Hansard -- Monday, March 29, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 11 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9783

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9783
	Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 17)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401)
	B. Suffredine
	Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402)
	M. Hunter

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9784
	Cultural diversity awards for business
	D. Hayer
	Role models for children
	B. Locke
	Gibraltar mine reopening
	J. Wilson

Oral Questions		9785
	Call for public inquiry into case of Frank Paul
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Plant
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Open Learning Agency severance payments
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins
	Medical Services Plan contract and access to personal information of B.C. residents
	J. Bray
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Offshore oil and gas development
	R. Visser
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Transfer of community living services
	R. Hawes
	Hon. C. Clark

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9788
	Pheidias Project Management (1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)
	V. Anderson

Second Reading of Bills		9788
	Railway Safety Act (Bill 20)
	Hon. M. Coell
	J. Kwan
	Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13) (continued)
	J. Kwan
	B. Penner
	B. Suffredine

Committee of Supply		9792
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9836
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. MacPhail
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	K. Stewart
	D. MacKay

Hon. C. Hansen: I am delighted to introduce a constituent who is visiting in the gallery today. She is the daughter of Samantha Thorpe, who is the administrative coordinator for the Minister of Provincial Revenue. Sorry — I had better get this right so that I don't start family disputes here. The constituent I am introducing today is Cynthia Howard. She is here today visiting her daughter, who is Samantha Thorpe with the Minister of Provincial Revenue's office. She's been a constituent in the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena for 35 years, and this is the first time she's been able to get over here to see question period. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Orr: Today I have three absolutely wonderful guests in the gallery. One is a gentleman who needs absolutely no introduction when he's walking around Chinatown. He truly is the patriarch of the Chinese community. His name is Phillip Chan. He's 91½ years old, and he was born here in Victoria in 1912. When he leaves here, he's going home to dig the garden so that his wife can put in the spinach, and she's 90. He's just wonderful. With Phillip is his younger brother. His younger brother is called Paul Chan, and he is a mere 82 years of age. He is a Second World War veteran who was assigned to the secret service.

We had lunch together, and they were regaling me with absolutely amazing stories. Their father owned a restaurant in town here, and on one given day he fed more than a thousand people in Victoria during the Depression years. Paul went to fight for the country in World War II. Remember that they didn't get the vote until 1947. We were talking about how different it was then to now, how little they had and how they had no rights. Today people have everything, and they still feel very blessed that they live here.

With them is a very dear friend of mine who is a huge supporter and a great worker of mine. She has helped a lot of people in this community and helps me immensely with the Chinese language, and that's Catherine Campbell. Would the House all make these great people very welcome.

J. MacPhail: I am honoured to ask everyone to welcome Cindy Stewart, who is the president of the Health Sciences Association, to the House today. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce today Bill 17, the Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act. This bill is consistent with the government's commitment to both deregulation and operating more efficiently and effectively. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to transfer the authority for setting and enforcing land survey standards from the province to the Corporation of Land Surveyors of the Province of British Columbia. This authority is currently within the ambit of the surveyor general.

Currently, standards for the practice of land surveying are set out in the general survey instruction regulation. This regulation will be repealed as a consequence of transferring authority to the corporation. The corporation will thereafter be responsible for making changes to those standards and ensuring that their membership adheres to them. The surveyor general will be able to review and approve any new standards adopted by the corporation, thereby maintaining an appropriate degree of government oversight to ensure that adequate standards are in place at all times.

Additional amendments to the Land Surveyors Act modernize the governance system for the corporation by, for example, updating its disciplinary powers, allowing surveyors from out of province to become members, and revising examination and admission authorities. A number of other acts will be affected as a consequence of the amendments to the land surveying statute. These are the Coal Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Land Act, the Land Survey Act, the Land Title Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act and the Strata Property Act.

The amendments to these acts authorize the corporation to do various things, such as make rules for surveys under those acts that were formerly the responsibility of the surveyor general. Finally, a change is being made to the legislation to enable the corporation to change its name to the Association of British Columbia Land Surveyors. These changes will come into effect on January 21, 2005, to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the corporation.

This bill has the full support of the Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C. and other affected professional associations. This bill also follows through on the government's commitment to reduce regulations and improve efficiency by seeking out appropriate alternative service delivery mechanisms. I am pleased to present this bill to the House today.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Suffredine presented a bill intituled B. J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004.

B. Suffredine: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

B. Suffredine: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

M. Hunter presented a bill intituled Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004.

M. Hunter: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

M. Hunter: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

D. Hayer: British Columbia is a cultural mosaic, and nowhere is that ethnic diversity more prominent than in Surrey. Last week the Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services Society, under the direction of Lesley Ann Woodman and its board of directors, held its ninth annual cultural diversity awards to honour those business people who embrace employee and customer diversity in their businesses.

When I was the president of Surrey Chamber of Commerce in 1996, our team was instrumental in initiating these awards. Surrey, with almost 400,000 people and thousands of businesses, is representative of virtually every ethnic cultural background. These awards recognize those that celebrate and encourage their heritage in their business.

I would like to honour these business people for their efforts and their dedication to diversity by naming those who were finalists for awards and those who won. In the category of business with 25 or fewer employees, Injury Management Solutions from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead won. Other finalists were Guildford Town Centre and the Janitor Room Supply House. The Gipaanda Greenhouses won for business over 25 employees. Also finalists for this category were Boston Pizza in Fleetwood, again, in the Surrey-Tynehead riding and the Surrey Leader newspaper.

In the category of not-for-profit in general, the finalists included the Boys and Girls Club of Delta and Delta Youth Services, Inter-A student society, and the winner of this category was Surrey Chamber of Commerce. In the not-for-profit public institutions category, the finalists were the city of Surrey, the George Mackie Library, and the winner was the Surrey public library. Royal Bank won the corporate division. Other finalists were Home Depot and RHM Teleservices International.

I would ask that all members of the House join me in congratulating all the winners and the finalists for these important awards that promote equality and celebrate the differences of culture we have in this great province of ours.

B. Locke: I would like to ask everyone in this chamber to pause for a moment and ask themselves: who are the role models for children in British Columbia today? There are few high profile names that come to mind, like Rick Hansen, Silken Laumann, Jimmy Pattison, Martha Piper and Brendan Morrison. These are people known around the world for their accomplishments and the challenges they faced along their way. They have gone beyond their field of endeavour and given back to the community and are inspirations to all of us.

But who are the role models closer to home? Who are the people that are influencing children and youth every day? Of course, for most children it's their parents and grandparents, but it also might be a teacher, a pastor, a police officer, the school secretary, a neighbour, a volunteer or a coach.

Although the saying "It takes a village" is overused, it is still a strong and real message for all of us to remember. Kids are learning by watching and absorbing the things we do and say. As adults, our world is moving so fast we sometimes forget that the young people in our lives are trying to keep up with us.

As a mom of two teenagers, which can multiply in our house to ten or more, I talk to teenagers every day. They, too, like to be acknowledged and valued, and sometimes they wear clothes we don't like or have one more piercing than we can understand. Sometimes we think they don't want us in their lives at all, but the

truth is that they do. We may have to work a little harder to nurture the relationship, but it is those relationships that will have a significant influence on their future. A simple word of encouragement, dusting off a scraped knee or helping a child with a problem that may seem minor to us are the important actions that shape young lives. As a community, we share a responsibility for all the children in B.C.

J. Wilson: This year the city of Williams Lake celebrated its seventy-fifth birthday. Today they've received a birthday gift that is absolutely wonderful. Taseko Mines has announced that the Gibraltar copper mine will be reopening this summer. That means that 280 direct, very well-paying jobs will be returning to the Cariboo — plus a private sector investment of $120 million.

Taseko has wanted to reopen ever since shutting its doors in 1998. Like so many mines in B.C., the nineties were unbearable for its Gibraltar operation. They were forced to close not once but twice during that decade of decline. That was when the previous government alienated mining companies and pushed hundreds of jobs from the province.

There are still labour issues to be resolved at Gibraltar, and both sides are working to make sure the benefits are fair to all. In the spirit of cooperation with management and union, the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour has offered to sit down with each party and help them reach a resolution. We recognize that all parties are in support of getting back to work at Gibraltar. The Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Minister of State for Mining are two others who are working hard every day to breathe new life back into mining. This announcement is a victory for their efforts.

Mining activity is coming back to help pay for schools and health care and the programs we all value. I know my colleague from Cariboo South shares my enthusiasm about the Gibraltar copper mine. Many similar mining opportunities exist for our fellow northern caucus MLAs all across the north, where mining companies are very interested in doing business. With proper diligence and the will to succeed, I am certain that names like Red Chris, Tumbler Ridge, Mount Polley and Wayside will soon join the name Gibraltar as an active part of the B.C. economy. Congratulations to Taseko, and we are all excited about the future of the Gibraltar copper mine.

J. MacPhail: Last week the Solicitor General told this House that he did not see anything that would actually lead him to believe that it was in the public interest to call a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. Soon after the Solicitor General said that, Crown counsel announced that they had appointed a lawyer to investigate new evidence brought forward by the police complaint commissioner. Given that the Crown has determined that this new evidence warrants an investigation, why won't the Solicitor General acknowledge that it is serious enough for him to reconsider his decision to block a public inquiry?

Hon. G. Plant: When the police complaint commissioner referred the material to me that supported his recommendation to government with respect to the holding of an inquiry in this matter, having read the report of Mr. Ryneveld, I determined that it would be appropriate to refer the material to the criminal justice branch. That happened. I am told there is a review underway, and there will be a decision made shortly, but that is a separate process entirely from the process followed by the Solicitor General in respect of his powers under the Police Act to respond to the recommendations of the police complaint commissioner.

J. MacPhail: Yes, we understand that. That's why the question is to the Solicitor General. As the Solicitor General appreciates, this case is fundamental to the confidence British Columbians have in the fair treatment of visible minorities by the police. Accusations of racism in the police force may be difficult to face, but face them we must if visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians — indeed, all Canadians — are to have confidence in the fair distribution of justice.

Given that the Attorney General has just made the comments he has made, which have been reported in the media through Crown counsel, and given that the police complaint commissioner and Frank Paul's family are both demanding a public inquiry as a result of new evidence, is the Solicitor General, who is in charge of the police in this province, prepared to accept that there are legitimate questions about racism on the police force that can only be confronted through a full public inquiry?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said last week, this incident took place in 1998. The members opposite were in government from 1998 to 2001. There was a coroner's inquiry done at the time. There were disciplinary measures taken at the time. There were also some things put in place so that further incidents of this would be mitigated in the future with regard to the operation of the police in this province. We actually audit that when we do high-risk audits of police departments.

There are two issues here. Obviously, I await the fundamental issue with regard to the independence of Crown. With regard to reviewing the file, the police complaint commissioner's file was forwarded by the Attorney General. I think that's the proper process on

that side. On this side, I think that having sat down with the chief coroner and reviewed the information and having sat down with officials and looked at it, the proper decision was made on my part as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the Solicitor General is suggesting that because this occurred in 1998, he somehow isn't responsible.

