staff.

Hon. S. Santori: With me I have Cleve Molsberry and Scott Campbell, interim DM.

J. MacPhail: I want to begin my questions by talking about the electronic service delivery infrastructure project. It's been widely reported that the development of this project, while in the office of the Premier, was substantially over budget. I've got several…. Well, I know that the minister knows all of the articles on that.

I want to explore this issue. It's my understanding that this project has now been transferred, in its entirety, to the Minister of Management Services.

Hon. S. Santori: The answer to that is yes. It has been transferred to the Ministry of Management Services.

J. MacPhail: When was that announced — the $6 million? What was the public discussion around the budget for this?

Hon. S. Santori: I can't give the member opposite the specific date, but it was contained within the Premier's budget in year '01-02 or in the announcement of the electronic government initiative.

J. MacPhail: Well, I asked the Premier about this in estimates last year, and there was no figure of $6 million. I mean, I don't think the minister has to do work that's already been revealed in the public about this project being over budget, etc. I'm not trying to nail the minister with misinformation. At the most — I think that the Premier admitted to — it started out to be $1 million. Then somehow it became $4.5 million, but never was it $6 million publicly. Could the minister actually point me to where he's getting his information from?

Hon. S. Santori: The $4.5 million the member is referring to was the actual capital cost of the project. Where the other $1 million of expenditure was stated, I don't have a response. I can get that information to what, in actual fact, made up that additional million dollars. I'm a little confused as to what the question was — whether or not there was announcement of an original million-dollar budget or the $4.5 million. I can clarify that the $4.5 million figure was the capital cost of the project.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Was there ever an allocation to the Premier's budget of $6 million? I'll tell you why. If that's the case, then I think the Premier might have been over his budget substantially if this project had not been transferred to the minister's ministry. I think there's bad news on either side, but we better clarify what side the bad news is on.

Hon. S. Santori: In an attempt to provide the member with the total of the $6 million and where it was allocated in respect to budgets, $2.5 million was in the CIO's operations, which was under the Premier's budget, and $3.5 million of the $6 million was recovered from ministries.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So the first budget item attached to the Premier's office was $2.5 million. Then another $3.5 million, I guess, is recovered from ministry operations. How many have paid that?

Hon. S. Santori: All of the ministries have paid their share of that $3.5 million.

J. MacPhail: When the electronic service delivery infrastructure project — now known as the portal — was established, were the ministries allocated in their budgets by Treasury Board the sum total of $3.5 million that they would have to pay for this project? When was that expenditure approved?

Hon. S. Santori: The answer to that question is no. The ministries had to find the money within their existing budgets.

J. MacPhail: We have a project that had $2.5 million worth of money approved. Was it even discussed at Treasury Board where the ministries would have to come up with that money themselves — the $3.5 million?

Hon. S. Santori: Yes, the request to make moneys available was outlined in a budget letter that came from the Ministry of Finance to the ministries.

J. MacPhail: I've seen those budget letters. You'd be hard pressed to find it, but I'd be happy to have a copy of those budget letters, if the minister could produce them both — '01-02. I've read those budget letters, and one would be hard pressed to find where that kind of allocation has been directed. Will the minister please make those copies available?

J. MacPhail: That means that in '02-03, '03-04, there will be $13.1 million allocated to the project. What is the budget to be spent on this year?

Hon. S. Santori: I think I just answered that. It was $6 million, and the overall budget over the three-year period will be $18 million.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, did the minister say what it was going to be spent on in '03-04 — the $6 million? Sorry, I missed it then. Could he repeat it?

Hon. S. Santori: For fiscal year '03-04, $6 million is attributed to the portal project.

The Chair: Portal. Okay. Minister, she just wanted to know what it was being spent on…

Yes, I understand there's going to be $6 million. What is the $6 million going to be spent on?

Hon. S. Santori: The $6 million for this year's budget is taking place in order that we can utilize the services that will be provided by the portal. I can provide individual numbers to the category if the member would like, but generally the majority of the $6 million is being spent in four areas. One is to the contractor for implementation costs. The second is the amortization of capital, which makes up part of the $6 million, as does operation and support costs as well as B.C. Internet charges. Once again, Mr. Chair, these costs are being realized this year in order that we can move forward to activate and get the portal on line and into service.

J. MacPhail: That's this year's $6 million, after we've spent $7.1 million. I thought the minister said that of the $7.1 million spent in the year prior to '03-04, $2.5 million was for capital. So what's this issue of amortization of capital? Perhaps the minister could then tell us what the $7.1 million was spent on prior to this year's budget.

Hon. S. Santori: I just want to correct the member. You'd indicated capital costs of $2.5 million. It was actually $4.5 million that I stated earlier. The $4.5 million is made up of servers as well as the software. The $2.6 million was payment to the contractor and internal cost to build the test sites for the portal.

J. MacPhail: What's being amortized this year? The minister said there's $4.5 million of capital costs. So what needs to be amortized?

Hon. S. Santori: The amortization cost is spread over a four-year period, of which $700,000 was paid to date — $1.7 million in '03-04, $1.703 million in '04-05 and $1.703 million in '05-06.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but for what? We've had $4.5 million of capital costs booked in '02-03. That's capital, actual paying for the capital. Or is that capital amortization costs? You've paid for capital. What is it the minister's amortizing that costs that portion of budgeting for '03-04? Either one pays for the capital costs upfront — which, I assume, is what we did with the $4.5 million of capital costs in the previous year…. What is it we're now amortizing?

Hon. S. Santori: I'm sure the member's aware that government has changed with respect to the accounting treatment of capital and that it actually is going to be amortized over the three-year period — the $4.5 million.

J. MacPhail: I actually didn't think I was on a fishing expedition until now. So what was the $4.5 million that was booked in '02-03? Was it amortization of capital costs?

Hon. S. Santori: I'll try to make this a little bit more clear for the member. First of all, no, it was the actual capital cost which went towards servers and software in '01-02 and '02-03. The cost is then expended over the useful life of the asset and is booked as a capital asset and carried into the expenditure budget over the next three years.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's fair enough, but then the $4.5 million doesn't get booked until '02-03. If it's amortized, it's amortized. Where did the $4.5 million that was capital costs for servers and software go? Either it buys servers and software, and you pay for it out of that $4.5 million, or else you get $4.5 million of servers and software, and that $4.5 million is amortized over the next three or four years. But you can't have it both ways.

Hon. S. Santori: Okay. I've never been known to be an accounting major, but if the member will bear with me, I will try again. It's a balance sheet item, and it is booked as an asset. Only the expenditures are carried forward in the ministry operating budget until the asset is extinguished from the balance sheet.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but that means you can't say that out of the $7.1 million spent in '02-03, $4.5 million was spent on capital. You can't. Where did the $7.1 million go? We're back to the $7.1 million.

Hon. S. Santori: There is a capital asset ledger in the kit's accounting records, and I'd be more than happy to share those records with the member. When she views it there, she may be able to comprehend what I am trying to convey to the member. I'd be more than happy to provide that ledger to the member if she'd like to see it.

Let's try it this way, then. The $7.1 million has already been spent on the project, and $6 million is going to be spent this year, so that's $13.1 million. I understand there's going to be another $6 million spent the year after that.

You must pretty much know what the budget is going to be for this coming year. Of the $13.1 million, how much of that is allocated for capital?

J. MacPhail: Clearly, when the original budget, all-in, was six million bucks — even though it was not revealed that way — we're about $1.1 million over the entire budget just for capital.

What about the contract implementation? How much, in both '02-03 and '03-04, has gone to the contractor?

Hon. S. Santori: The numbers as they are provided here don't provide the breakdown to the contractor, but I will share that with the member when we get the exact number.

J. MacPhail: Are any or all of the following companies on contract or subcontract with the ministry or the government — Roundarch Inc., SAP Canada Inc. or BroadVision Inc.?

Hon. S. Santori: Roundarch is the contractor. BroadVision is the software provider. No to SAP.

Hon. S. Santori: Again, we don't have the breakdown here before us. I will be more than happy to provide that to the member.

J. MacPhail: Well, I think the minister…. There's been millions going out for well over a year now. Boy, it would be interesting to know these numbers, please. The opposition has been trying to get information about this since December, and the government has asked for two extensions on this information. Let's see: January, February, March, April. Four months later, we're still trying to get information about just how much the government's paying to these companies.

J. MacPhail: No money has been given to SAP? There's no transaction between SAP and this government?

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the portal, there has been no money or any contracts with SAP. However, I can't assure the member that other transactions not related to the portal where SAP is providing some services to government…. I can't go that far, but I can assure the member that there's been no contractual agreement with SAP with respect to any work being done on the portal.

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to SAP, the answer to that is: nothing with respect to the portal. If you do want to know what other business SAP may be doing with government, that is for the public record. I would be more than happy to try to find out for the member what their relationship may be with government in areas other than the portal.

J. MacPhail: Yes. That's exactly what I was asking. How will I get that information — through FOI? That's a long, arduous process with this government.

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the information the member is seeking, this information will be revealed in public accounts in July. Now, having said that, if the member wants that information sooner, we will do our best to get that information to you as soon as we possibly can.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, that would be great. It would hardly reflect well on a government that says it's open and accountable to refer me to public accounts. Were the contractors paid even as the project went over budget?

Hon. S. Santori: The contractors in this regard were paid according to the contract and the deliverables that were expected from that contract.

J. MacPhail: The request for proposals on the portal project went out in October of 2001, and it's some 80 pages long. It's very thorough. We actually have received that. But clearly the 80-page proposal wasn't good enough, given the fact that the project has not delivered what it's supposed to, to date. In fact, some would say it's failed. What measures has the minister or will the minister put in place to see that more public dollars are not wasted on what some are describing as a pet project of the Premier's office?

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, I want to state that the portal and this initiative continue to be a priority with government. It will continue to be a priority within my ministry to ensure that the portal is up and running and providing the services we know the portal can provide. A comprehensive business plan has been put together. There will be staff dedicated to the project, and we will deliver the portal and continue on in an incremental fashion to ensure, once again, that our commitment to transforming the way government services are delivered does in fact take place. I want to reinforce that the project is very much alive and very well, and we'll deliver on what we said we would deliver on.

J. MacPhail: Well, that would be good news to the taxpayer, because the budget clearly is at $19.1 million now — $7.1 million last year, $6 million this year and $6 million next year. That's $19.1 million. Where's the business plan? We have been asking for a business plan. Where is it? When was it done?

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the business plan, there was a general business plan at the initiation of the project. During the first quarter of this year a more detailed, comprehensive implementation business plan

was established. As a matter of fact, I have it here before me. I'm very confident that what has been set out in the business plan with respect to the portal is attainable and achievable.

J. MacPhail: The first quarter of this year is right now. What's the difference between the first business plan — we didn't seem to be able to get a copy of that — and the new business plan? What's the difference? I'll FOI both, but clearly the minister could save a lot of time and just explain it now. Why is the project now $19.1 million?

Hon. S. Santori: The initial business plan's primary focus was concentrating on the purchase of the technology and the type of technology to move forward with this initiative. The main focus of the business plan that was revised or updated in March was on implementation, which focused on business application and looking at those actual applications that this technology will be able to provide.

J. MacPhail: Well, it will be fascinating to read the new business plan, because, of course, even allowing that the original budget was $4.5 million for this project — all-in, according to the Premier — it's now 400 percent over budget. There isn't another capital project in the province that's been 400 percent over budget — not one. So it will be interesting to see how that business plan justifies a 400 percent cost overrun.

Now, we know that the Premier is very enthusiastic about people using the Internet to connect to government services and that he envisions the day when all government services and programs will be available over the Internet. It would be nice if he could spend as much time worrying about reducing wait-lists for people who want surgery, but that clearly isn't a priority of this government. They just keep going up and up.

J. MacPhail: The minister is from the…. Sorry. The Minister of Health says we got our numbers all wrong. We got them from the Internet. Isn't that too bad? We actually researched all the numbers. We got the numbers wrong from his own wait-list on the Internet. Well, then why is this government so interested in getting everybody to use the Internet? We had to spend hours searching through the Ministry of Health's Internet site to actually put all the numbers together.

I would just caution the Minister of Health that his original number, which shows the number down — we saw that too. We saw that estimate where the number was down, and then we actually searched behind the numbers on the Internet and totalled them up. That's where we got our information. So I would caution the Minister of Health Services on believing his own Internet site, because it's actually spinning too.

I guess they count on not everybody going behind and looking and adding up the individual website numbers to show the real total. That's what we did, and it turns out that the original number that the Ministry of Health posts on its website is misleading and is wrong when you go to the others.

Oh God, I hope the Minister of Health Services isn't being spun by his own political staff — that somehow we got the numbers wrong, because we did our research. We know the difference between what the original number says, which shows wait-lists are down, and we know how they don't add up behind it. So I just worry; I worry.

Anyway, the Minister of Health Services is a perfect example of how this government's posting everything on the Internet, and you have to really dig through it. You can't actually look at the original information with this government. They've put layer upon layer upon layer. The wait-list number is a perfect example of how their website is misleading. I have a feeling that the poor Minister of Health Services is going to be hoisted with his own petard on that one. I hope not. All you people who work for the Minister of Health Services, go out and add up the numbers behind the original website number. That's what we did, and that shows how wait-lists are skyrocketing.

Anyway, that's the world that this government wants to send us all to, where we have to search through every website. You can break down the numbers. Fair enough. I can understand why the Minister of Health Services wouldn't want to put the statistics all in one place, because they don't add up to his original — the cover page. Secondly.…

An Hon. Member: It's the same methodology that you put in place when you.…

J. MacPhail: I think he protests too much. I think he's nervous, because he's not doing his job. I think he's upset by the fact that he got caught out on not doing his job.

What happens to people like the minister, where he's from the heartlands…? I think he's aware that not everybody has access to the Internet, although British Columbia made huge strides in the 1990s to wiring everybody up. He will know that the connection to the Internet means having a computer and a modem and the money to pay up and the hookup fees, etc. It's a laudable goal. It certainly means that individuals are going to have to invest upfront to get any information from the government, and then, of course, they can't count on the information the government is spinning them anyway.

Let's not use the health services as an example of where they're wrong. Let's look at this example of an article that appeared in the Times Colonist just two weeks ago. I'm sure the minister's aware of it — the small business person who is being forced to use the Internet just to stay in business. She had to use the Internet just to conduct business. Is it the intent of this

government to force people to use the Internet and not allow them access — to deny them access — to the more traditional ways of dealing with the government?

Hon. S. Santori: I must say that the member opposite had very selective hearing during the budget speech, the Premier's speech and the throne speech with respect to what, in fact, we have recognized and what we are actually doing to ensure that we do provide services to all British Columbians, regardless of where they may live. If the member opposite recalls, the Premier made a change in terms of the services that were going to be provided and consolidated within the Ministry of Management Services to ensure that we did work in concert with initiatives that would improve the delivery of service.

The government agents offices were brought into my ministry, because we do recognize that in order to provide information to British Columbians, in order for them to obtain services through the government…. No, I mean automation is not a panacea that is going to solve all problems, and the portal is only one piece of that delivery mechanism. We will have government agents offices. We will continue to have our call centres so that we can ensure that British Columbians, regardless of whether they live in the urban centres or in the heartlands of British Columbia — that they, in fact, delivered….

That was the primary reason why the Premier consolidated all the service delivery into one ministry — so there was a common goal and a common vision. This was to make sure there were no cracks so that, in fact, we were providing services to the people of this province, whether it be through the Internet, across the counter or through call centres. I'm very proud of the fact we've recognized that, no, automation can't be all things to all people all the time. However, I'm confident that as time progresses, it will play a bigger and bigger role, and it's important that government get on track at this time.

The member opposite was complaining about how difficult a time she was having in obtaining information through the Ministry of Health — all the more reason why we have to proceed with the development of a portal. It's so that it is user-friendly and so those people who do have access to a computer can go to the sites they need and obtain those services as quickly as possible without having to go through the pages designed by her government that drove her nuts, probably, today or the day before.

In conclusion on that question, we recognize that we need different means of how we help people get information and services from government. We made a commitment that we will do that, and we will continue to do it.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear about my complaint about the Ministry of Health Services, the information doesn't add up, and that isn't the creation of anybody except this government. It's just like the day they introduced the new Pharmacare system. They wiped out all of the former information about the previous Pharmacare system from their website. It was like magic. They stood up one day and introduced the new Pharmacare system, and then the Ministry of Health Services wiped out any piece of information you could possibly find out about the previous system.

Oh, they use the way of calculating statistics on wait-lists and wait times, but then they cover it all over with a misleading and inaccurate total that doesn't match. If you just look at that Web page, people might think that wait times are going down, just as the minister has been trapped by his own spin doctors. But when you go behind that information and search through it, you see that's wrong. Wait times are up pretty much in every category, and wait-lists are up in pretty much every category.

So that's not my complaint about that. My issue is much different with the Minister of Management Services. He says people will have access to call centres and will have access to real live bodies in the office. I'll ask the questions that Les Leyne reported on — a reliable source, I think — and the minister can counter them. This is his time to get back at the false reporting, I guess.

A woman received a request for completing a financial transaction, and it said that the note from government said not to mail the form: "Do not mail this form. This form must be filled out on the Internet." Is that wrong?

Hon. S. Santori: You know, the member opposite was alluding earlier to priorities and enhancing expenditures in areas similar to health care. With respect to the issue that the member opposite has brought up, the Minister of Finance is saving approximately $1 million to $1.5 million in doing this. With respect to the individual who does not have access to a computer, she can go to a library or any computer access to be able to do the registry.

I know it may be somewhat of a change for some individuals, but I think that at the end of the day, British Columbians will appreciate that where we can save $1.5 million on something as simple and as convenient, actually, for the general public…. They would laud that government for taking those initiatives whereby they will actually reduce their costs or save $1 million to $1.5 million. I'm not sure of the total savings on that, but I know it's in excess of $1 million. I believe people will laud the effort of government where we could reduce administration costs by, as I said, $1 million to $1.5 million and provide moneys in other areas.

J. MacPhail: How is that any different than downloading? How is that any different than when a government says: "Oh, we're not going to pay for your drugs. You have to pay for it out of your own pocket"? It saves the government money. It allows the government to cut money, but the person taking the drugs still has to pick up the cost. How is that any different

where the government saves $1.5 million and some poor business person has to pick up the slack?

Is it a savings to government and a transfer of extra taxation, extra user fees, to the individual so that their costs actually go up and their taxes don't go down?

Hon. S. Santori: That by no means is downloading onto the businesses or to the communities with respect to how they have to access government in the issue that the member opposite brings forward with the issue of the registry. I think we have to recognize in this day and age that computers…. Although in this individual's case, it may not be part of doing business, I think the vast majority of B.C. businesses do access the Internet and access computers to do their business on a daily basis. I believe we are dealing with the majority of British Columbians, and in no way is this downloading.

What it is, is actually finding savings and doing things in a more cost-effective manner that will benefit not only businesses as they get access to the Internet and be able to take advantage of what the Internet does provide for them in terms of other services and opportunities…. Once again, we're putting our priorities in areas such as health care and education. If the Minister of Finance or any other minister in this House can find savings to redirect dollars into more valuable services, we'll continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's just look at whether this is downloading or not. This government is saying to business people, small business people: "You've got to deal with us on the Internet." That's what they're saying. "You can't mail; you can't walk in. You have to deal with us on the Internet." That's what the government is saying. The government saves $1.5 million to do that.

I guess there wouldn't be much of a cost if pretty much everybody was wired and everybody was on the Internet, especially the moms and pops. But if they're not, then it is a downloading of costs. The government saves $1.5 million, and small businesses have to buy their computer and hook up to the Internet. That's thousands of dollars.

Let's see whether people are wired and connected. Last week Statistics Canada reported on e-commerce. They found that only 7.5 percent of private sector businesses sold goods and services on the Internet last year — about a 0.5 percent increase over the previous year. They found that the value of public sector sales actually decreased last year, despite an increase in the number of public sector institutions on the Net.

Now, this is interesting. That's not that great news. It's not like people are embracing this. They found that 93 percent of companies with 20 or more employees are on the Net — that's great — but that overall only 52 percent of private sector employees had Internet access. You take out all of the public sector who are wired and connected, though, and only 52 percent of private sector employees had Internet access. Then you take out the ones that are 20-or-more-sized companies that are wired and connected. That means the mom-and-pop businesses are not on the Net, almost completely. That's how you can read those statistics.

Those are the very companies this government claims to have so much feeling for, so much compassion for and so much interest in promoting. Yet what are they doing to these small operations, the less-than-20-employee companies and those in the private sector? They're saying: "We're getting out of the business of providing you with all kinds of access to services. Get a computer, connect to the Internet, and then we'll deal with it."