The incident — the tragic death — occurred in 1998. Because of the previous administration, this province has an independent police complaint commissioner — because of the previous administration. The police complaint commissioner wrote to this Solicitor General, after receiving a complaint from Frank Paul's family, dated October 4, 2001. What doesn't he get about that — that he's trying to pass blame elsewhere?

I know the government maintains that it's concerned about fighting racism. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is responsible for B.C.'s anti-racism program because I don't think the government's appointed a minister of state for multiculturalism. It doesn't seem that they want to do that, given the resignation of the other one. So the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is responsible for the anti-racism program, whose stated mission is to provide multicultural and anti-racism education, to provide critical responses to racism and hate. That's what this whole case is about.

J. MacPhail: Because the Solicitor General rejected a public inquiry, because issues of racial discrimination are likely to become the central features…

J. MacPhail: …of attempted cross-examination, will the minister responsible for multiculturalism stand up and say…? Does he support the Solicitor General's concern that racism may be examined in the context of a public inquiry? And as the appointed anti-racism activist and advocate at the cabinet table — the only one — will he take a stand for a full public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul?

Hon. R. Coleman: Two previous police complaint commissioners did not see fit to hold a public inquiry. The present police complaint commissioner forwarded additional information he thought…. I met with him last week. We went over that. He's not going to make any public comment with regard to the decision the minister has made, after having the discussion with me. He will allow government to go through its process. He understands the Crown counsel's process, and frankly, we will allow that to…. That will take place.

When you deal with a public inquiry, you're dealing with issues in and around a number of questions, as the member knows. That's to deal with the public interest and whether decisions in the past or other processes that were in place with regard to the Coroners Act or whatever were followed, and they were. Therefore, we are dealing with the issues in and around that the member has identified. Frankly, we await the report from Crown counsel.

J. Kwan: On February 26 we asked about the severance packages at the Open Learning Agency that appear to have been deliberately structured to contravene government guidelines. The Minister of Finance promised a swift investigation and to get the money back. It's now been a month. Will the Minister of Finance please report the findings of his investigation?

Hon. G. Collins: Indeed, that day I asked for a full investigation. I have received a good deal of information to date. Just earlier — late last week — I sent a letter to the board of the Open Learning Agency requesting additional information. We've sought legal advice, as well, with regard to this case. That's what's taken longer than one would normally hope. As soon as we have the information back from the board, then I'll be pursuing it further.

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

J. Kwan: I remind the minister that confidential board meetings from the Open Learning Agency strongly suggested that the OLA rework the language of the contracts for senior executive members, including the COO, Bill Harlan, and CEO Terry Piper. Soon after, Ms. Piper walked away with a big severance payment to go and work at Humber College. This raises serious questions about the use of public dollars. The Minister of Finance says he's still working on getting the information. It's now been more than a month. His action is anything but swift. Either the Open Learning Agency broke the guidelines, or they didn't. Which is it? Which is holding up?

Hon. G. Collins: One of the risks of asking questions when one doesn't have complete information is that the member might get it wrong. What we're trying to do is get all the facts. As I mentioned in response to the first question, I have requested and have, as recently as last week, received additional legal advice with regard to this file — a legal opinion. As I said, I requested last week additional information from the board to determine some details around some of the contents of some of the minutes, and once I have that information, I'll be glad to make it public.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN CONTRACT
AND ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION
OF B.C. RESIDENTS

J. Bray: Recently in the media, BCGEU organizers have been talking about the fact that any changes to how we deliver MSP registration services by a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. firm would invoke the USA Patriot Act. Specifically, they've suggested that Canadians' health data would make its way directly and without question to U.S. law enforcement agencies. Obviously, claims like that create concern, and I've had many calls to my constituency office over the last week on this issue.

My question is to the Minister of Health Services. I'm asking the minister if he could tell me whether or not we would ever enter into a contractual arrangement with a company that would allow for any Canadian data — health data or otherwise — to end up in U.S. law enforcement hands.

Hon. C. Hansen: The initiative that we're taking with regard to MSP is going to provide for better service for British Columbians in getting information and applications processed. We are out seeking a technology partner to work with us to make sure that we can bring a new system in place. Certainly, the Patriot Act is an issue that's come up recently, and it's one that causes considerable concern for governments all across Canada. We are seeking legal advice from the Attorney General's ministry to make sure that we are able to structure the business relationship and the contract in a way that ensures that patient confidentiality in this province is protected and will not be compromised.

R. Visser: Recently the Royal Society of Canada — one of their panels — released a report that concluded that there are no scientific gaps that would hinder the development of British Columbia's offshore oil and gas reserves. Furthermore, that panel also suggested that there is a potential to generate $110 billion worth of economy out there.

Despite all that, the NDP leader, Carole James, simply says: "I say no to offshore oil and gas — not now and not ever." That raises a bunch of concerns for people on the north end of Vancouver Island — that type of attitude. I was wondering if the Minister of Energy and Mines could tell my constituents about some of the benefits that he's learned about and how they will flow to the people of North Island.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are huge benefits that are available in the oil and gas industry, whether offshore or onshore — for a quick example, $2 billion in revenue to the provincial government to provide health care and education. That's just for royalties and lease sales; that has nothing to do with the jobs that are created. Thousands of jobs are created. Onshore right now the industry invests about $3.5 billion yearly — $3.5 billion yearly — in exploration and production of oil and gas in the province of British Columbia.

There are huge opportunities offshore B.C. We now have two scientific panels, one from highly respected folks from the province of British Columbia…. I know the Leader of the Opposition may not like scientists, but in fact they're highly respected in British Columbia, highly respected in Canada — another group. Also, an environmental firm has said there's no reason why we can't move ahead, with a good regulatory system.

Mr. Speaker, huge opportunities for British Columbia. We ought to take the move forward so that we can continue to provide great services to this province.

R. Hawes: Fearmongering seems to be the style adopted by the new leader of the NDP, Carole James, as she has frightened people with developmental disabilities all over this province, saying that we are now cancelling our plans to move ahead with a transfer of governance to the local authorities in the community living sector. That includes people from my constituency who have worked very hard on this. Yet Carole James says that the plan we were moving towards and are moving towards is a very good plan. I want to just quote what she says. If, God forbid, we ever descend into the depths of darkness again and elect an NDP government, she would sit down with the stakeholders and the process — sit down with the people who have been working hard on this — and put a good implementation plan in place to do it correctly.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Why have you delayed the transfer? Is it moving ahead, and is it moving ahead in the way that Ms. James seems to endorse?

Hon. C. Clark: We remain committed to making sure that we change the governance of community living services, of aboriginal services and of services to children and families in British Columbia. What we've said is that we want to make sure we have them on a solid, firm foundation when that change happens, and that means it is going to take probably a year longer than we had initially anticipated.

Why? We want to make sure that when this change happens, it happens well and that the authority we create is on a firm foundation. We have done great things in this ministry, like doubling the number of children who are adopted into permanent, stable family homes. We have lowered the number of children in care. That means more families are staying together, and fewer children are coming into government care. We've increased the amount of alternative dispute resolution, which means that fewer people have to go to court to resolve the family issues they have.

We have made some great strides in this ministry. We want to make sure that we carry on with the successes we've made. The regional committees did a tremendous

job of laying the groundwork, of setting out a road map for reform. We intend to pursue that reform. We remain committed to the regional governance for these authorities. We will get there, and we will do it well.

V. Anderson presented a bill intituled Pheidias Project Management (1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004.

V. Anderson: I move the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

V. Anderson: I move the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

J. Bray: I've been informed joining us in the gallery is a class from a school — one of the oldest in Victoria and one of the oldest in British Columbia — that's actually just a few blocks from this place. It is a tremendous school with a great history. They are a class from South Park Elementary School, and I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In this House I call second reading of Bill 20.

Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 20, entitled the Railway Safety Act, now be read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Railway Safety Act for second reading. British Columbia has a long history of railroads. Since the last spike of the CPR was driven in 1885, railroads have been an instrumental part of the growth and economic development of our province. While the railway industry continues to be a dynamic part of our economy, we must now recognize the challenges of our world today — the challenges of technical advances and global competition. Transportation and enhanced public safety are both vital to B.C.'s economy and quality of life. Both are addressed in this new railway safety legislation.

There are three purposes of the Railway Safety Act: first, to harmonize with the federal rail safety regime; second, to repeal outdated railway safety legislation and regulations; and third, to regulate the administration of provincial railway safety to the provincial safety authority and Transport Canada. Historically, the province has regulated railway safety. While there were updates here and there over the years, we now need to modernize railway safety legislation to reflect the province's current roles and responsibilities.

Canada's rail network includes both federally regulated railways, those crossing provincial lines, and provincially regulated railways, those operating within the province. In the mid-1990s the federal railway safety framework was substantially updated and modernized. The federal rail safety regime includes rules governing all aspects of railway safety, including engineering, equipment and track maintenance. It also requires a systematic approach to managing safety. Working with their employees, each railway must formulate a safety management system which commits the railway to operating in a safe manner, consistent with the regulations, and to reporting on its results. The railway is then monitored to ensure compliance with the safety management plan.

The other provinces are now using most or all of the federal government regulations, rules and standards. However, B.C. fell behind with legislation and regulations that were inconsistent and unresponsive, I believe, to the changing times and needs. The Railway Safety Act is a positive move, harmonizing our provincial system with the federal regulations so that B.C. is consistent with other jurisdictions, offering uniform standards and objective-based regulations. While retaining the ability to address particular needs and circumstances in B.C., we can assure our railway systems can be competitive while ensuring public safety is maintained.

The second purpose of the Railway Safety Act is to see a number of outdated and inconsistent railway safety regulations repealed, resulting in a decrease of over 10,000 regulations largely from harmonizing with the federal railway safety regime and, on a larger scale, with the rest of North America. This change also ensures those working and doing business in British Columbia can do it under a modern and enhanced legislative framework, in line with all other jurisdictions.

Thirdly, the Railway Safety Act enables deregulation of the appropriate compliance and enforcement

activities to the B.C. Safety Authority and Transport Canada. The act also creates the office of the registrar of railway safety, which will issue permits on a basis of a provincial railway's ability to operate safely.

Railways are one of the very few industries that were not covered by the Workers Compensation Act's rules. Employee safety will enhance with the repeal of the provision in the Workers Compensation Act, too, that will be consistent with rules across industries. Now we will have consistent rules across all of these industries.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Railway Safety Act reflects the province's current roles and responsibilities in the area of railway safety. The Railway Safety Act is part of our new-era commitment to streamlining regulations and enhancing public safety. By moving to objective-based safety systems and offering a standardized approach to benefit businesses and employees, we are working to ensure effective railway transportation and enhance public safety — both vital to B.C.'s economy and quality of life to our citizens and our communities.

I ask that all members lend their support to this important piece of legislation. I move that Bill 20 be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan: Bill 20 is the Railway Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act is a 12-page bill that, according to the minister in his first reading speech, "will result in the repeal of over 10,000 regulations and harmonize provincial legislation with the federal railway safety jurisdiction. While enhancing rail safety in British Columbia, the new act will also provide for smarter regulation with rail companies and their employees together establishing a quality management system. The proposed act also provides for the delegation of railway safety administration to outside agencies, such as the B.C. Safety Authority and Transport Canada."

Today in second reading, the minister continued to elaborate on these points. Here's what the minister did not tell us, though, in first reading of this bill. Bill 20 is a piece of legislation that allows the government to pass off responsibility for railway safety standards and enforcement in British Columbia. The Railway Safety Act does this in two ways.

One, Bill 20 gives government the power to delegate the administration of railway safety standards to an independent authority. While this authority is, by law, not an agent of the government, it will be charged with the power to administer the act and any regulations created in the future.

Here we see yet another authority being set up at arm's length from government — another independent authority charged with responsibilities and powers once held by the government. We saw it with B.C. Ferries provincial safety standards and, just last week, when a bill covering business practices and consumer protection was passed. Now we're seeing it with railway safety standards.

Two, Bill 20 allows the minister to appoint a registrar of railway safety. This registrar, who is handpicked by the minister without any guidelines or competition process, will have the power to issue fines and permits to railway companies. It all makes sense in theory. First they sell off B.C. Rail to CN; now they're privatizing the safety standards that CN has to operate under. How fitting.

The minister tells us that Bill 20 will allow for the harmonization of provincial legislation with federal legislation. There is nothing in this bill that guarantees that this will happen in the future. All this bill says is that it may happen. Some provision may be adopted.

Furthermore, Bill 20 allows for the adoption of railway safety standards by any standard-making body. What does this all mean? It means the minister will be allowed to pick and choose whatever railway safety standards he sees fit. Once these safety standards are decided upon, they will be carried out under an independent authority and a railway registrar handpicked by the ministry.

Bill 20 repeals 31 pages of previous legislation detailing railway safety standards. At the same time, there is nothing in this bill that guarantees that the 31 pages will be replaced with anything that guarantees that the interests of employees, consumers, industry competitors or the environment will be protected. After reading this bill, it is clear that the big winner with Bill 20, the Railway Safety Act, is the railway industry.

Indeed, the timing of this bill is rather curious, following police raids on the Legislature, an ongoing police investigation, a billion-dollar B.C. Rail deal that's tainted — that's the best language that I'm using in this House — and the firing and suspension of high-ranking ministry staff. The introduction of this bill comes at a very strange time indeed.

The opposition will be speaking in detail on this legislation in committee stage and canvassing detailed questions with the minister regarding this bill.

Hon. M. Coell: I move that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Railway Safety 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.

J. Kwan: The minister made much of streamlining, modernizing and accelerated redevelopment in his

introduction of this bill. As the minister's press release notes, this is the second phase in the reform of our environmental protection regime. Within walking distance of this chamber there are brownfield sites. Across this province there are an estimated 7,000 contaminated sites, with some 260 of those sites being what we see most commonly — former sites of gas stations. These are often properties of considerable commercial value. Nationwide it has been estimated by the National Round Table on the Environment that there are over 30,000 abandoned or idle commercial or industrial brownfield sites.

Not only is this property not providing a benefit to its owners, but it is also in many cases holding up the needed development of our city centres. But these issues, while important, are not what should drive regulatory and legislative change when it comes to protecting public health and the environment. What brownfield sites demonstrate is that when industry fails to protect the environment, we all pay for the consequences.

Media reports over the weekend suggest that the government is moving to reduce the number of contaminated sites to just 30 by simply reclassifying these sites based on risk assessment criteria. While all regulation is risk-based to some degree, when it comes to toxic pollutants, there is an overriding public interest in the establishment of what is to be considered an acceptable risk. This bill gives power to the minister to establish regulations that denote risk levels. We all assume he will do so based on the best scientific information available and that he will fight to enhance the necessary work his ministry will need to do to ensure compliance with those regulations.

Given the huge, indeed overriding, public interest when it comes to public health and environmental protection, it means that when it comes to this type of legislation, the public needs to be engaged in and aware of just what the government is considering. Consultation must engage more than just experts. We all fully appreciate the necessity of running parallel legislative changes and regulatory changes, but when it comes to the protection of our health and natural environment, broad legislative strokes that do not provide an explanation of what we will see in regulation does a disservice to the public and to the notion of an open and transparent government process.

Should there be a sliding scale of what is considered truly toxic, in need of extensive cleanup and those sites that represent a comparatively small risk to our health? Probably. It would make sense to do so. But in doing this, we need to make sure the public is made aware of just what risk the government is taking on their behalf.

One of the most extensive changes in this bill is section 44 of the Environmental Management Act, this section entitled "Determinations of contaminated sites." At present this section encompasses six subsections that are again divided into 12 sub-subsections that are further divided into nine sections within those sub-subsections. The current section 44 runs to two pages of text in the current act. They are to be replaced by four sections that take up less than half a page. The way this is done is to insert the phrase, "Subject to the minister's regulations," and to make conditional those things that are currently mandatory.

As I've said, legislative and regulatory reform is not in and of itself a bad thing. Where problems arise is when such reform is used as an excuse to replace the protection of the environment and our health in a subservient position to that reform. The minister will be aware of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in October of last year that reinforced the role of government in protecting the public by ensuring contaminated sites were cleaned up and the role of government in protecting the environment from toxic substances. The court in that judgment was unequivocal in its support for the principle of polluter pays when it comes to cleaning up contaminated sites.

In supporting the position of the Minister of Environment for Quebec, who is being sued by Imperial Oil, the court has this to say about Quebec's environmental quality act:

"The Quebec legislation reflects the growing concern on the part of legislatures and of society about the safeguarding of the environment. That concern does not reflect only the collective desire to protect it in the interests of the people who live and work in it, and exploit its resources today. It may also be evidence of an emerging sense of intergenerational solidarity and acknowledgment of an environmental debt to humanity and to the world of tomorrow."

Indeed, it would be a sad commentary if, in its zeal for regulatory reform, this government would turn its back on that debt.

The opposition, again, will have further questions when we come to committee on Bill 13 around this issue — particularly highlighting the notion of the need for health and safety protection in the interests of the public.

B. Penner: I hadn't been planning to speak to this bill, but after hearing the comments from the member opposite, the member of the opposition, I thought I would contribute a few thoughts to this bill and why in my view it's very important. She gets it partly right when she notes that there are many sites around the province today that are sitting idle. One of the significant impacts of that is a loss of revenue to local governments. When those properties are not deemed to be of high commercial value, their tax value to those communities is decreased.

A bigger problem, though — and, Mr. Speaker, you'll be aware of this, no doubt, from your experience — is that when those sites are inactive, it also means that people aren't working. It means we aren't getting the kind of employment opportunities in this province that, frankly, British Columbians deserve.

I've had more than my fair share of experience dealing with two contentious issues in the Chilliwack-Kent constituency, which I have the honour to repre-

sent. I have spent more time than I care to think over the last number of years struggling under the previous legislative and regulatory regime enacted by the previous government that has led to no improvement in environmental protection and yet at the same time has cost the community of Agassiz, the district of Kent, thousands and thousands of dollars in forgone tax revenue and has prevented young people and others in that community from having the employment opportunities they might otherwise have had.

Let me elaborate, because I know you're eager to hear the details. There are two specific sites in the district of Kent that have caused that community more concern and distress than anything else I can think of. One is a former Ministry of Transportation and Highways yard where, in years gone by, sand and salt were loaded onto highways trucks to go and maintain the roads in the wintertime. That site's been sitting empty, I believe, since the late 1980s — sitting idle. The concern there is, according to the old legislation, there may be rock salt on the site.

Well, surprise, surprise. Yeah, it was used to store rock salt for winter when the trucks had to go out and maintain the roads. I personally have never thought of rock salt as being all that particularly hazardous, yet it was caught up in the full-monty regulatory regime of the previous contaminated sites system we had in the province. It had to go the full distance, and as a result, that site has sat idle.

We were told things like, well, the reason we don't want this land to transfer without getting a clean bill of health and all the remediation taking place is: "What if, some day, someone were to actually crawl on that property? Their skin might make contact with rock salt that is deeply embedded in the soil from many years ago." What if, indeed? That has been the response from the people in Agassiz. Certainly, it hasn't stopped other people from trespassing across that land as it's been sitting empty and not contributing any significant value to the community.

Another example. This one is higher profile in the community, because it happens to be on the busiest intersection in that community. In fact, if you've been to Harrison Hot Springs in the past few years, you've likely driven past this site. It used to be known as the old Penny Pinchers gas station. It was a Shell gas station. On your way just by the CP Rail line was a gas station and corner store. It went out of business in the mid-1980s or late 1980s, and it, too, has sat idle lo these many years.

The concern has been: what about the gas that may have escaped from the underground storage tanks over those many years? Successive buyers or potential buyers have come forward and said: "We're interested in this property." Then they're warned: "Wait a minute. It doesn't have a clean bill of health. It has to go through the contaminated sites process, and you might be forced to spend untold dollars — not even hundreds of thousands of dollars but maybe an unlimited amount of dollars, an unknown quantity — to remediate it before you can undertake some kind of other commercial activity on this most prominent commercial space in Agassiz."

So what has happened? The site has grown weeds. It's an eyesore. The buildings are derelict. The tanks were removed years ago. A number of tests and studies have taken place, sometimes at the expense of the community of Agassiz. What they've shown is that the gasoline contamination, which is subsurface, has been diminishing over time through natural processes. So let's just step back and ask ourselves a question.

The member from the opposition says: "Oh, but we have to be cautious about the environment." I agree, but let's ask ourselves this philosophical question, because it's one I haven't yet had a good answer to. What greater harm or risk to human health or any other species' health would have taken place if the prospective buyer of that property had been allowed to go ahead and do what they had intended to do years ago, which is to set up a Subway sandwich shop? Would the presence of a Subway sandwich shop at that location have caused more risk to human health than leaving that site derelict, with weeds and dust blowing and bothering neighbours?

The answer is no, yet that has been the effect of the previous regulatory regime we had in this province with respect to contaminated sites. It freezes the status quo without ensuring that we're actually taking action to deal with the threat we think may be there. I don't see how that benefits anyone. Now, the good news in terms of this site is that through natural processes over the last 15 years, with the water table moving up and down, it's actually had the effect of diminishing the amount of gasoline residue.

I'm told the technical answer has to do with various microbes that are subsurface and are being fed oxygen from the water. They have gone out and essentially eaten up the gasoline residue, so the site has cleaned itself over time. I am pleased that working with the predecessor to the current Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, we were finally able to get that site a relatively clean bill of health so that someone would actually step up to the plate and buy it. They're now taking steps to redevelop it.