Clearly, the Internet is going to be an important part of how we conduct both our public and our private affairs in the future. But how does the minister justify spending so much now on a highly technical and constantly changing service that only serves slightly more than one-half of the private business population?

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, on the issue of the portal and in response to the question as to why we should be proceeding, there's a number of reasons why we should be proceeding with respect to the portal. We feel that under the current webpage structure that's there now, it is not a user-friendly site, whereby people who visit the site do become demoralized with how they find their way around certain ministries. People have to have a knowledge of what in fact it is they are looking for in order to find it. For those who have gone to the government website and tried to find an item, it is quite frustrating and discouraging, and many people don't come back a second time.

We believe that the portal will be much more interactive, much more user-friendly. Now, I recognize that the speaker may think: "Well, why do it now? Why not wait until later?" I don't think we can hide the fact that although some of the statistics you have provided have shown some declines, I think the issue of what the future lends…. What is going to be basically a household item, and a requirement as we move forward will be obtaining electronic services and information on the websites. The fact of the matter that some employees or people don't have ownership of a computer does not restrict the fact that they have access to a computer. We have the terminals within government agents' offices. There are public libraries that offer computer services and Internet access to be able to carry out these services.

We have a generation coming behind us who are being taught the values of the Internet and doing business on electronic government. We don't want to be in a position where, as the youth and people are graduating from schools, they then come into an environment whereby they have to go back to something that is less than what they have been taught and what they expect. I think we can't take a chance to lose those opportunities. We want to get people more electronically involved in how they do business. Some people may not like the fact that society is moving that way, but the

fact of the matter is that it's proven to be much faster, much more cost-effective and much more valuable to government. I'm sure that consumers and businesses will see the value of e-government and e-business in the future.

Is it an exercise to deal with an immediate need? Yes, there is an immediate need in some areas, but as a government we have an obligation to also look into the future and to determine and evaluate what the demands will be on government and how we deliver services. This is a step, and we are going to do it. As I said to the member earlier, we are going to an incremental stage in how we proceed with the portal and what services will be provided through the portal. Once again, yes, we are meeting what we think is an immediate need, but more importantly we want to deal with what we see the future becoming, in terms of government services being provided electronically as well as the advantages that can be obtained by the business sector and individual citizens of this province in the future.

J. MacPhail: That's a nice argument, except that there are two problems with it. It is admirable that that's the direction we want to go, but the portal the government inherited from the previous government was generally acknowledged to be the best in Canada. It was an award winner, and it probably still is, if it hasn't been tinkered with.

This government is in debt, its wait-lists are skyrocketing, surgeries are not being performed, hospitals are being closed, and class sizes are bigger. So why spend the money on this project now? What's the urgency about this now?

Hon. S. Santori: The member need not remind us of the fiscal challenges that we have as a province. I want to make it very clear that we have made a commitment as a government that we will balance our budget, and a balanced budget we will bring forward in '04-05. Having said that, it does not mean that we as a government stop providing important and valuable services to the people of British Columbia. Providing services through a number of means is exactly what we are doing, and we are going to meet the objectives and the goals and the challenges that we have before us with respect to the delivering of those services without compromising our goals of providing better health care, better education and better services to the people of this province. We will do that, as I said, without compromising the fiscal challenges we're faced with.

With respect to B.C. Connects, yes, it was a great system at the time. I don't believe that in the future we can continue to count on that type of technology. It becomes dated. The member opposite knows quite well that technology changes. It used to change by the day. Well, it pretty much changes by the hour. It will not meet the needs that we see moving forward.

J. MacPhail: Let's talk about how this government spends money. I read a press release on Friday that announces the Minister of Management Services has hired Diane Rabbani as his deputy minister in charge of the B.C. leadership centre. I believe she started work today. How much is Ms. Rabbani being paid?

Hon. S. Santori: I apologize. I wasn't expecting the question. The PSERC DM and commissioner has that information. I would be taking a stab, and I would rather provide you with an accurate figure. I will get that figure to you.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm not quite sure why the minister wouldn't be expecting a question on this. I'm not a Liberal MLA that sits on my hands and doesn't raise any controversial issues.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Is the minister going to bring in PSERC, then? I'd be happy to sit here and wait.

I'm asking questions as to this minister's responsibility. We don't normally separate them. I'm fine to have them separated. I mean, most ministers go back and forth. I have questions on the new deputy and PSERC.

J. MacPhail: The minister has hired another deputy minister. How many deputy ministers does he have reporting to him?

Hon. S. Santori: There are two deputy ministers within PSERC and one deputy minister in Management Services.

J. MacPhail: I take it that the one deputy minister is Mr. Campbell, with you, and the two deputies in PSERC are Diane Rabbani and Vince Collins. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: What is the role that Ms. Rabbani has been hired as a deputy ministry for?

Hon. S. Santori: Ms. Rabbani was hired to lead the leadership centre. The mandate of the leadership centre is for us to work with all levels of management, from

As a government, as an undertaking to renew the public service and to ensure that our up-and-coming managers have the skills and expertise to move forward with the new way of government transforming business….

Once again, as I had indicated earlier, Ms. Rabbani's role is to take a leadership role in working with our top 1,100 managers and executive within government. We feel that it's critical, as we move forward with public service renewal, that we have the leadership skills within government to ensure that such things as our human resource and corporate human resource restructuring is done in a fashion whereby we can ensure, as I said earlier, that the skills of our employees are there for managers in order to lead their departments in achieving service plans and goals that we've set forth as a government.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister can now provide me with how much Ms. Rabbani is being paid.

J. MacPhail: What are the terms of Ms. Rabbani's contract? I'd be happy to refer to her as the deputy for B.C. leadership, I guess — whatever the minister prefers.

Hon. S. Santori: Ms. Rabbani will be treated as equal to other deputy ministers. She was appointed by order-in-council and, as I said, is entitled to the same terms as other deputies in government.

J. MacPhail: Why is it necessary to have someone with the status of deputy minister in charge of the agency?

Hon. S. Santori: Ms. Rabbani's position was deemed to be equivalent to other deputy ministers holding the same position in terms of special appointments.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure that would satisfy anyone who isn't part of the inside-the-beltway here; $155,000, plus all the perks that go with it, is a lot of money to justify this new job.

Let me ask a couple of examples. I heard a rumour today that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was over interviewing for a deputy minister. Is this the kind of role that we could actually get a minister to back off and have Ms. Rabbani do? Will she be responsible for ensuring that ministers don't have to interview for their own deputy ministers? Will that be her job?

Hon. S. Santori: Ms. Rabbani will play a critical role in the selection and attraction of other deputy ministers as well as other senior positions within government.

J. MacPhail: Does Ms. Rabbani deal with the excluded, non-union staff and Mr. Collins, the head of PSERC, with the unionized staff?

Hon. S. Santori: Ms. Rabbani will be dealing with all senior government officials from all ministries to assure that the proper personnel are recruited and retained as well as developed. With respect to the roles of Ms. Rabbani versus the roles of Mr. Collins, they will be complementary with each other but different.

For instance, we had a nationwide search for the Deputy Attorney General, and it turns out that, lo and behold, the former law partner of the Attorney General is the best person for the job — outside the public service, no public service at all, the former law partner of the Attorney General. He's the new Deputy Attorney General.

Will Ms. Rabbani try to search for…? What would have been the result in that kind of situation if Ms. Rabbani had been in place?

Hon. S. Santori: I want to assure the member opposite that during any selection process, the end result…. We made a commitment that our hiring would be on the basis of merit. With respect to the position that the member opposite questioned, I know there was a search Canada-wide for that position. I do understand that the credentials that an individual brings forward more than equate to hiring the best person for the job, based on merit.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I see the clock is ticking here. I have one other question. Can the minister describe the new human resources agency?

Hon. S. Santori: The new human resources agency is in response to the shared service model which we as government have implemented. The human resources agency will be providing services across government to assist human resource plans and strategies — it may be succession planning — throughout ministries and to assist individual ministries with how they are going to achieve their human resource strategies.

For the first time ever, we've developed a human corporate resource plan, which will ensure that our human resources are well managed and consistent, with continuity throughout all of the ministries. The resource agency will be there to do exactly that: to provide resources to human resource personnel within the ministries.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, I would like to begin by introducing the staff I have with me here today: my interim deputy, Mr. Scott Campbell; the acting chief strategist and government CIO, Liz Gilliland; acting ADM for the results management office, Cleve Molsberry; ADM, corporate channels service delivery, Lois Fraser; ADM, common business services, Sunny Mathieson; ADM, common IT services, Byron Barnard; ADM, corporate and ministry support services, David Morhart; and acting ADM for corporate services, Vaughan Dowie.

I am pleased to rise and present today the spending estimates for the 2003-04 fiscal year for the agencies under my responsibility in the Ministry of Management Services, vote 31, and the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, vote 32.

This is the second budget for the Ministry of Management Services, with a combined gross expenditure before internal recoveries of $792 million for fiscal year '03-04. Gross expenditures net of internal recoveries total $122 million.

After external recoveries are factored in, the net expenditures for the ministry total $46.7 million. The total capital budget for the ministry is $58.7 million.

As you know, when this government was elected the Premier promised the taxpayers accountable, cost-efficient results, which meant that government would have to do things differently. In light of that, the Ministry of Management Services recently brought the planning for electronic and face-to-face services together under one roof. In February we transferred in the chief information office, the service delivery project, the government agent's branch and the telecommunications function from various ministries. Combining these channels with the ministry's ongoing responsibility allows Management Services to become a key catalyst for change within government.

We're reforming the way government thinks and operates by giving ministries the tools they need for common planning and common solutions to service delivery. Bringing all corporate service delivery channels under one roof allows us to coordinate and use the best model for service delivery, whether it be telephone, over the counter or on the Internet. It provides a consistent face and consistent practices, as well as convenience for the public, businesses and government staff.

Our mandate is to transform service delivery across all of government. To achieve that, we're looking at the best ways to streamline common processes, eliminate duplication and improve access governmentwide.

As a result, I believe British Columbians will see three major improvements. Government's service delivery will become more innovative, efficient and effective. Access to government will be there where and when people need it. Taxpayers will receive the best value for their money.

Furthermore, to ensure that our service delivery is the most client-focused and responsive, we've set five business goals for the ministry. Collectively, these goals help to shape and define all our programs and services.

First, the ministry will oversee and provide strategic direction on cross-government information management and information technology for e-government and service delivery.