Soon — here's the good news — they'll be hiring young people from the community of Agassiz to work serving customers and tourists that are travelling through that community. We'll no longer have an eyesore at that corner. We'll have a productive business employing young people and paying taxes. The workers working there will be paying income taxes, and the business, if it's successful, will be paying corporate income taxes. More importantly maybe for the community of Agassiz, they will be paying higher property taxes. The value of that site is going up, because it has finally been released from this cumbersome process that has previously dealt with contaminated sites.

Those are two examples that have caused a considerable amount of angst in the community of Agassiz,

and I don't see how the public has benefited from the many years of delay. In fact, provincial taxpayers have been missing out on an opportunity. The city of Agassiz had wanted to purchase that old highways yard for redevelopment purposes — maybe to use as a fire hall or some other emergency facility — but they said in their contract with the previous provincial government, which I think was entered into in about 1996: "We will not complete on this deal until it gets a clean bill of health in terms of the contaminated sites legislation."

The previous government could not deliver on that, so there that site sat, and provincial taxpayers didn't get the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the community of Agassiz was willing to pay for that property if it had had a clean bill of health. Again, the concern there was about the potential for rock salt. How that would interfere in the operation of a fire hall is not clear to me nor to anybody else that lives in the district of Chilliwack-Kent.

However, I'm proud to endorse this legislation. I think it's a much-needed and long-awaited step forward. If it can help move things forward with other sites around the province in a way that, unfortunately, Agassiz did not get the benefit of because we had to deal with the previous legislation from the previous government, then I will certainly salute it. I say good on those other communities that won't have to struggle the way the community of Agassiz did.

B. Suffredine: I also was concerned to hear comments from the opposition about slowing down and not making changes. I have been part of a committee that's been looking at this sort of change. Essentially, what was wrong with the way the legislation was and has been for years is that it encouraged sites to be left alone. Now, the former speaker said: "Well, what would be worse than if you put a Subway shop on that location?" I say let's go even further than that. Let's look at things like the CPR to Nelson that's now stood idle for about 25 years. What could be worse for the environment than letting a site which has contaminants on it be encouraged to be used for nothing? If it's contaminated and if it's a problem for the environment, it's only going to sit there and make it worse. That site is a great example of the fact that the city of Nelson has been held back for a quarter of a century from commercial development, from putting things on that site that would not harm the health of any person and that would not increase any risk to the environment over what exists there today.

There is another site that comes to mind immediately in Kaslo, where formerly there was a motel. People had stayed in the motel for the last 30, 40 or 50 years. The owner is trying to redevelop that site to put condominiums — brand-new tourist-attractive condominiums — on a site in Kaslo on the water — great tourism resort activity. What's the block? Once upon a time, back around 1900, it was a mine site where they shipped ore and loaded it onto boats. There is a little bit of a trace of the metals that were there back in the 1900s, which exists all along the beach. Because there is a trace of metals there that aren't natural, it's deemed to be a contaminated site under the old regulations. There's nothing being done about it. It's not helping the environment any by holding back this development. The change in development or the redevelopment to condominiums won't change the use that has been there for 50 years. It won't make it any more hazardous to anyone's health, and it won't make it any more hazardous to the environment.

The new changes bring about a change in philosophy, a two-step test: is it hazardous to someone's health to do this, or will it create a hazard to the environment? Those are both sound, logical things to do that respect the kinds of needs that we have to respect if we're going to make changes. I say good on the minister for bringing forward changes that are logical, which don't prohibit development simply on the basis that the contamination isn't the level that nature put there in its natural course — as long as those changes are things that don't cause a hazard to people using the site or to nature surrounding it.

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

Bill 13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, 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. M. Coell: I call Committee of Supply for the estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Following up on estimates debate from last week, it is interesting to note…. I must first put this information on the record. I was canvassing with the minister a number of questions about the '02-03 budget and particularly what she refers to as the strategic investment fund, which contains millions of dollars — I think as high as $100 million. The minister refused to

answer any of my questions when I put questions related to this matter to her. She specifically stated that she would provide the opposition a briefing on this amount of money.

Actually, let me backtrack just for a moment here. The minister actually calls this money "strategic investments," and the former minister actually referred to them as transitional funding. In fact, from the government's own release at one point, it refers to these transitional fundings as high as $100 million. When I put these questions to the minister to see what happened to these moneys, instead of getting answers, the minister offered a briefing, as I said. The opposition leader and I had requested that the meeting be set up for Friday or, alternatively, for Monday. The minister's office had informed the opposition caucus that the deputy minister would not be available on Friday, as she had a meeting set up already. However, she would be available for Monday.

This morning the Government House Leader's assistant told our office that the Minister of Children and Family Development had decided that she would only give the opposition a briefing on what happened to close to $100 million of these so-called strategic investment dollars if the opposition agreed to collapse the estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development by 9 o'clock tonight. Now, Mr. Chair, wouldn't that just be convenient for the minister? She wouldn't answer questions in these estimates. She pretended to offer a briefing for the opposition, and then she only threatened, quite frankly, that the briefing would be offered if the opposition promised to finish up questions by the end of tonight.

What is the minister so worried about? What is she so nervous about? What is she trying to hide from the public? Why wouldn't she answer questions in this public forum? Furthermore, why would she put forward a threat that says: "We would only provide information to the opposition" — that is legitimately for the opposition to seek answers to — "if the opposition agrees to collapse estimates debate"? We obviously refuse that kind of blackmail, that kind of threat. It is outrageous. It is outrageous for the minister to make such a suggestion.

We called the minister's office. When we called to go through the promise of the briefing with her, we were told, first of all, that there was no staff to provide it, even though we did our own checking and found that the staff was indeed available. We actually have e-mails to that effect. In fact, we have an e-mail confirming the briefing for this morning at 10:30, which was only pulled later on because the minister wanted us to promise we would collapse estimates debate — end the process of putting questions to her. It is clear that it is the minister who is playing politics with the ministry staff's schedule as well as that of the opposition.

We know the minister is unhappy about having to answer questions for this troubled, scandal-ridden ministry, but seeing as how the minister has not yet answered questions on special needs kids, on youth and autism and early childhood development, on the massive cuts to the child and family development side of her ministry, it was clearly impossible for us to wind up today.

That only deals with one segment of the ministry. Of course, there are still Community LINK programs to cover, as well as the cuts for the Vancouver school board in terms of funding for the school board to provide hot meal programs, counselling programs and the like for needy children and families.

Since the minister is refusing the opposition the briefing that she promised, which her staff had actually all set up on Friday, we will now put on record some of the questions we wanted to follow up in the briefing with the deputy minister. Maybe the minister will answer them, although I doubt it. Nonetheless, I think these questions deserve to be on the record. Just like the Doug Walls questions, they deserve to be on the record, and the minister should be answering these questions.

No. 1, what is the reason for the large discrepancies between the estimates that were made at the start in the year 2002, which were restated in restated estimates made at the start of 2003, and the actual figures? In estimates debate on March 23, 2004, the minister gave the numbers for the years '02-03 in terms of the discrepancy. When you add it all up, this includes a $99.4 million discrepancy made between February 3 and March 31 of 2003.

A February 18, 2003, budget fact sheet claims that the 2003 budget contains "more than $100 million in transitional expenditures, most of which will create savings in subsequent years," which is close to $100 million, as I stated. What was this $100 million spent on? What programs? What initiatives? We could only find three news releases relating to this $100 million.

The current minister talks about $60 million for 27 "strategic initiatives." The former minister talked about $25 million for transitional funding, and we know, from a November 2002 community living comanagement committee document, that a working group run by Doug Walls recommended a restructuring fund of $45 million to $50 million. The government's own fact sheet talks about $100 million.

Naturally the opposition would want to find out how these many different numbers jibe. What is the correct figure? How much money was allocated in the strategic investments, and to whom? What oversight was there on how this money was allocated, and by whom? Did Doug Walls hand this money out? Or who handed this money out? What was it spent on?

From which area did the money come? There is nothing in the voted appropriations descriptions for the budget estimates about strategic investments. When was the decision made to make strategic investments for this government?

We understand that the auditor general told the ministry they could not carry over the whole whack of money into next year's budget. Instead, the govern-

ment found a way to park the money in smaller parcels — $20 million, we know, for the Victoria Foundation, $20 million for the Vancouver Foundation and $10 million for United Way. But the people in the community have no idea what that money is being used for, and we wanted to ask that question at the briefing. Does the minister have any say as to how the money is to be spent? Why have there been no public announcements? Why was there no public call for proposal? Normally, that is the process.

When the government has grants to give money away to the community for work to be done by the community, there is a public call for proposal. There were no public announcements around this. There were very few public announcements indeed, and they came much later, after the money was handed out, only to cover a few million dollars in total.

Did this allocation go through to Treasury Board? Did Treasury Board approve the allocation of these grants? What procedures did the minister follow? What process did the allocation go through? We have a copy of an internal MCFD e-mail that indicates that time-limited funds from the '03-04 budget year were set up in a separate vote from the ministry by Treasury Board. We wanted to ask why, and how these might connect to parked funds from the '02-03 fiscal year. The e-mail also says that the funds expire by the end of the '03-04 fiscal year but that as long as the paperwork is in place, work can be done into this fiscal. We wanted to ask at that briefing what kinds of programs these moneys might be funding and how they were being tendered.

These are just some of the questions that we wanted to put to the minister. The minister refused to answer the questions. She refused the briefing now. The briefing would only be offered to the opposition if it is contingent on the opposition to wrap up estimates debate.

You know what? The opposition will not be threatened by the minister in this way, Mr. Chair. There is no way we will actually agree to wrap up debate at the minister's convenience. These are important questions to be asked and answers to be had for a government to be held accountable, and the minister should be answering these questions.

Hon. C. Clark: There is a reason that I haven't answered any questions about children with special needs and those kinds of things. It is because the member hasn't actually put any questions on the floor. She has asked a number of the same questions again and again and again; rephrased it repeatedly; asked very, very long questions, which really are just statements of her own opinion as opposed to questions. That has meant, I think, that if she hasn't got some of the answers to some of the questions that she'd like, she may want to consider actually asking some of the questions about the areas she is interested in, and we could quite happily get onto those things.

I'm always delighted to go on with estimates. I enjoy the estimates process. I enjoyed it when I was opposition, and I enjoy it even more now that I'm in government. I'm happy to carry on with our debate and with our discussion. I am, though, looking forward to some meaningful questions from the member. She has had some, but I must say many of the questions have been repetitive. If she has topics she would like to carry on with, I would be happy to canvass some of those topics with her.

I can give her some information about…. This is not typically an appropriate venue to be discussing these kinds of issues. We are debating the 2004-05 budget estimates. I know the member wants to talk about the budget debate in 2002-03, and I think the reason she suggested she wasn't able to debate that at the time was because she was having a baby. I guess that's understandable. Of course, there was another year in between, when she could have raised questions as well, and she didn't then either. It's not really appropriate to be talking about them here, but I can give her a high-level answer.