Second, we'll ensure that priority e-government and other critical business initiatives are delivered on time, on budget and with agreed-upon results.

Third, we'll integrate corporate channels of access, whether by telephone, over the counter or over the Internet.

Fourth, we will provide innovative, responsive and cost-effective common information technology, finance and administrative services. Our new Solutions B.C. will help us achieve this goal.

Fifth, we'll provide leadership in information technology, procurement and human resource manage-

These goals give us a framework for effecting change in much of government's service delivery, change that will eventually touch the services used by every British Columbian every day.

To give you an idea of the work that's taking place, I'm going to speak for a few moments about the different divisions that make up Management Services: what they are, why we need them and the kinds of tools they'll be using to transform governmentwide service delivery. Although Management Services is made up of many programs and services, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. With better integration of service delivery channels, Management Services will be able to provide a common look and feel for government services to the public, to business and to staff.

The first new era I'd like to talk about is our corporate channel service delivery. The vision behind corporate channel services is simple, yet profound. We will make services available to British Columbians and give them access where, when and how they choose. Our research shows that people like to have a number of options to access government services: by phone, by Internet or in person. Corporate channel services will look at ways to deliver more services in the most convenient way. For the first time, we'll have an opportunity to plan for service delivery across all channels.

Until now, service delivery planning lacked consistency from ministry to ministry, and citizens were often unsure of how to access the information they needed. Now access to government's programs and services will be combined in a way that makes sense and is convenient for citizens.

Regardless of the channel, we will ensure that citizens can access the same information in a number of convenient ways. Two of the service delivery channels operating under this division include the government agents and B.C. Connects, which includes Enquiry B.C. I'll start with the branch that has a long tradition of responding to the needs of communities across British Columbia, a branch that fits very well with our transforming role.

Government agents are leaders in providing personalized access to services where people need them. Collectively, the government agents branch delivers efficient, cost-effective service to more than two million customers throughout the province while collecting $1 billion in revenue annually. Priorities for this branch include increasing customer awareness of its services and using advanced technology such as supported community access terminals to improve both the efficiency and the delivery of those services.

Now available in all government agents' offices, community access terminals provide a location in each community where the public can use the Internet to apply for government programs electronically or access information on any level of government. Talking about the on-client focus, the government agents branch has a consistent overall client satisfaction rate of 94 percent. Clearly, that kind of focus exemplifies our mandate to respond to what British Columbians tell us they need in the way of services and access to information.

Another good example of that kind of responsiveness is B.C. Connects. Under B.C. Connects in this year alone, B.C. OnLine provided electronic access to over five million transactions for business and government users. Also under B.C. Connects and often a first point of contact with government, Enquiry B.C. provides toll-free access to current reliable provincial government information for people throughout the province, wherever they may live.

The Enquiry B.C. call centre answers general inquiries and refers or transfers callers with specific program inquiries to the correct point in government. It also helps people identify the responsibility of various levels of government. The call centre responded to more than one million inquiries again this year, with an overall satisfaction rating of 97 percent. The Enquiry B.C. service is also available by e-mail.

A newly created addition to Management Services is our chief strategist and government CIO office. This provides the overall policy, governance and framework for service transformation across government. The chief strategist also manages the policies, standards and legislation that govern the use of information technology across government. This office will work to ensure British Columbians receive the best possible integrated service delivery. Key priorities for this division include the service delivery project, the e–B.C. strategic plan and our corporate privacy and information access.

I'll begin by briefly describing the work of our service delivery project. This project was launched in the spring of 2002 to help ministries work together to improve service delivery to British Columbians in the heartlands. This has never been done before in British Columbia. It is working across ministries to see how we can use resources more effectively, whether staff, office space or equipment.

We've established 30 local teams of senior representatives from every ministry with a presence in specific rural communities. These teams are dedicated to finding innovative ways to improve government service delivery in those communities. Because of their efforts, some regional offices will remain open that might otherwise be closed. Although they represent many ministries, the teams are working as one government for the benefit of British Columbians. They're laying the groundwork for designing better integrated service delivery across the province.

With fewer government resources and increasing demand for public participation, effective delivery of information and services is more essential than ever. This requires a major change in the way government does business.

To help manage this change, the ministry is developing a plan that addresses the immediate business needs of ministries and provides a solid framework for the development of e-government in British Columbia. The plan will include a vision of e–B.C., an assessment

of the current state and a portfolio of electronic service delivery initiatives. This plan will also include management strategies aimed to ensure that the e–B.C. vision is met and that government's key business initiatives are implemented effectively.

Another priority for this division is privacy legislation, which is being addressed by a corporate privacy and information access branch. In response to privacy concerns of British Columbians and to support e-commerce within B.C. as well as internationally, I will soon introduce, on behalf of government, the personal information protection act. This legislation will protect British Columbians' personal information held by the private sector. As balanced legislation, it will permit businesses and non-profit organizations to collect, use, disclose and share personal information for legitimate and reasonable business purposes. At the same time, it provides British Columbians with the right to control their personal information and to choose when and with whom it is shared.

This legislation was drafted after ten months of consultations with more than 160 organizations. These groups gave us insight into how the legislation could be made to work for business, while still protecting personal information. We've chosen a made-in-B.C. legislation that will maintain the authority of the provincial privacy commissioner instead of the federal act, which comes into effect in 2004. This proposed legislation will help simplify the complex privacy requirements and provide a model statute for other provinces to follow.

In addition to our new chief strategist and government CIO, we've also added a results management office. Our stand-alone results management office was recently created to ensure all e-government, critical business and other initiatives are delivered on time and on budget. This office will become a centre of excellence for project management, with an emphasis on creativity, innovation, continuous improvement and leadership by example. It will create a cross-government framework for planning, managing and delivering e-government projects.

This office will fulfil a number of roles to support the transition to e-government. The office will lead cross-government information and communication technology business projects. It will host or provide in-house support to other ministries leading projects, and it will assist ministries overall to achieve their transformation projects.

That brings us to another unique area of Management Services. Until April we had what was known as our shared service agency. This part of the ministry is now called Solutions B.C. When the Premier assigned me to this portfolio, one of the first roadblocks I encountered was the lack of a business strategy for internal shared service delivery. We needed a single delivery model for common government services, such as payroll, procurement and supply, information technology and financial services.

The new Solutions B.C. will do just that. It will enable us to provide better services to our clients within government with added accountability and stable costs, so taxpayers get the best return for their money. Services provided by Solutions B.C. include corporate accounting services, common IT services, payroll, and procurement and supply. In time staff will also look at making these services available to the broader public sector, including agencies, Crown corporations and other government organizations.

To highlight just a few of the changes taking place in these areas, I'll begin with our new shared payroll services. Payroll moved from a reporting relationship within individual ministries to payroll shared services in late October 2002. Now, within the Ministry of Management Services, payroll is standardizing and streamlining its business processes. This will save time, reduce paper and support government's e-business by allowing more self-service by employees.

Which brings us to another group dedicated to making its services more efficient and its clients happy: our procurement and supply services. This division looks after far more than just purchasing for government. In addition to obtaining goods and services through fair and open tendering, this division also administers Crown copyright; manages government's intellectual property; provides data printing, scanning services and digital photo ID cards; processes and distributes mail; disposes of surplus assets; and acts as a one-stop service bureau for printing and publishing.

Our new electronic B.C. Bid system is a major step towards fully integrated and paperless procurement. More than ever, the new B.C. Bid is a one-stop window for suppliers to access public sector contract opportunities. It streamlines processes for both buyers and suppliers, reduces paper, saves time and makes electronic bidding possible for the first time in British Columbia.

The first e-bidding opportunity was made available in February of this year, and more than 50 percent of the responses from suppliers were electronic. It goes to show you that B.C. suppliers are ready to take advantage of e-government.

As a result, B.C. Bid has seen a 56 percent increase in posted opportunities over the last two years and more than a 50 percent increase in public sector buyers. In addition, our corporate accounting services and common IT services are both working hard to find efficiencies and greater savings for government services for both internal and external clients.

As an example, I'd like to call your attention to some of the work being done by common IT services. These people have connections. They support the sum of government's key programs such as revenue collection, court operations and income assistance. Through an integrated, provincewide computer network, they connect over 2,000 B.C. schools to each other and to the Internet. They link together all ministry offices and over 800 pharmacies and provide e-mail services to over 50,000 accounts and more than 50,000 telephones and ministries via the provincial phone network. This group is currently shifting its focus from IT service to business solutions, allowing ministries to concentrate

The newest addition to our common IT service is the telecommunications area. Formerly with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, the telecommunications area is working on extending high-speed Internet access to every B.C. community through wireless technology, cable, phone lines and fibre optics, for even though B.C. is the most connected province in Canada, there are still 188 communities without high-speed Internet access.

Telecommunications is also working on two related new-era commitments: increasing technology funding and digital infrastructure support to telehealth, and addressing the challenges and needs of aboriginal women and youth. They're working cooperatively with the federal government, municipalities and the private sector to bridge the digital divide for all British Columbians. You'll be seeing the fruit of their labours in some upcoming pilot projects that will make high-speed Internet access possible in several rural communities for the first time.

Two other areas in the newly organized Management Services ministry are corporate services and our ministry CIO. Briefly, corporate services provides internal services to the ministry, such as fiscal oversight, financial planning and corporate support services. Our ministry CIO will use expertise and information management and information technology to advise the ministry on IT issues and develop business solutions for the ministry.

Because our mandate requires us to look across government to find the best ways to deliver services, we're also looking at alternative service delivery. A comprehensive alternative service delivery strategy will allow us to obtain private sector investment and expertise to manage and deliver information technology and related business processes more efficiently and cost effectively.

The present ministry-by-ministry approach to outsourcing prevents government from effectively coordinating its business functions and attaining economies of scale. As a first step, the ministry contracted with Deloitte Consulting to assess how efficiently government is delivering these services now. We'll be reviewing their recommendations in the coming weeks. We're committed to pursuing alternative service delivery where it makes sense.

At the onset, I mentioned that I also have responsibility for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, now known as the B.C. Public Service Agency. Launched on April 1, 2003, this agency was created as a shared service, accountable to individual ministries through service level agreements. This agency has offices in eight communities across the province to serve its clients.

Today HR services have set out the same business goals as other areas of government: to be more cost-effective, accountable and efficient. With our recent HR consolidation we've eliminated almost 300 positions and saved over $16 million. Consolidating government HR services improves the way we do business.

The new Public Service Agency reflects a more modern, strategic approach to HR management, one that is consistent with best practices in the private and public sectors. The agency will lead government's people management and human resource services with the goal of achieving excellence in the public service.

Our public service has faced a number of challenges recently. As you'll remember, this government just completed its second year of a three-year workforce adjustment initiative. Our reductions, as laid out in each ministry service plan, have been achieved through voluntary programs, transfer to outside agencies and, to a much lesser extent, layoffs and severance. To date almost 4,800 employees have chosen voluntary exit programs. As a result, there were far fewer layoffs than we had originally expected. We expect approximately 1,400 reductions in 2003-04.

We all know that government faces the challenge of developing a workforce to meet the service needs of British Columbians. In light of that let's consider, for a moment, the Premier's commitment to renew the public service.

Public service renewal, a process that launched a new vision for the public service, is moving ahead. To reinforce the Premier's commitment, the new Public Service Agency will work to rebuild and sustain a professional public service workforce. Once again, excellence is the watchword: service excellence, people excellence and work environment excellence. The agency has set its sights on attracting, retaining and motivating the workforce needed for public service excellence.

One way we will do this is through the new leadership centre within the agency. The leadership centre will help to develop strong leaders across the public service to ensure government meets it business objectives.

That brings us to another organization with a keen interest in service delivery. The B.C. Pension Corporation is a Crown agency for which I am also responsible. Its sole function is to act as the agent of the board of trustees for four major public sector pension plans. As such, the corporation serves its members by managing members' account, calculating and paying member benefits, providing information to members and employees and supporting trustees with administration and policy advice.

Finally, B.C. Buildings Corporation, the remaining organization for which I am responsible, is undergoing a transformation of its own. BCBC completed its own internal reorganization in January, and its new structure will be in place by June 2003. BCBC's new customer-focused practices are aimed at streamlining access to services and reducing the number of approvals needed. Over the next year BCBC will move from being a landlord to providing strategic advisory services.

I appreciate your attention as I've described the new Management Services organizations, what we're changing and why we're changing them. As we move

forward with our new responsibilities and our common goals, we have an opportunity to make Management Services an integrated, citizen-centred organization focused on excellent service delivery.

At the end of the day, taxpayers will see results, including improved service delivery, greater accountability, more effective and collaborative government, better use of technology for citizens, convenience and a more connected government for communities and individuals.

Today I've outlined both the realignment process and the activities taking place in my areas of responsibility. I'm asking for approval of the funding necessary to transform our service delivery and make government more accessible to British Columbians.

R. Harris: I want to ask maybe a couple of questions regarding the access centres. Most people that live in the large urban areas I don't think really appreciate or understand the role that access centres play in the rural communities around this province. They're certainly the first visual you'll see of a provincial presence in a town and in a community. You've talked e-commerce and how that's going to work. What I'd like to get a sense of from you is the role that you see access centres playing in the future, now that they've moved into your ministry from CAWS. Maybe I'll start with that.

Hon. S. Santori: I thank the member for the question. I think government came to realize very early that there is not one single way in which we can provide services to the people of our province, as much as we would like to think that, even today with the modern age of electronics and e-mails and Internet and access through computers. At this stage and time it's not possible that we can reach all British Columbians who require government services.

This leads me to why the service delivery project in fact was created — to recognize that people need services, and we have to deliver them in a number of ways, whether they be through the Internet and e-government services, through our call centres, or as we've had, I believe, for a hundred and some years, the government agents' offices.

In terms of moving forward, we recognize that there will always be — at least in the very near future, and I'm sure in the distant future — the need for person-to-person contact. Over the years the government agents' offices have expanded their roles in terms of the services they have provided. I see an expansion, possibly, of the roles that government agents provide. I think we've taken a good step forward in terms of allowing people an opportunity at least to try and get access to government services by putting these terminals throughout all the government agents in the province. People do have a choice of obtaining information on the terminals that are provided in all the government agents' offices, as well as through face-to-face contact.

The short answer to your question concerning the future of government agents' offices is that they have played a very important role in the past, and they will continue to play a very instrumental role insofar as people being able to get face-to-face service with government agents in their rural communities.

R. Harris: I have maybe more of a comment, but the minister may want to comment on it himself. I am glad to hear the value you see in access centres, because it's certainly something that I think I see in my community. I know from talking to people around the north, and from the opportunities I have to go to a lot of other communities, that people see the value of that facility — certainly, in terms of its sort of one-stop shopping for government, not only for today but for the future.

I'm glad to hear that you're talking about expanding their roles. As we move to find better ways of providing services, I find that access centres offer that exact vehicle, whether it's through other ministries…. Actually, I think it is through other ministries.

I'm curious to get your thoughts in terms of how the Ministry of Mines could possibly use them down the road, or if there are even plans for using access centres for some of those functions along claims and staking — just your thoughts on where you see access centres eventually evolving to, more in the long term.

Hon. S. Santori: In response, I think you'll find that under the service delivery project some of that has already started. The government agents have actually played a leading role in working with other ministries — whether they be the Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Forests — with respect to how we can share resources, whether they be sharing staff of the other ministries or co-locating to try to have one access or one point of contact with government. Where that request comes from, whether it be a request from Energy or Mines, we would like to think that down the road, where possible in certain communities, we can have government services all out of one building, which would include government agents — possibly Mines.

We have to keep in mind, though, that what works in one community doesn't necessarily work in another community. We are currently working with some co-location. I believe there are some human resource offices that are sharing accommodations. I believe there are Forestry offices that are. Hopefully, again, there will be different services that will be provided, at least out of the same physical structure — not necessarily administered or delivered by the government agents themselves, but co-locating with other ministries so there is one focal point for government service delivery in that community.

J. Bray: To the minister, just for his staff's edification, I've got a series of questions going through, first of all, the Ministry of Management Services service plans. Then I will have some questions for PSERC's service plan as well, just so the minister is aware.

This ministry holds particular interest to me, in part because, as the Chair may know, I was a member of the

public service before becoming an elected official. Certainly, a lot of the areas that this ministry deals with I find of particular interest.

The first thing I would just like to note is that service plans are more than just words on a page or documents. They really are the living, breathing plan for ministries. I know how much work goes into those, how much late night activity goes on for ministry staff to develop service plans that are meaningful and useful.

First of all, I'd just like to acknowledge to the minister and certainly to his staff the exceptional work that they did on this service plan. It's an excellent service plan. It provides a great deal of information for both elected officials and also members of the general public. That's why I have a series of questions. It's really just to build on the excellent information that staff have provided in this service plan.

For those following at home, I am starting on page 10 of the Ministry of Management Services service plan, which lays out some of the specifics with respect to goals and objectives. The first goal that I'm looking at is to provide enterprisewide information management, information technology and business process policy, governance and strategic direction within which government can implement e-government and service delivery."

As the minister knows, having come from government, IT was always one of the most difficult areas for ministries to deal with and has certainly been of great concern in a lot of ministries. I see that there's some really cohesive work being done on strategies. I just want to explore some of the objectives a bit more, and I hope the minister can perhaps add a bit more detail as to some of the strategies that his ministry is going to undertake to deal with this area.

The first objective I want to talk about is actually objective number 2, which talks about enabling cross-ministry collaboration. Certainly, ministries have for years, just out of evolution, become quite siloed and work very much in isolation. One of the areas that is most logical for breaking that down is IT services, the provision of technical services and computer services. I'm very pleased to see that this is one of the objectives.

I'm wondering if the minister could expand on some of the strategies that he's contemplating, and his staff will be undertaking, to actually enable more of this cross-ministry collaboration.

Hon. S. Santori: Thank you for the question. As you indicated in your question, government in the past, for basically decades, has operated in silos. As a result of that, it was very difficult for government to…. You know, we make a statement that we want to run things in a more cost-effective manner, and we want to do things cross-ministry. It's very difficult to implement such a plan when you don't have all your ducks in order. There isn't that communication within ministries to carry forth any project that may be able to pick up on some of the synergies that are provided through cross-ministry initiatives. More important, in terms of the finances and efficient delivery, are the economies of scale that are out there. We found that to be a challenge early in the game when we tried to find ways and means of ministries getting together and tried to find out what each ministry is doing with respect to IT.

As a result of what we learned in the first year, we've put together the results management office so that we do have a framework there that will assist ministries in collaborating, standardizing and bringing things together and so that we can, in fact, get the economies of scale that are out there to make sure that we do have common platforms throughout ministries where that can be provided, where we can aggregate supply to reduce cost. The results management office, I think, is in response to: how are we going to ensure these efficiencies and the economies that are out there, that we actually have a body out there to ensure that we are bringing it together to get the results that we're seeking?

J. Bray: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I'm pleased to hear about this office that provides a coordinated approach. I think that certainly sounds like one very strong strategy to try to ensure that we're achieving what I think are some remarkably advantageous objectives.

Moving on to objective 3: "provide leading practice research and opportunity analysis expertise." That to me is also a very intriguing objective and certainly one that government should have taken a long time ago. We are a large procurer of IT services with respect to the private sector, and I'm pleased to see that we appear to be looking more towards becoming leaders ourselves, not just a large customer.

I'm wondering if the minister could provide a bit more detail on how he sees his ministry meeting that objective of providing leading practice research and opportunity analysis expertise.

Hon. S. Santori: If I understand the question from the member…. What we are doing is we do have contracts with IT research houses. The purpose for that is to inform us, to seek information from the outside in terms of where technology is going and how technology can be used within government in a better way and to see what advantages we can take by implementing those suggestions that come forward from the research houses that we do contract out with in those areas of information and technology.

J. Bray: That does help me. Perhaps my follow-up question, then, would be that certainly, one of the difficulties over time in many ministries has been that the actual IT needs for ministries…. To some extent the technology — the software and even some of the hardware — has advanced so much that some of the expertise did not actually reside within various ministries to really understand what was available and what

Maybe the minister could just clarify. If I understand what he just referred to, this is really an attempt to make sure we have the best information about what's available, what technology is there and what the strengths and weaknesses are, so that as ministries procure those services, we are making sure we get the best that's available, and it's actually going to meet our identified needs so that we get a good fit with IT procurement to the actual needs of the service that's contracting that.

Hon. S. Santori: That's precisely why we're moving ahead on that: to ensure that we are keeping up with the best and most sophisticated technology that's before us and so that when we do move ahead on initiatives, we know that we're not moving ahead blindly and that we will actually get the results we are seeking as we move forward on a number of those initiatives.