Of course, if we were able to do this in the context of the briefing, I could certainly give the member more detailed information about these things.

J. Kwan: It is interesting that the minister says she is happy to engage in estimates debate. Maybe that's why the minister cancelled a briefing that was set up with her staff and confirmed by her staff on Friday,

only to turn around and have the member from Chilliwack — who carries the Minister of Finance's bags — come in and say to our staff that the minister would only proceed with the briefings if we agreed to wrap up estimates by 9 o'clock. I would say there is a complete disconnect with what the minister is now saying versus her actions. It simply is not true. The reality is that they agreed to provide a briefing, and then they turned around to cancel it, only to say: "If you don't do what I want you to do, we are not going to provide you with the information."

All right. The minister just provided a list of community groups that got grants from the ministry out of these so-called strategic investments. The minister says these groups got these moneys. Let me ask the minister this question: what process did the ministry follow in providing these grants to the community? Was there a public-proposal call into the community so that people could apply for the funds, or were these organizations handpicked by the ministry somehow to receive the funds?

J. Kwan: The foundations were put through a request for proposal, the minister said. There were more than foundations that received the dollars, so when was the request for proposal put out? What is the language of the request for proposal? Who applied under this request for proposal?

Hon. C. Clark: We set up the funds with specific criteria, and each of those organizations has a management structure which sets in place certain criteria for granting that money. It's important to note that that's hands-off from government, so it's not something that our government directs or manages directly.

J. Kwan: The minister says there were requests for proposals. What was the language of the request for proposals? Let me just ask that one question first.

Hon. C. Clark: The specific agencies do their own requests for proposals, so they would have different language depending on the different agency.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can outline each step of the process. She did, in fact, say that she went out for requests for proposals and that the language for the request for proposals was different for each agency. That's rather news to me. Requests for proposals from government normally are put out with a global request for proposals. People then apply to them or to an agency of government.

J. Kwan: The minister says it's not a government or an agency of government. It doesn't matter. A process is followed, then evaluation is done on these applications, and then determinations are made on who gets these moneys. Maybe the minister can outline step by step the process that she followed with respect to these grants that were given to the community. She said it applied to foundations. What about the dollars that were granted to other organizations? What process did the minister follow if it's not the same process as under the foundations' procedures?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is, I think, very confused about which budget year we're in. It is the 2004-05 budget year. When she puts a question about what criteria did I follow in 2002 for the budget, I'm afraid, first, that's not in order for the House to be able to answer that question. Second, I was not the minister then, so it is not really a question that I think any due research would support.

It is important to note that the foundations did RFPs. It's important for the member to know, too, that the foundations aren't government and they're not government agencies. The Victoria Foundation isn't a government agency. It is an independent agency of government that makes decisions based on the needs of their community, so it is a fundamental disconnect for the member to suggest that things like the Victoria Foundation are government agencies. They aren't. They are independent of government. That's why these strategic investment funds were treated the way that they were.

The foundations do their own RFPs. It is my understanding — although we don't have all of this information available in the House because we didn't come prepared to debate the estimates from three years ago — that the money that went out to community agencies was given out based on a criteria, which I'm sure would have been debated in the budget estimates over the last couple of years.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps claiming that this has nothing to do with the '04-05 budget. It is simply untrue. The minister knows very well that it has everything to do with the '04-05 budget. These agencies granted dollars, provide for a service that is still being provided in the community. The ministry is still expecting the reporting out of how these dollars were spent and how it actually benefited the community. It is still being evaluated by government.

All that evaluation is done by the minister's staff right now. That is funded out of the '04-05 budget. The fact is that not all of the dollars have been spent, I believe, because some of them are actually going out in instalments and so on, and it is contingent on reporting out and so on. So it is absolutely current for this minister under the '04-05 year. For the minister to claim: "Oh well, gee, I wasn't the minister then. It was somebody else who was responsible…."

It is this government who is responsible. This now minister took over the responsibility of that ministry so she is therefore responsible for the actions of previous ministers, as well, in terms of what happened to the

ministry's dollars and the spending. That is accountability. I know that is a new thing for this minister, but you know what? She has to live up to it in order to be paid and to be recognized as the minister and, I might add, as the Deputy Premier as well. She should have responsibility and should be overseeing what is going on in her own ministry.

The minister says that I don't understand the process. Let us be clear. At least two foundations got $20 million each — the Vancouver Foundation and the Victoria Foundation. She says they don't give out RFPs, that it is up to them to decide. It's not the government's responsibility. Did the Victoria Foundation and Vancouver Foundation apply to the government through an RFP process to access the $20 million to begin with? Let me stop there and ask the minister that question.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is sort of blowing hot and blowing cold at the same time. She, on one hand, complains that we're cutting services, and now she is complaining that we're adding money into the community to support services. I should point out to her that supporting services in the community is a centrepiece of our three-year service plan to transform service.

We want to make sure we are delivering services that meet local needs. That means that some of the decisions about where the money can be spent should be made locally. We believe these kinds of strategic shifts will strengthen families and provide more choice of flexibility to adults with developmental disabilities.

The trust funds are helping us build that capacity in communities and are assisting us in transforming our service to communities. It is a long-term investment in the future of children and families in British Columbia. I think it takes foresight, in spite of what are significant financial pressures in the short term, to make those funding decisions, which means that in the long term we take care of our strategic interests and our strategic investment in human resources in British Columbia and find ways to try and support families. That's what this money is for. It's to go into communities, based on decisions that are made locally, reflecting the needs of local communities there.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear, Mr. Chair. The minister's trying to hide behind words that she is creating to hide the reality of what's going on in this ministry. The ministry over three years cut out $175 million. That's the government's decision to cut $175 million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's what the government's done in terms of cuts in programs. Then in each of the successive years in the spending of the budgeted amount, the government underspent the dollars that had already been cut from its budget to the tune of over $127 million by the minister's own admission previously. In the year '02-03, $127 million was underspent.

Then the minister says, "Oh. Well then, we redirected those so-called savings into the ministry under this thing which was formerly called transitional funds and what is now called strategic investments" — as though the minister and the government planned these strategic investments all along, when in fact it isn't true. They ran into a situation where they couldn't spend the money. We actually have internal e-mails that tell us this information — that the '02-03 budget had an increase in it for transition expenses, which actually increased the funding for that fiscal year for community living. But community living B.C. was not ready to go into operation, so the transition funds show up as a surplus on the MCFD books. Then miraculously, for some reason, on or about the last day of the fiscal year all this money apparently went out to these community groups with no public announcements other than the money that went into United Way. MCFD staff and senior bureaucrats say they have no say in how the money is allocated. How did they decide who got the money and who to give the money to?

The minister still has not answered the question. I believe that there was no request for proposal. The minister claims that it is up to the foundations how they handle the money, but how did the foundations get the money to begin with? That is the question.

The other question I want to canvass with the minister is this: what guidelines did the ministry follow for the reallocation of funds? What Treasury Board guidelines did the ministry follow?

Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member an overview of how this is structured. The province issues grants to the foundations, which — again, it is important to note — are independent of government. They're not government agencies and not government itself. There were conditions on those grants including reporting requirements and the fact that evaluation was required. The foundations were chosen based on their capacity and their mandate. The foundations then struck evaluation committees. They issued RFPs and made granting decisions. The recipients also report to the foundation, and then the foundation reports to MCFD.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question. Was there Treasury Board approval? What Treasury Board guidelines did the ministry follow with the spending and reallocation of these funds of over $100 million?

Hon. C. Clark: All of our granting decisions and all of our grants follow government guidelines. That's always been the case.

J. Kwan: The minister says they follow guidelines. Is the minister saying that she actually went before Treasury Board and got Treasury Board approval for the reallocation of these unspent dollars?

Hon. C. Clark: There is granting policy. We fund following that granting policy. No, I never did appear before Treasury Board in 2002-03.

J. Kwan: Technicalities. The minister says: "Oh no, I didn't appear before Treasury Board in 2003 and 2002." Did the ministry go to Treasury Board, and did the ministry get approval from Treasury Board to reallocate the funds?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we follow granting policy in this ministry with this and with all other cases, as I'm aware. I can't speak to financial decisions, in that level of detail, that happened over two or three years ago. The appropriate place for that debate…. This member has had two years in which to discuss the estimates for two years ago. We're now on the 2004-05 budget estimates. If the member has questions about this budget year that pertain to this budget year, I'd be delighted to answer those for her.

J. Kwan: Were grants of this magnitude contemplated in the original budget? Was it part of the original budget? Was that the plan all along — the transitional expenditure funds that were supposed to spend the money? According to e-mails I have, it's indicated that the transitional funds weren't ready to be spent by community living B.C.; therefore they had to find some way to spend these moneys. Was it part of the original budget plan?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said a number of times previously, we can endeavour to get that information for the member from the budget year of two and a half or three years ago.

J. Kwan: With the exception of this, Mr. Chair, and I established earlier on today in the debate that the minister…. While she continues to pretend she is offering briefings, that is subject to a condition that the opposition wrap up estimates debate by 9 o'clock today. That's what the minister said this morning. We actually had a briefing set up at 10:30 this morning with ministry staff. The ministry staff said they weren't available. We have it on e-mail that the deputy minister and her staff weren't available on Friday, but they were available on Monday. This morning at 9:45 our staff got a call from the member from Chilliwack, who plays the MA role to the Minister of Finance in setting House business. He phones our staff and says that the scheduled briefing…

The Chair: Member, please take your seat. I just want to caution you. You are becoming repetitious here. You've just discussed this a matter of a few minutes ago, and now you're saying the same thing. I want to make sure that we keep the debate moving along and try to prevent being repetitious.

J. Kwan: It's the minister who brought it up again — to say that she'd be happy to provide this information to the opposition. Well, I have to get up and set the record straight with the minister's words. It is simply not true. She cancelled. She instructed staff to cancel a briefing that was set up this morning to get this information, because the opposition refused to stand down estimates by 9 o'clock today. I'm responding directly to a comment that was just made by the minister, Mr. Chair. What she said is completely false — to pretend she will provide information to the opposition when in fact she doesn't. Information is only provided and briefings can only be set up if we do what the minister wants us to do. Well, we won't do that, and we'll continue to ask questions, as it is the right of every member in this House to ask the minister questions and for the minister to be held accountable.

Having said that, the minister still hasn't answered the question. She still has not answered the question with respect to Treasury Board procedures, with respect to how these dollars were spent and whether or not the magnitude of these grants…. We're talking about over $100 million. The magnitude of these grants that were contemplated — was it part of the original budget? Keep in mind we were going through a steep process of budget cuts impacting the community in the most severe way.

Hon. C. Clark: I think it is fair to say that I do enjoy the estimates process. I think it may even be fair to say it is a matter of some amusement for my colleagues that I enjoy it as much as I do. I'm quite happy to carry on with the estimates debate. I hope the member's not too concerned that we might end before she gets to ask some questions. I'm looking forward to her putting those questions on the record.

J. Kwan: Well, no, she didn't, actually. If you go back to review Hansard…. I just happen to have a copy of Hansard here. I reviewed that this morning to see what the minister said, actually, last week. You know what? Almost all the questions that I put to the minister, she didn't answer. She also just didn't answer this question around the original budget. You know what? I would expect that the minister will continue to stonewall. She's trying to hide something. That is obvious.

I think there is, to say in a very courteous way, a lack of accountability within the ministry in terms of how these moneys were spent. I think it's fair enough to say that the government's plan for this regionalization was a complete disaster insofar as the government mismanaged the entire process. Funds they had cut from the community, which provided for critical ser-

vices, that they said they needed to do something else with were taken away from community. They had reallocated these dollars. The accountability on the reallocation of these dollars…. Now the minister won't come clean to tell the public what happened to these moneys, what criteria were used to make those determinations or what kind of processes were followed through. The minister won't even offer the information with respect to the process on how the dollars were given out.

The foundation dollars that she claims are independent of government…. Well, somehow the foundation got those dollars. What made the government decide that the foundation should have $40 million worth of critical dollars in terms of services for the community? What process was in place to make that determination when the government is cutting and closing residential beds, as an example, for those with developmental disabilities in the community. Mr. Chair, $175 million was being cut in this process, and the government cannot account for why and how they came about with underspending $100 million worth and how somehow that went out to community groups in grants.

I just want to cover this off as well, because it is new information that has surfaced since the budget process. Actually, it does have to deal with the volunteer cuts — the volunteer cuts that the minister claims that the community groups actually offered up. I established last week that in fact community groups did not offer up these moneys. One group sent an e-mail to the opposition advising us that board members of the Developmental Disabilities Association received phone calls and were threatened by the former deputy that if they didn't come through with these cuts, they would lose their contracts.

Since that time, here is more information that has come forward with respect to these threats and the process that the ministry went through in taking moneys away from community groups. This actually came from the B.C. Association for Community Living, which is a very large organization representing many, many people. Here's what they had to say with respect to these so-called volunteer cuts:

Then it goes on to talk about how the groups came together. Here's what they had to say about the situation they were faced with:

They came to the realization, it goes on to say, first, that the harsh reality is that the budget targets of this government are immovable and, second, that they have to do the best they can under these kinds of circumstances. This is a document written by John Kehler, president of the B.C. Association for Community Living, about these so-called voluntary cuts.

Throughout all the budget years of '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05, community groups weren't volunteering their cuts. They had no choice but to make the cuts. The B.C. Association for Community Living has actually sent out a document in that regard indicating that, and they're saying that these so-called voluntary cuts that the ministry is forcing them to come through with are draconian at best. Let's be clear: those are not the only people who are concerned about this situation. There are many others who have raised their concerns.

Here are some other documents from, in fact, the government's own interim authority and what they have to say about these cuts. Of course, if you look at the summary chart on the government's own budget books, it shows that the budget target for community living in terms of cuts for '03-04 and '04-05 is $49.6 million, of which they estimate that only $9.9 million had been achieved when they negotiated this deal in December 2003. That meant they had to cut a further $40 million — yet to be made as of January 2004. They were forced to make these cuts remaining by '04-05 — $40 million on the threat by the Treasury Board — and if they didn't, the alternative would be severe.

Here, the government's own interim authority on the intolerable situation that this government placed agencies in when it forced them to agree to these so-called voluntary cuts:

This is from the government's own interim authority about these so-called volunteer cuts, a government document that highlights the risks about the cuts.

It also included cuts to all service providers under different sections of this document related to the delivery of services from the ministry.

These are just some of the responses that I have received about the minister's comments about voluntary cuts. They're anything but voluntary. Would the minister finally admit to that?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member is talking about some of the mitigation strategies that we did not pursue, first of all. We sat down with the sector in December, and we had discussions about how we would meet our budget targets. They came back to us and said: "Look, we think we can come up with a better plan than you can." They did come back with a better plan, and we're implementing that plan. This year more than half of the budget savings are coming out of compensation, so that's not service cuts.

Much of it is also coming out of reduced demand because there are fewer children coming into care. There are fewer children coming into contact with the criminal justice system, so that means lower costs. That's where most of the savings are coming from in this coming year, $70 million, 4 percent — very difficult decisions nonetheless, though, that we're having to make and that the sector is making.

The BCACL, under the leadership of John Kehler and Laney Bryenton, has shown just an absolutely exceptional commitment to making sure that services to people are not impacted. They were amongst the first people I met with and spoke to when I got this job. They are exceptionally constructive, exceptionally focused and very, very strong advocates of the people they represent.

There is, I think, no getting around the fact that some of the decisions and the discussions we had were certainly very, very difficult. In the end, we were able to work constructively and cooperatively together to come up with solutions to meet the needs and the requirements we had both as a government and as a sector that serves people with special needs, children with special needs and adults with developmental disabilities.

J. Kwan: The minister is trying to confuse the matter. She claimed in estimates debate last week that $15 million came out of community organizations voluntarily. The communities have now heard the minister's comments, and they're writing to the opposition saying: "No, it ain't so. We didn't volunteer those funds. We actually had to come up with them. Otherwise, we were threatened by the ministry."

Even the highly praised individual, the president of the B.C. Association for Community Living, John Kehler, wrote this document saying the government actually threatened them, quite frankly, that if they didn't come up with these cuts, the ministry was going to do it on their own and "The only way to describe them is draconian" — the approach with which this government is approaching these cuts and in fact the cuts that have impacted the community. Don't try to mix up the issues by saying they were savings from elsewhere. I'll get to that at a later time. That is not true.

The ministry said there were savings of $15 million — voluntary savings — from these agencies who handed over these moneys to the government. Not so. Not voluntary. They were acting under duress. I would say, to say it kindly, that in fact the government threatened them. Board members were threatened that if they didn't come through with these cuts, they would actually lose all of their budgets.

In this situation, we have other people commenting about the ministry's budget cuts. It's a letter actually written to the minister on February 13, 2004:

It's signed by Joe Greenholtz, who is an executive director of the UBC Ritsumeikan academic exchange program.

This is what the public is now saying about this ministry and their cuts. So come clean. These cuts were never voluntary. They were forced. The ministry basically said to people: "If you don't make these cuts, we will do it for you, and we'll take away your contracts." In light of that situation, in light of these budget cuts, the government finds they have underspent in their budget and that they have over $100 million that they could give out in grants. The minister says there was proper process and the government followed proper process in giving out these grants. I want to ask the minister this question: how did the government determine the successful implementation of the objectives tied to each of the grants?

Hon. C. Clark: The $15 million the member has talked about is a figure that's annualized into this budget year, but that process started over two years ago — or about two years ago, I understand. Some of the changes have been in place for a year for some of those services.

I think the thing that really doesn't serve the community very well, because I…. Some of the authors of the letters…. By the way, the member should be careful. She mistakenly sometimes reads nice things about me into the record. I'm sure she'll regret that.

It's important to remember that the community is a vulnerable community. I do think it's really unfair for the member to try and stand up, as she often does through the estimates process but also in question period and outside the House, to really pursue her own political goals. To talk, for example, about $70 million worth of cuts to services this year is just simply not true. She knows that's not true.

She knows that $35 million of that, at least, is going to be coming out of wages, not out of service. And she knows that's not coming out by reducing the number of positions. That's because the collective bargaining process has been pursued through the employer and the employees, and they have come to an agreement. So it's just not fair for her to stand up and to fearmonger the way she does. I understand that it serves her political ambition, but I don't think it serves the community very well.

I think we all have a responsibility to try and have a rational debate around these issues that's based, as much as possible, on the facts as they are before us. I'm happy to try and offer her the facts as I understand them, and perhaps we could move to some kind of a rational, really thoughtful debate about some of the issues that are so important to the community and that need to be discussed publicly.

J. Kwan: The minister would like to claim that it is the opposition who is fearmongering with these cuts. Let us be clear. A couple of weeks ago the deputy minister wrote to the aboriginal community citing that the ministry is faced with $170 million worth of cuts over the years and that they have to deal with this. Then there were issues related to the aboriginal community.

J. Kwan: Actually, I have the letter, and I will be getting into those issues under the aboriginal section. We just received the letter last week from the community source.

The ministry and the government have cut over $175 million in the Ministry of Children and Family Development over the last three years, including this year. This year, true, the minister says it's only a $70 million cut, but it is still a $70 million cut added to what was cut previously. Let us be clear about that.

There's nobody fearmongering here. In fact, the Interim Authority for Community Living B.C. sent out a newsletter dated March 27, 2004. Here's what they have to say:

By the way, this minister, when she was in opposition, said there should be increased support in the Ministry for Children and Families.

The budget reference group must be commended for intervening and establishing a plan that makes the absolute best out of the very difficult situation. This is the Interim Authority for Community Living, dated March 27, 2004.

It's not me who's fearmongering, Mr. Chair. The interim authority themselves are saying that these cuts from the ministry, forced onto them, are difficult and, in fact, would compromise the folks who need these services.

I have another letter here about the government forcing cuts onto people. You know, hon. Chair, I would read another letter onto the record, but I won't. I think I have established the point clearly about what the impacts are. The minister can pretend this is not happening, but everywhere else the community says differently.

The minister actually didn't answer the question. I don't want to let her off the hook on the question that I put to her, and that is how the government had determined the successful implementation of the objectives tied to each of these grants in an environment where there were severe cuts to services to the community. Of course, if the issue, as the minister says, is so old and so ancient, then there should be a follow-up report on how successfully the objectives came out. Shouldn't that be the case? If the minister can't answer the first question, then will she commit to ensuring there's a follow-up report on the objectives being met?

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, the year the grants were made, there were no cuts to services in the ministry. I'll clarify that for the member. I think she's operating under a very serious misapprehension on that.

Second, on the other issue, the stuff she has just read into the record really just repeats what I just told her, which is yes, there was a plan in the ministry, and yes, we went out and talked to the budget reference group. The budget reference group, as the member read into the record, came back with a different plan that they thought would work better, and we accepted that plan. That's exactly what I've just told the member, and now she's confirmed that, so I'm glad we can at least agree on that part of it.

The plans that the agency executive directors came back with — it's important to note as well — also provided assurances that the plans would not have impact on services, on their work with families. It's not fair to suggest that there were forced moves; it's just not true. In fact, I think it's really irresponsible for the member to talk about that, because all of the agencies are working with families to try and make sure that any changes have a minimal impact on them. To talk about forced moves is, I think, not just hysterical on the member's part, but it's really irresponsible.

I'm delighted to have a debate about the facts, and I hope that will help establish some of the facts for the member's future debate.

J. Kwan: The minister says that we are in agreement. Let me just be clear that we're not in agreement here.

J. Kwan: The minister is sitting there trying to mock what I just said by saying: "I refuse to agree with you on anything, ever."