J. Bray: I'm definitely pleased to hear that. Governments in the past have often been on the bleeding edge rather than the leading edge, and at times various ministries have had to go back and redo things. I'm very pleased to see that the Ministry of Management Services is making sure we actually have a stable of the best information so we make good, sound decisions.

I'm wanting to move on to the issue of the percentage of the population with access to broadband facilities. Certainly, this is something we've talked about as a government. The Premier has certainly talked about it, and some of my colleagues from the heartlands have talked about it. I think it's a very significant area, but I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister could provide a layman's definition of what broadband facilities are — what broadband actually is — so that people have a better sense of what that is. Then we can explore the particular targets.

Hon. S. Santori: As the member indicated, bridging the digital divide and providing high-speed broadband access to British Columbians was a priority of our government, and the Premier is committed, as is this ministry, to moving forward in doing this. With respect to the high-speed broadband, what it will allow rural communities to do is access through the Internet very…. Let me see if I can do this without getting totally technical — not that I could get totally technical on this issue. It is in terms of the speed at which you can receive videos to produce e-learning material or e-health initiatives.

Now, given the objectives we've set forward, I think it's very important for us to understand that there is more to bridging the digital divide…. Bridging the digital divide to some communities means something totally different than, say, bridging the digital divide in the lower mainland, and we do need to bridge the digital divide even within the urban centres. That's with people who don't have or cannot afford computers or who don't have the education to be able to use them, so there's bridging the digital divide that exists within the urban centres.

Moving into the heartlands, into rural British Columbia, I don't think we can kid ourselves with respect to the geography we have and those things called mountains, which make it somewhat difficult. Our objective, though, as we move forward…. I identified earlier in my presentation that there will be some pilot projects to carry this out and to see how we can move forward, whether it be through private-public partnerships or whether or not the market will be there at some point where the private sector will get involved in putting investment dollars into ensuring that we get this high-speed broadband access to all British Columbians.

We are going to take a prudent approach in terms of how we move forward in bridging the digital divide. We are not going to be in a position to spend hundreds of millions of dollars instantly, given the fiscal restraints we have, but we feel that in time and with new technology, whether it be wireless or what have you, we will achieve our goal in a relatively short period of time and will be able to connect all British Columbians throughout this province.

J. Bray: That certainly sounds like a very noble goal. Certainly, in being on the Health committee and having had lots of discussions around such strategies as e-health, it becomes clear why broadband is such an important goal. It's not just to be able to get hockey scores quickly. In fact, there are some really significant government services that broadband must be in place for in order for those to be delivered.

I notice that in the service plan, the base target — the percentage of the population with access to broadband…. I appreciate the minister defining access as being a dual issue between actually having it wired into your community and also having access to a terminal, but I do note that the base percentage of the population is 82 percent and that for the out year of 2005-06, that moves up to 90 percent, which is the vast majority of the province. That's an excellent target.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide any idea of what communities or what regions may get caught up in that 8 percent increase and what that might mean for those communities versus now. I'm wondering if he's able to provide that at this point.

Hon. S. Santori: I do apologize, but we don't have that information here for you.

J. Bray: Moving on to the next page, page 12, on goal 2, and I appreciate…. I know the minister has just indicated he'll get that to me later. That's terrific. I appreciate that.

Goal 2 is to provide accountability mechanisms for ensuring that all mandated strategic business initiatives are successfully delivered with agreed-upon business results. This is a significant goal, I think, with respect to the strategies around information technol-

ogy. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the whole issue of siloed ministries means sometimes change becomes difficult. Different ministries, over time, have developed different practices, and sometimes it's hard for overarching goals to be placed on top of ministries.

I see that there are two objectives the minister lays out. One is to ensure successful delivery and results management of mandated strategic initiatives. The second is to support ministries in realizing their core review commitments are enabled with respect to IT and alternative service delivery.

I'm just wondering if the minister could expand a bit on those two objectives and the strategies that he sees being successful, because, of course, I think supporting ministries through this change is probably going to be important, just knowing how some ministries operate. I'm wondering if the minister could expand a bit on those objectives and some of the strategies he's looking to employ.

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the first objective, there will be clearly defined programs horizontally across government to identify which initiatives and which projects. That brings up the topic of the alternative service delivery project and how that will be coordinated through government. As I indicated earlier, the results management office will be the steering force or the drive to ensure that those cross-ministry initiatives do in fact get off the ground and come to fruition.

With respect to the second objective you raised, we will be providing project management methodology, assistance and coaching on how we can get those individual projects within the ministry off the ground and up and running.

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that answer. It sounds like in his answer he talked about some things like coaching and strategies, using the results management office. Can I infer from that, then, that this is really meant to be a supportive approach; that although there are some clearly defined targets, the services that the minister and this staff will be providing will really be supporting the ministries as they move toward achieving these goals; and that the strategies will be collaborative and providing some expertise, some strategies or some ideas that may not exist and how they coordinate into other ministries? Can I infer from the minister that this is a positive strengthening approach as opposed to a top-down ordered approach?

Hon. S. Santori: The reply to that question is yes. I think we should also understand, moving forward, that in some initiatives we will also take a leadership role in carrying out that particular project, but that we want to take a collaborative approach and buy in with all the stakeholders involved in this process. I think it's important for us to understand that there need to be accountability measures in place to ensure that those who are responsible for carrying out these initiatives actually carry out those initiatives.

Again, we are going to assume a leadership role in some of these but in collaboration with the ministries as well. You know, it boils down to accountability. We don't want this thing to stop. We want the momentum to continue to be there. I think our role will be one of ensuring that the momentum that has started will continue so we can get the benefits of alternative service delivery that we feel we can accomplish.

J. Bray: Just finally on the results management office. Where will the staff come from to work in the results management office? Are they new staff? Are they brought in from various ministries? Or are they just from other departments in the minister's own ministry?

Hon. S. Santori: It will be a combination of both: internal staff and external assistance as well.

J. Bray: Moving on then to goal 3, "develop and implement an overall strategy for the integration of client-focused multi-channel service delivery," which is a rather convoluted sentence, I appreciate. Being a former policy analyst, I'm quite proud of that language. I notice under objective 2, which is to ensure successful implementation of the service delivery project recommendations, including those relating to government agents, citizen communication and co-location of regional offices…. In the strategy it talks about creating a dedicated service delivery implementation team with clear targets and deliverables. I think somebody overseeing these processes and these changes is going to….

I'm wondering if the minister can just expand a bit on what this dedicated service delivery implementation team looks like. Again, where are the employees coming from, and what type of mandate will it have?

Hon. S. Santori: In response to the composition of the team, it's seconded staff from within government. There are three staff focused on regional teams, and there will be three staff focused on solving systemic barriers.

J. Bray: I'm certainly enjoying making my way through this service plan, as I know everybody else listening is.

Goal 5 is to provide leadership for information technology procurement and human resource management for the information management/information technology community. Certainly — and the minister knows I've come to see him several times with respect to this — this is another one of these areas that when you read the service plan you may think is a rather minor item, and why did they even put stuff down? Actually, it's a very significant area. I think the minister in his answers and his opening comment has alluded to how important the whole issue of IT is to government and to the delivery of service to the public.

I note that in the objectives, the first objective is to provide support to ensure that IT procurement meets government's needs and facilitates private sector in-

volvement. This is an important area because as our high-tech sector grows, obviously government is a major possibility for employment and contracts. I'm wondering if the minister could expand a bit on that objective, and how he sees his ministry helping to ensure that objective is met.

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the objective, I believe it is critical that we do develop terms and conditions in our contracts that will protect the Crown. At the same time, we also want to make sure we establish a reputation in government, here in British Columbia, that we are an excellent jurisdiction that the private sector wants to do business in. We are working with the private sector to look at different ways of procurement, especially in the area of IT with some of the challenges we have to look at, and evaluate possible joint procurement solutions. We are getting input from the private sector on how we can develop those types of relationships.

I think that as we move forward, there may be more and more opportunities for us to go to the private sector with our problems and have them come forward with possible solutions, as opposed to, I would suspect, the traditional way — where we felt that we knew the solutions and were going to procure what we deemed to be the solutions. I think in a lot of instances in the past, there's probably been some evidence that, in fact, that wasn't necessarily the right solution, and we ended up going back to the drawing board on several occasions.

I think that you will see a totally different approach to how we include the private sector in terms of meeting our procurement needs.

J. Bray: Along those lines, certainly here in Victoria, high-tech is one of our growing sectors. There are a lot of new, small, emerging companies that are growing here in the region who are now in a position where they can start to really make major developments for government. They are always interested in being part of the bidding process and the RFP process.

There are also some large players in the field who have large resources to put into a variety of proposals for public and private sector. I've met with the minister before on this. I've certainly had some concerns from some of these smaller operators that, when they do a bid, they find out after the fact that one of the large companies actually helped with the proposal because it was such a technical issue that the ministry in question needed some help with the writing of the RFP.

These smaller groups and agencies don't have a problem with that because they realize that's a necessity in the fast-changing world of IT. But there's a sense sometimes that, had they known that one of the large players was involved in the writing of the RFP, they may or may not have made a corporate decision at their little office to spend the large amount of money for them to actually be part of the process.

I'm wondering if the minister can just give a bit more information as to how the process will be carried out so that, in fact, it is fair and upfront for both the large players, who are quite used to doing business with government, and also for these smaller companies now starting to make the strategic business decisions to bid on government work — which is for them quite expensive — and know that they're going to have a fair shake in the deal and feel confident in the process.

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, I want to make it very clear that the small IT businesses will have, I feel, a considerable amount of opportunity to take full advantage of some of the initiatives that are being put forth from government.

With respect to the question asked by the member, I think it's important to understand that when a large company or firm is involved in being part of an RFP for work that will go out to tender, it will be made very clear, upfront and on a case-by-case basis, whether or not the person actually doing the RFP or assisting in the RFP will be allowed to bid on the job.

The small companies will know at the beginning, ahead of time, before they expend a ton of resources — whether human resources or financial resources — whether or not the company who assisted with the RFP will in fact be allowed to bid on that particular job. Depending on the services that are being requested, each case is done on an individual basis, ministry by ministry, and they will make that call. The small companies, or those companies that weren't part of drafting that RFP, will know ahead of time if that company will be able to bid on something they played a role in.

J. Bray: That's certainly good news for a lot of the smaller companies out there — to know that they are going to be operating on a level playing field. I think for many years in the past there was a sense that that wasn't the case. Certainly, that's good news for the growing high-tech sector.

My last question within the Ministry of Management Services service plan is just, actually, a larger question on B.C. Bid. B.C. Bid has certainly been a significant portal for how government interacts with the private sector for the procurement of services. Certainly, we made some new-era commitments around how we were going to do procurement, make sure that things were fair and level and that we were getting the best value for B.C. taxpayers, that ministries were going to get the services they required and that the process was going to be level and fair for the private sector to actually do business with the government.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister could just advise us on what some of the changes over the last year may have been with respect to B.C. Bid and how it was actually meeting some of those new-era commitments.

Hon. S. Santori: I'll go through three of the most significant changes. As the member, I'm sure, is well aware, the new B.C. Bid went live in February of this

year. The biggest change was to bid electronically, which was not possible before.

Secondly, there were improvements in how providers were going to be notified about new opportunities. Thirdly, ultimately they will be able to prepare and actually submit their quotes back to government or the broader public sector electronically.

Moving on, then, through to the Public Service Employee Relations Commission service plan. Obviously, being a former civil servant, this is another area of particular interest to me but also to many of my constituents who work for the public sector.

The minister, in his opening remarks, did talk a bit about the workforce adjustment strategy as well as the revitalization of the public service. Those are a couple of areas that I would like to canvass. I will try to some extent to follow the service plan, though my questions might be a bit disjointed.

I'm just wondering, for my edification, if the minister could provide the numbers again as to where we are at with respect to the workforce adjustment strategy and how the numbers lay out for voluntary departure versus the other means.

Hon. S. Santori: I will read the numbers right off to you. With respect to the early retirement incentive program, year to date, 2,582 took advantage of that; voluntary departure program, 2,158; number of excluded employees severed, 216; union laid-off or opted for severance, 464; for a total of 5,420. There were 1,248 placed, and there are still 300 in the process as we speak.

J. Bray: Certainly, it would seem by those numbers of actual persons involved in the process that a significant majority of them actually took advantage of some of the options available through the workforce adjustment strategy, such as early retirement or voluntary departure, to move on to other opportunities. Were these on target with what the ministry had laid out, or were these even slightly ahead of what the ministry had projected?

Hon. S. Santori: We are actually ahead of schedule, ahead of projections, and there are currently between 1,000 and 1,500 remaining.

J. Bray: For the 1,000 to 1,500 remaining, are there any projections on how many might be eligible just because we've gone through another year? Might some be eligible for early retirement or opt for voluntary departure that didn't, for a variety of reasons, choose to do that in the previous years?

Hon. S. Santori: We're anticipating that the takeup on the 1,000 to 1,500 remaining will be consistent with the initial, which is that about 70 percent of the 1,000 to 1,500 will take advantage of the voluntary exit offerings that are out there.

J. Bray: Is it fair to say, then — and there may not be a way to do it on a case-by-case basis…? It's interesting to note that the largest bubble of people is those taking voluntary departure. I know that one of the concerns expressed back in January 2002 was the great concern that there would be one group that would leave, and it would be all those people close to retirement. Therefore, you would sort of have the experience and the corporate history leaving ministries all over the place.

By the numbers that the minister has provided, it actually looks like a lot of people may well have taken advantage of the voluntary departure as opposed to early retirement for business opportunities, for other opportunities that may have come up that they couldn't have done before they were able to take a package. Is it fair to say that although we still have people close to retirement leaving, that we may in fact have other people who have been able to take advantage of this for other personal and family reasons and therefore the great loss of experience across government that was initially predicted may well not have happened?

Hon. S. Santori: The statement you made is very accurate in terms of the fact that more people did opt to take the voluntary package. Given the numbers I provided earlier — the 2,582 who took the early retirement and the 2,158 in the voluntary departure program — the voluntary departure program did exceed the initial projections we made. For whatever reasons, and I'm sure there are many of them out there, people did opt to take that voluntary departure.

J. Bray: Just to clarify, although I'm the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and Victoria being, you know, a large sector for government, these are actually provincewide numbers. These aren't just in the greater Victoria area.

Hon. S. Santori: The actual numbers that were realized were proportionate throughout the province. Whether it was in Victoria or Kamloops or in other areas within the province where the cutbacks or the workforce adjustment did take place, the balance or the percentages were pretty much equal, regardless of where the workforce adjustment took place.

J. Bray: I know that going back to January 2002, there was certainly some concern in centres like Victoria that there was going to be a large number of people who were going to lose their employment and that this was going to have an impact on the local economy. It would seem, now that we're sort of three-quarters of the way through the process, that the actual percentage of people who go through the whole process — the placement, the bumping and all those provisions in the

collective agreements — and still end up having to actually be laid off…. That, of course, is traumatic for anybody, but the actual numbers of people who were not able to find other opportunities was relatively small compared to the total number of actual people involved and particularly small compared to the percentage of positions or FTEs that were identified. I'm not sure that's something people are generally aware of.

I'm just wondering if the minister could confirm that that's a relatively accurate statement: the actual number of people receiving layoff notices was small in comparison to the overall positions identified back in January of 2002.

Hon. S. Santori: Your statement is accurate, and the results we did achieve…. When you look at the numbers, there were twice as many people placed as there were people that were actually laid off. Of those that were laid off, I believe it worked out to 10 to 12 percent of the total of the workforce adjustment. The numbers in terms of the concerns you have expressed on a number of occasions were considerably less than what was anticipated or what could have actually occurred. At the end of the day, when we look at the numbers, it's dramatically less than what could have taken place.

J. Bray: Certainly, this was a difficult process for ministries to go through — for the minister and PSERC and certainly for employees who were involved in that, either receiving redundancy notices or in ministries that had identified large areas. Just having to go through that process is, I think, very difficult and does have an impact on the workplace, at least in the short term.

As we're now sort of coming to the end of the workforce adjustment period, I think people will feel much more comforted by those numbers — to see that most people left because they got opportunities, and they used the services that were available and announced. That's good news within the context of any workforce adjustment.

The other piece of this has always been with respect to revitalizing the public service. One of our commitments during the election was to really focus on making the public service a place people would choose to actually be their career destination and not just the first job they get out of university till they go find their real job.

I'm wanting to move now into that area: as we're coming out of workforce adjustment, what types of strategies we are dealing with to really make the public service in British Columbia the crème de la crème — the place people want to come to who want to make a career in public administration. I want to focus a bit on that.

Based on that, in the service plan of PSERC, on page 6, when we were talking about public service employees and the employment relationship…. Granted, one could spend several weeks on that particular topic, but I did note that under the implications section on page 6, there was reference to…. I'll read it: "Managers need to be able to deal with the increasingly diverse interests of employees. Government needs to be responsive to these issues in order to ensure it can attract and retain a committed and talented public sector workforce. There is the need to ensure that workforce adjustment is well managed as government concurrently seeks effective strategies to renew the public service."

I think that's a very encouraging comment — to recognize the need of management and managers to really grow with their employees. I'm wondering if the minister can expand a bit on what strategies PSERC is looking at to make managers able to manage their personnel better so they can actually deal with the changing needs of the workplace and create that kind of dynamic workplace for our government employees.

Hon. S. Santori: Let me begin by saying that I want to take this opportunity to commend my staff in terms of what we were able to accomplish coming forth with the initiative of public service renewal, especially during what was a very challenging and difficult year with workforce adjustment. There were probably a lot of questions early in the changes as to how you as a government, as an employer, can initiate something like public service renewal when, in fact, we are undergoing some very significant changes. We underwent a period of time, not surprisingly, when morale was deflated.

I believe the whole purpose for going forward in this, recognizing the need that we want to have the best public service in this country and we want to be able to prove to employees that we want to move forward in this initiative…. It became even that much more important that we actually started the public service renewal at the same time we were forced to make workforce adjustments.

During that period of time we undertook several initiatives. I think the results will speak for themselves. I think the public service has recognized our goals, our objectives and our sincerity in terms of wanting to renew the public service. One initiative is the development of the corporate human resource plan, which is the first that's ever been created in the B.C. government.

Secondly, a first, again, is that every ministry has a corporate human resource plan in place.

Thirdly — and I'm sure you may have some questions on that — is the development of the leadership centre to ensure that our managers, whether they be in middle management, executive or low management positions, do have the skills. They are going to provide resources for those people so they can have the skills necessary to move forward and so people can actually be part of a government, part of an employer, where people will be rewarded for their hard work in terms of their progress within the public service.

I think that staff have done a fabulous job in putting these programs together in a very quick way, con-

sidering the other challenges we had. The response through the leadership centre, through the leadership development programs that have been offered over the course of the year…. I think we have shown our commitment very clearly in terms of renewing the public service. I believe we'll see more rewards from the fruits of the labour that has taken place over this last year.

J. Bray: Certainly, I'm very encouraged by that. I do believe we have had a reputation, historically, as being one of the jewels in the public service. I think we went through a period of time in the last ten or 15 years where that was diminished somewhat. Now we're hopefully starting to turn the corner and becoming again that dynamic leader in public administration.

Yes, the leadership centre is something I would like to talk about. One of the realities, I think, that occurred in some of the ministries was that as people moved forward in the public service into management roles as directors of branches or executive directors, they often had great technical skill in that particular area, had a lot of talent and experience with respect to the area that you're dealing with. What was sometimes lacking was that all of a sudden you went from being somebody who may have worked with one other person to having a branch of 20 people with diverse interests and issues where you had to manage multiple issues and a budget. All of a sudden you went from being the technical expert to, really, now a much different type of position, but you were hired in that position based on your technical skill.

Will the leadership centre deal with some of those issues so that as people move forward in the public service, they gain the skills to enhance their technical skills and so that as they take over branches or units or offices, they also have the ability to effectively manage the resources now in their hands, when the week before they were just one of those resources?

Hon. S. Santori: Let me begin by agreeing with what the member said with respect to what existed in the past. I believe there's no question that people were moved or promoted within government as a result of their technical skills as opposed to taking into account all of the other components that are very important, if not even more critical than the technical skills, and that's being able to motivate people and manage employees. I want to say that we recognize that what existed in the past did not work in the best interest in terms of developing true leaders who have to take on that leadership role so that we can actually carry out the agenda we have set for ourselves.

The whole issue around people management is critical — and how they deal with people. In response to that concern and that issue, I'm not sure if the member is familiar with the Leading the Way program, where we are working with Royal Roads, Camosun College and the University of Victoria in a partnership arrangement whereby we can work together to provide the skills both to low, middle and executive management on a three-tiered process. Each tier of management is linked with one another so that there is some resemblance of progression in terms of that manager's skills and his abilities to manage people at all levels regardless of what level that individual is managing at.