Let me just be clear about what I disagree with this minister on. She might think it's funny. She said on record last week that these agencies volunteered $15 million worth of cuts from their communities. In fact, since that statement that this minister made in the House last week, community groups have forwarded e-mail upon e-mail saying it simply is not true. Board members — who are voluntary members of the board, parents of people with developmental disabilities — of the Developmental Disabilities Association were advised…. We were advised that the board members were threatened by the former deputy minister that if they didn't come up with these so-called voluntary cuts that the minister likes to claim are….

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. This debate, once again, is becoming very, very repetitious. We've heard this same story now numerous times. I'd ask you now, please, to move on to a new subject.

J. Kwan: It is the minister who actually brought it up. It's the minister….

The Chair: Member, it's immaterial whether the minister brought it up. The fact is that this debate is becoming repetitious. Move on.

J. Kwan: Well, there is no end to the minister trying to stonewall — absolutely — and trying to twist the facts so that they fit into her message box, when everyone in the community is saying otherwise. They're say-

ing, "Not true, what the minister is suggesting about these voluntary cuts. Not true at all," which I put on the record from these individuals.

The minister is trying to claim that I agree with her. I don't agree with her. These were not voluntary cuts. People were forced to make these cuts. They had no choice in the matter. The B.C. Association for Community Living is saying that these cuts were draconian — at best. Others say it's a threat from the government.

I asked the minister about the so-called successful implementation of the objectives tied to these grants, about what evidence the minister has to make that determination. The minister has yet to answer that question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — with a new subject, please.

J. Kwan: The minister did not answer the question, and obviously she's not going to answer the question. No briefings, no answers in this House — that's how the government is conducting themselves. They think they're being open and transparent and accountable. What a laugh, Mr. Chair. What a laugh. The people in the community know better, and they will not take the minister's nonsensical answers as though somehow she's dealt with these issues when it is, in fact, untrue. They have not dealt with these issues at all.

The minister says that everything is just fine in that ministry and that they're operating very well, thank you very much, and that all the questions I've raised about cuts are just fearmongering. All right. Let's just go through some of the issues in detail.

Let's start with the Developmental Disabilities Association. In the community living adult services part, they said they were hit by a $1.14 million cut — $650,000 of what the ministry calls overpayments and $500,000 of what ministry calls voluntary. This is in spite of the fact that they have already subsidized the adult residential services to the tune of $600,000 per year. Then they were up for an additional cut of 4 percent out of the collective agreement's so-called savings and then another 5 percent on April 1, 2005, for more collective agreement savings — although we have done the rough calculations, and that's 5 percent that won't be realized through the collective agreement savings for their organization. These are the cuts that they now know for this organization. The ministry has not further reassured them that there won't be more cuts.

Will the minister reassure them that there won't be further cuts to this organization, the Developmental Disabilities Association?

Hon. C. Clark: We are incredibly close to reaching our '04-05 budget target, and we've been working with the DDA as well as many, many other organizations. They have been very, very careful and diligent in dealing with the people they serve to ensure that there's no impact on the vulnerable people that depend on them, just as they depend on government. We're continuing to work with them, and we are going to continue that into the '04-05 budget year.

J. Kwan: I want a clear answer from the minister for the Developmental Disabilities Association. Will there be no more cuts that they would have to face from this government for the '04-05 budget year and the '05-06 budget year?

Hon. C. Clark: We're always going to be making sure that the services we provide meet the demographic needs, so it's impossible to tell the member that things are going to be zapped, that they're frozen as they are today forever, but we're certainly very close to reaching our budget target.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just say this. The ministry and this government have already failed in trying to meet the demographic needs of this community. They have already failed that. They have wasted money, and they've actually angered people. More importantly, they have cast people aside, irrespective of their needs. This is in spite of a minister who claimed when she was in opposition that more moneys needed to be put into the ministry. In reality, when she's now the minister, she's taking more moneys away from these communities and their families, so she's already failed with that approach.

The minister can claim that she's meeting their needs, but she is not. Right now, Mr. Chair, she just would not confirm on record that the Developmental Disabilities Association would be faced with more cuts, so more might be coming. I'm sorry to say that I couldn't nail down for them the minister's commitment to not further impact them in a negative way.

The ministry's service plan indicates that some services for children with special needs and their families are provided under the community living services area. What is the total budget for the special needs children in youth services?

Hon. C. Clark: Just in answer to another point that the member made, I'll endeavour to get this information for her about the special needs children as we speak. Actually, the member is quite…. I worry that she is deliberately misrepresenting the facts, but if she doesn't know the facts, I'm happy to provide those to her now.

We have admitted 300 more new people to the system to service in 2003-04, so that's not a cut. That's additional service for new people. That's at the same time that we're achieving a stable budget. There are 50 more group homes since 2001, so it's just not correct for the member to suggest… Those numbers are not cuts in service; those are additional services.

J. Kwan: I actually think the minister is trying to confuse the situation here. There's a difference between

group homes for developmental disability adults and children versus children in care. They are completely different kettles of fish. If the minister claims that there are increases, indeed, for these services, then let's be clear in what area she claims that there are increases, and let's be clear in terms of in what areas there are reductions. From the adult side, I can tell you there are reductions according to the community, and they've come in with this information.

Hon. C. Clark: I was talking about adults, so the member can put to rest her confusion about that. Special needs children funding in '04-05 is $40.3 million.

J. Kwan: Let's just go back here for one moment. The minister claims there are increases in residential care, in terms of residential services for adults. Let's be clear and put that on record — what the minister claims is the reality — and for her to put it forward. Last week we canvassed this information, and the minister actually admitted there's a significant budget reduction in these areas. I'll look back in Hansard to get those exact figures. She's now claiming that there's an increase, so let's get on record what she's claiming is an increase exactly.

Hon. C. Clark: Last week I was talking about the fact that there was a 15 percent reduction in the number of children who were coming into government care, so there was a 10 percent reduction in the number — so it's still smaller — of beds there. I'm talking about adults. I think this is a tribute to the service providers who are working so diligently and to the government staff who have also worked so diligently on this, providing more services, as I talked about — 50 more group homes and 300 new individuals admitted to the system — with the same budget. I think that really speaks to the fact that we are providing more services in this area with the same amount of money. I think that really speaks to the diligence and to the hard work of the people out there.

J. Kwan: The minister says that they're increasing group homes for adults with developmental disabilities. Could she advise exactly where the beds are that are increased in the community?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have that breakdown by community with me, but I can certainly provide her with that. We know it is 50 provincewide. I could tell her this: it would be to meet demographic need and changing demographics. People move. They don't all stay in the same place all the time, so we need to make sure that the services we're providing meet the needs of the people and where they are.

J. Kwan: The minister says that there are increases in group homes, 50 of them across the province. That's net compared to what base year?

J. Kwan: What is the wait-list now for people with these developmental disabilities?

J. Kwan: No, she didn't, Mr. Chair. The minister actually didn't answer those questions, because she said she didn't know and didn't have that information. I'm going to have my staff check back about what the minister said around the developmental disability cuts in that area. I'm certain of it — that the minister actually reported in Hansard that there were cuts to these services. I'm going to go back and search for that information. But in the meantime, because I know that the Chair would not let me look for that information in Hansard as I go through these questions, and I know that the minister is eager to move forward, let me ask the questions, then, as we look for this information. I then may well come back to it once I find the information in Hansard, because that actually doesn't…. Quite frankly, the two sets of information that the minister has now provided don't jibe.

The service plan area. I started to ask the question around the total budget for special needs children and youth. What is the budget for special needs children in care?

Hon. C. Clark: For the community living side, special needs children's funding is $40.3 million.

J. Kwan: That's the '04-05 budget year? How does that compare to '03-04 and '02-03?

J. Kwan: The minister says she doesn't have the budget in front of her. I expect that the number is actually lower.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps saying: "Well, for two years ago…." You know what? For the minister to claim that there were increases in services and that there weren't cuts in these areas, it is important to use a baseline, year over year, to make that comparison. For the minister to claim that everything is just fine…. You know what? Those are her own words when she says: "Everything is fine." The community is saying: "No, I'm sorry. Things are not fine in terms of what's going on."

Already, as we established about the voluntary cuts, there's ample evidence to show they are not voluntary cuts, even if the minister continues to insist that's what they are. Let's just be clear. In terms of what

the minister would like people to take as her word for it, the reality is that people don't. Without the factual information, they don't take her word for it, because quite frankly, Mr. Chair, her word is not trustworthy from the community's point of view.

The minister says she doesn't have the '02-03 information. We'll dig that up, don't worry, and we'll compare that.

J. Kwan: The 2001-02 budget shows services to children and youth with special needs as a separate category of $150 million, and this was folded in the current three main service categories of community living, child and family services, and provincial services. Then in the '03-04 budget year, the budget and responsibility for special needs children in care was about $50 million, which was transferred to the community living budget.

The community living budget looks about the same for this year and next, when in fact the same amount of money will have to cover a broader area of responsibilities. This is according to the government's own service plan. Isn't that right?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I don't believe it's correct. We want to compare apples to apples here, not apples to oranges. For example, some of the budget years the member has referred to included early childhood development funding, and in some other years it didn't. It's very difficult to compare year to year for the specific way the member is trying to interpret the budget and then draw the broad, accusatory kind of conclusions that the member is.

J. Kwan: Actually, this is information that is shown in the government's own service plan documents, and that's what it says. The public can only glean from what it says according to these documents, and if the minister says they are not accurate and clear, well, it's the minister's own doing. That's what the documents say.

If you look at the documents, that is what it shows. It actually shows, in my view, that the area that covers children and youth with special needs services under this category of community living in the budget stayed about the same. If you have more responsibilities, that would only mean that with the same amount of money, you have to take care of more areas. In fact, this minister was very good at doing exactly that in another portfolio — claiming that the government paid for those services, and all the government had done was off-load more pressures to the school districts.

The Chair: Member, it's not appropriate to discuss the minister's former role. We should stick to the questioning of this particular ministry and proceed with that line of questioning rather than bringing in another ministry or the reputation of a former minister. Please proceed. This is the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It so happens that the former minister is this minister in another ministry, but that isn't the point. You're right. That isn't my point.

The point I want to make is that the minister is saying everything is fine and that the budget numbers are such that children and youth with special needs are not impacted — except that they got moved in the service plan under a different headline, under community living, with the same amount of budget dollars. You can only come to the conclusion that dollars are reduced.

Last year conflicts arose between contracted agencies over the new governance structure for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The interim adult community living authority is lobbying to have all children's services come under its jurisdiction, while the board of the B.C. Association for Child Development is concerned about the fragmentation of children's services under the Ministry of Children and Family Development. What is going on in terms of restructuring in the area of children with special needs? What is the status of these changes?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working closely with the interim authority on the most appropriate way to be able to deliver those services. Just for the member's information, early childhood development is $51.5 million. That's been protected. Supported child care has actually gone up. The amount of money for that is $37.7 million. Autism has also been protected. That's $30.8 million we're spending on that. And the child and

youth mental health plan is $39.1 million. I think it's important to note, now that I have the opportunity, that we are the only province in the country with a child and youth mental health plan — something of which we all should be particularly proud.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister what is going on in terms of the restructuring in the area of children with special needs and what the status of these changes is. The minister actually didn't answer the questions.