J. Bray: Thank you to the minister for that information. I certainly think one of the areas that will improve morale within the civil service is when those in the management level have those skills and can create that kind of dynamic workforce. At the end of the day, the politicians can wax poetically, but it's actually the managers on the ground who make that workplace work. I think this coordinated approach really is going to be very effective over the next couple of years, and I'm very encouraged by it.

Moving on to the larger topic of human resources, I note there is a great deal in the service plan around the human resources strategy, both corporately as well as the shared services, in all of these issues with human resources. Again, it's one of those issues that gets dealt with at the end of the day. It's like the computer: what comes in is the quality of what comes out. It's the same with the public service. If your HR systems aren't strong, then you're not going to have the best and the brightest within your system.

Can the minister just outline the strategies that have been undertaken in the last year with respect to human resources and the public service to strengthen that process and ensure that it actually does meet the goals of bringing the best and the brightest back into B.C.'s public service?

Hon. S. Santori: I will refer back to the corporate human resource plan I mentioned earlier with respect to putting our focus more on leadership and also performance management, as well as on our corporate learning strategy. I think we have to ensure that, with the new structure that has been established with respect to corporate human resources, we do get consistency as well as uniformity throughout all of the ministries in terms of how we provide assistance to those ministries on a corporate level with their human resource strategies and plans within the ministry. To ensure that that in fact does take place, we will be having, as part of the shared services model, service level agreements in terms of how the corporate human resource office will respond in delivering the types of services required for individual ministries to carry out their human resource plans and strategies.

J. Bray: The feedback I've gotten since I've been elected, as well as my experience the odd time in the public service, is that the human resources function was sometimes seen as a great assistance and sometimes seen as a bit of a hindrance, depending on the perspective of the HR personnel.

The example would be that in dealing with the hiring of included or potentially unionized staff, sometimes the perception of those charged with doing the

hiring was that the HR support was to prevent appeals and anything that could possibly go wrong. The whole hiring process was structured to avoid a possible appeal as opposed to enhancing the selection process for both applicants as well as those staff that were left to do the hiring.

It often ended up with a very long and complicated hiring process where, in the case of the ministry that I came from, you would have three senior supervisory people sitting in a room taking handwritten notes, asking questions from a prepared question that you could never deviate from for ten, 15 or 20 applicants in order to make sure the system was so fair that no one could ever argue with it. At the end of the day, you weren't really interviewing somebody, and you were taking up several people's time.

Is the intent of the HR strategy to move from a model that is so complicated it actually hinders the hiring process to a more supportive model that ensures that those front-line people in charge of hiring get support from their HR people, as opposed to a structural process to avoid the odd appeal?

Hon. S. Santori: Let me begin by saying we do recognize that the hiring process and the frustration that managers actually went through in trying to fill spaces were not acceptable — not acceptable in terms of the amount of stress and anxiety they put on the people who are hiring. Furthermore, it doesn't serve the interest of the employer — being, of course, government.

We do recognize that change needs to be made in how we are going to make our selection of employees. I think it's critical to be very upfront. As we move forward, we want to be able to bring people on board because of the skills and the expertise they bring to the table as opposed to — a bunch of little ticks in boxes, etc. — something that is totally process driven, which at the end of the day may or may not result in actually having that best person for that position.

As you said earlier, many people find their positions because they manage to stickhandle through a process. At the end of the day, someone who wasn't able to stickhandle through the process may in fact have been the very best person for that job. We recognize that. Our commitment is to ensure that we have the best possible employees. In order to do that, we have to have a process, of course, that is fair to everyone. At the same time, we have to have a process whereby we can actually reach down and, during a process of hiring someone, bring out what skills and expertise that person actually brings to the table and how they can serve the employer. We will be moving towards those types of changes.

J. Bray: Two sub-questions that I'll give at the same time, then, out of that. Is it the thought that government would move to more of a real interview process — perhaps processes where people would demonstrate their skills rather than just the question and answer back and forth where someone who memorizes the service plan of a ministry might get hired as opposed to someone who can demonstrate the skills?

The second half of that is: is there any thought of making use of the great modern technology we now have in British Columbia like tape recorders or video cameras or video conferencing to reduce the number of people who have to sit in the room to ensure fairness and that things are accurately recorded, so that fairness is preserved, but you're not taking up three or four senior managers handwriting notes all the time to ensure "fairness"? We might look at some other innovative ways to make the system fair, but actually not tie up everybody's time in the hiring process.

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, we are going to move forward with a commitment to shorten the process. As I've indicated earlier, the current process isn't working. What we don't want to continue to do is have something that is totally process-driven, whereby at the end of the day the outcome is based on how someone managed, as I said earlier, to stickhandle through a process. What we want to be able to do is provide guidelines to managers and ensure we are using best practices when it does come to hiring people

At the end of the day I think we have to use managers for what managers are for. It should be a given — and it will be a given — that there will be fairness in the hiring process. We will hire on the basis of merit. At the end of the day that manager is a manager for a reason — one that provides leadership, one that knows how to read people and understand people, and one that determines what that person actually brings to the table.

There has to be some judgment on the basis of a manager in terms of the decision that that person is going to make, notwithstanding the fact that we have to ensure that merit is applied and that the person is in fact exercising best practices and using the guidelines that will be provided in terms of what they must adopt when they carry out their interview process with potential employees.

J. Bray: That's good news. I know that some former colleagues will be very pleased with that. They've endured many years of a rather old system, and I think this progression, this evolution, is going to be very welcome. I think at the end of the day — I agree with the minister — it's probably going to also result in better people coming on board, managers who are more satisfied in their jobs, and actually HR departments that are more satisfied and feeling like they're actually being progressive in the application of their skills. There are a lot of skills in HR departments, and they're not based on a process; they're actually based on best practice.

Another area within the hiring scope is the whole issue of secondment. Just for those listening at home, secondments are temporary placements, often from within the public service, for short-term vacancies. Maybe somebody's left, and people weren't aware that it was going to happen — maternity leave, educational

leave, these types of leaves — where it may not be a position at that time for actually hiring somebody new, but you still need to fill the position.

The secondment policy over the years has in some ministries floated away from being quite rigid and specific to being a bit more of: "Well, I know somebody, so let's just second them, because we know they're going to do a good job. We're not going to need them for very long anyway, and it's a great opportunity." That opportunity gets extended and gets extended, and then we find out the employee is not coming back. After eight, nine or ten months that position gets posted, and lo and behold the person who got seconded without any process is, of course, the successful applicant.

That may be quite often no real plan, but that's how it happens. Especially within branches and divisions and units, that can be a great destabilizer of the workforce, because people feel that it's done by favours — that it's who you know, that it's who you curl with. People feel that the secondment process, which is really often an internal hiring process, is unfair. That frustrates people, and they start to look for opportunities outside the public service.

I'm wondering: as the human resources corporate strategy develops and as we move towards best practice, will there be a governmentwide review of how secondments will operate to ensure that it is based on merit, that it does give people opportunity, but that it doesn't get used as the ability for people who know each other to move up in the system to the exclusion of other equally or even more qualified people? And the secondment process is seen as an opportunity for advancement but on a fair, level playing field?

Hon. S. Santori: We recognize that the process that was undertaken before may have somewhat given some individuals an advantage in terms of placing them into a position that may have become a permanent position down the road. We recognize that. We will be addressing the issue you have raised, understanding that over this past year, with the amount of workforce adjustment that was taking place and the need to fill positions in a quick way so that ministries could carry on with conducting their business…. That has not been addressed to the degree which I'm sure the member would like to see it addressed.

I can commit to you that we will be looking at ways we can improve how people are seconded into positions for short periods of time, at setting guidelines in terms of posting for jobs over a particular period of time to ensure that those people who weren't successful in getting seconded into a ministry will have opportunities to post to those jobs if they do become permanent jobs down the road.

J. Bray: I have my final question. I just would like to say that on the whole topic of revitalization, some of the areas I've highlighted are, I think, critical for the success of revitalizing the public service and making people excited, happy and enthusiastic about working for the province and the public service or making the public sector their career choice. These are some critical strategies the minister has outlined, and I think they're going to go a long way to achieving that goal.

It will be welcome news for the people that are in our public service, but I think it's also for those that are doing their studies now and want to look at the public service. They don't need to look to Ontario, or they don't need to look to Ottawa. They can actually look right here to British Columbia, and we can keep that talent here.

The last question is on the whole issue of merit. One of our key election strategies and platforms was on making sure that we had a public service based on merit. The merit commissioner's first report was an excellent report and laid the groundwork for how the merit commissioner's office was going to operate to ensure that the principle of merit was applied.

I'm just wondering if the minister can advise us when the next report of the merit commissioner is likely to be made public.

Hon. S. Santori: Before I respond to that question, I want to make a comment on a couple of points that the member made with respect to the public service and the province of British Columbia being an employer of choice. I share the enthusiasm, of course, with the member. We are working very hard to build an environment where people can feel that they can grow and prosper within the B.C. government workforce. I think that we have taken a number of initiatives to show that we are moving in that direction.

I've seen a number of surveys in which the public service has shown their discontent with respect to the hiring process. It's encouraging when you look at surveys and look at some of the comments that are made by members of the staff. They do want to get into a competitive atmosphere with respect to moving up the corporate ladder or within government or within their positions. They want that spirit of competition. They also want to know and have the comfort that if they do work hard, if they do attain the skills they need, they can at least have some assurance that if they do go out of their way and go that extra mile to improve their expertise in their field, there is, in fact, something at the end of that rainbow. It's something that may, I believe, have been lacking in the past.

When you have that type of environment, I think it takes away some incentive in employees wanting to better themselves when working for government. I think we have built a foundation that should give the public service some excitement, notwithstanding the fact — and we do realize it — that it has been a tough year for the public service with respect to the workforce adjustment. I believe we've moved forward on workforce adjustment with compassion and understanding for those people that were affected.

I do want to take this moment to thank all of them that were part of the process of restructuring — how we went through the workforce adjustment and how we

are going to move forward. It definitely takes a lot of dedication and hard work from the public service to continue on with energy and with that change when so much is changing around you and when, to some degree, you don't even know if your position is going to be there in a month or two months from now. I think that is clearly indicative of the professional people we have in the public service and that, in fact, they do want to progress and do want to contribute to the betterment of the province.

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