The changes have, of course, great implications for children and youth with special needs. The restructuring means that the services for children with autism and other special needs would fall under a new provincial community living authority that deals primarily with adult community living services. The remaining services needed by children and youth with special needs and their families would be distributed among the new regional authorities. Concerns have been raised that the splitting of services between different authorities will create a bureaucratic nightmare for families who have to deal with two to four separate provincial and regional offices rather than just one local MCFD office.

Can the minister clarify how services will be provided and where, and what services will be made available from the regional agencies and the provincial headquarters?

Hon. C. Clark: That's something we're still working on, as I already said, so that's the second time I'll answer that question for her.

I want to be clear, too, that the number I gave her before for special needs children was for the community living services side, which is in answer to the question that she asked. In addition to that, I can give her further information. The budget for special needs children in care for '03-04 is $46.4 million and for '04-05 is $46.4 million.

J. Kwan: I would like to go through a list of the government programs and services in this area, and I'd like to know from the minister, then, which ones are affected by these changes.

From birth to age six the list of programs I have are as follows: aboriginal infant development program, associate family program for children with multiple disabilities, At Home program for medical and respite, autism behavioral support program, autism early intensive behavioral intervention program, autism individualized intensive early intervention, brain injury community resource kit, supported child care, brain injury program, B.C. Centre for Ability, early intervention therapy services, hearing and vision loss programs, infant development programs, nursing support services, support services for children with special needs, child and youth mental health from birth to age 16. Which one of these programs would be affected by these changes?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that all those program budgets were protected, and in fact some of them received increases.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying there would be no changes with the restructuring process impacting these programs — no budgetary change to the negative and no changes at all in terms of the delivery of these services?

Hon. C. Clark: No, there won't be any budget reduction in that area. It's not possible to say, though, that everything is going to be frozen in time exactly as it is today or was two or three years ago. We need to make sure the ministry is delivering service in a way that meets the changing needs of people. The population changes and the needs change, so we're trying to make sure that the services we provide reflect that.

J. Kwan: Okay. The minister says there won't be changes at all and that their budgets are protected, and we'll put that test out to the community.

In the areas of service and programs for ages six up to 19, the At Home program, the associate family program, the autism behavioral support program, the autism extended intervention for school-aged children, the supported child care program, the brain injury program, the B.C. Centre for Ability, hearing and vision loss programs, nursing support services, school-aged therapies, supports for children with special needs, child and youth mental health programs — are these programs affected in any way? If so, how?

Hon. C. Clark: Children with special needs are an absolute priority for this government, and I don't think that's ever been in question. We are protecting the budgets for special needs kids. So in answer to that question for the second time, those budgets are protected, and in fact some of them are increasing.

J. Kwan: Okay. The minister says, through the changes and the restructuring, etc., none of these programs would be impacted and their budgets would be protected. Using the baseline of…. Which year is the baseline in terms of comparison?

Hon. C. Clark: The autism program, for example, goes up by $4.6 million or $4.5 million thereabouts, so that's an increase in that area. We are protecting the budgets for special needs kids. That doesn't mean that every service is going to look exactly the same.

Parents with special needs kids are telling us that, in fact, there are changes that need to be made and that the system isn't exactly fine and perfect the way it is, that there needs to be change in the way we deliver some of the services. We're responding to that, and we're going to try and make sure that we deliver the services better if we can. We want to do that, though — and this is really fundamentally important — with the input and involvement of communities. Communities and parents, we believe, know better than we do in Victoria, oftentimes, what needs to be delivered and how it should look for people so that services can make sense to the people who need to use them.

J. Kwan: Once again, the community will judge for themselves on whether or not this is making sense, and they will let the government know with respect to that. The question that I put to the minister is about what baseline, as a year, in terms of this comparison that she claims that there are no impacts…. That's the question that she has not answered.

J. Kwan: How much money is going to be saved through the restructuring process that the ministry is projecting?

J. Kwan: It's the government who's going through the restructuring process — the opposition is not — within the ministry. The minister should know what process she's embarking on with respect to restructuring and how much money the government is anticipating they would save with that process.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd ask the member to be just a little more specific if she can, because we're talking about…. There is a restructuring that's happening in terms of what we call service transformation, making sure the services that we provide meet the varying needs that are always changing in the community. That's one process. I don't know if she's talking about that. Is she talking about the restructuring to community governance? I don't know if that's what she's referring to. That's not something we've budgeted savings for, though, so it would be helpful if the member could be specific about what she means.

J. Kwan: The minister claims that there won't be any savings and that they are not budgeting savings. I find that hard to believe, as well, in terms of what the government is doing with respect to that.

What about the families and children who are going to be affected by this restructuring? Has the minister gone through a process with these families and children in terms of how their needs will be considered while the government is going through these restructuring procedures?

Hon. C. Clark: The interim authority has talked to over 2,000 families to discuss the impact, and they continue to do that. That's part of the process they're going through provincewide at the moment.

J. Kwan: When the minister says that the interim authority has talked to thousands of people, how did they embark on that process? There are issues raised from the community about that consultation process as well.

Hon. C. Clark: We've had several rounds of public consultation, public information sessions that have been open to anyone who is eligible to attend.

J. Kwan: Public consultation and public information sessions. Maybe the minister could provide detailed information on, first of all: how did people come to participate in these consultation processes? How were they notified? The concerns they have — how were they responded to? What regions were these consultations held in? Let me start with those questions for the minister.

Hon. C. Clark: There was a bulletin sent out to every person who received services, and they made sure they held the sessions in the evening so that families could attend. It was very important to make sure that families were involved in this. They heard a broad range of opinions. Some of them, I'm sure, were conflicting opinions but nonetheless very, very important feedback that allowed them to design some of their plans for service and what they wanted to provide.

Hon. C. Clark: In the first round I understand they hit about 30 communities, and they're now in their second round. That will make it at least 50.

J. Kwan: Sorry. Did the minister say they are now doing a second round in terms of consultation?

J. Kwan: Where are these consultations being held, and how does one get to participate? Is it, again, by letter, through invitation from those individuals who received services earlier?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, I answered the third question already. If she's looking for a list of communities, that's on the interim authority website.

J. Kwan: Has the ministry conducted any studies with respect to how the restructuring process would actually benefit these families and individuals?

Hon. C. Clark: The ministry received advice and feedback on community living governance from over 92 individuals and organizations during core review. The interim authority has held public information sessions around the province, and they held a conference here in B.C. on innovation. The interim authority's work has received, as I said, considerable international attention. Inclusion International have said that they are anxiously watching British Columbia's transition toward community governance because it is such an

important move. The authority has worked with various people from around the world, including Michael Kendrick, Agnus Capie, Mario Nossin and Eddie Bartnik, and has worked on best practices from around the world.

The work that the interim authority is doing is proven, certainly, but at the same time innovative. People, as I said, from around the world are watching British Columbia, because what we're doing has been referred to as the third wave of deinstitutionalization — tremendously important work, and it's tremendously important that we continue with it. We intend to do that.

I know that Carole James and the NDP haven't been interested in moving to community governance. I know that it's not a priority for them. I know that the work the member's been doing has really been intended to undermine, I think, a lot of the vision that's been put forward by the community. It hasn't been without bumps in the road — there's no question about that — but the vision is a sound one, and the vision is based on best practices around the world.

We have an opportunity here to do something really tremendous for people who depend on our services; for adults with developmental disabilities who at one time could only face a future in a huge government institution where, in many cases, they felt forgotten.

We have such an opportunity here in British Columbia to do something great, to do something innovative, to do something that leads the world, to do something that will be good for all of those people who depend on us to provide those services. We as a government have an obligation to make that change, if we are able. We intend to carry on making that change; we intend to continue to work with communities to make that change. Yes, there will be bumps in the road in trying to get there. It won't all come off perfectly. I can absolutely assure the member of that. She will undoubtedly find things she can criticize.

I would ask her to at least keep some part of her vision, some part of her mind on the vision that has been created by the 14,000 people who have been consulted across this province, by the people around the world who have come to British Columbia to talk about how important what we are doing is. I would ask her to keep some of that in mind.

If she can do that, then perhaps we can have a constructive debate that will improve what we're doing, something that will point out problems that we can fix, but not a debate that will ultimately serve just to undermine what it is we're trying to do. What we are trying to do here is so tremendously important. It's not just important for people in British Columbia, but it is important for people around the world, who will look to British Columbia and say that we have set an example for them too.

J. Kwan: I want to be clear on the record here. It was the NDP who began looking at how to involve the community with respect to the care of children and vulnerable individuals in our community. In fact, it was the NDP, under the former minister Ed John, who began that process particularly with aboriginal youth and children. Let's not pretend that the NDP somehow is against the community having more say and power and control.

Let me be very clear on the record here. What the NDP is opposed to is how this government has created budget instabilities in the ministry itself and in the community, as well, by going through with huge budget cuts when all along everyone — every expert that has expressed an interest to the opposition and to the government on these issues — has said you cannot undergo a major restructuring plan at this time with these kinds of budget cuts. The government's own Sage report by Doug Allen verified that much. The budget instability was created by this Liberal government. Make no mistake about that. Year over year over year, it was up to $175 million worth of cuts in the ministry. Those are the issues, and the community takes great offence when the minister says that everything is fine when, in fact, things are not fine. Things are, in fact, falling through the cracks, and things are in chaos in this ministry.

It was under this government's watchful eye and management that somehow moneys disappeared. The Doug Walls scandal — money disappeared right under the minister's nose, and they didn't know what happened. It was through that restructuring process that people raised questions about how the government managed to do all of this stuff, in the meantime forgetting about what is most essential. That is, of course, the children that are in greatest need.

I asked the minister questions, some important questions, about this entire restructuring process and how it came to be in the chaos that it is in. The minister refused to answer those questions. We know, as an example, that Mr. Walls was paid for work done on the restructuring through the B.C. Association for Community Living and through B.C. Association for Community Living member agencies linked to CareNet, as an example. We know that there have been hundreds of thousands of dollars that have gone missing. In addition, we know that money has been wasted in that process. We know that the government actually prejudged the process prior to this in terms of what the outcome was to be, and they embarked on this with a political eye, by handpicking people that they wanted without going through a proper tendering process.

That's why there are great concerns with this entire plan that the ministry has embarked on with respect to restructuring. The minister may not like these questions. Actually, in fact, the minister would not answer the questions around the restructuring relating to Doug Walls that led to the scandal and, therefore, the chaos in the ministry. She wouldn't let the questions be asked in this forum, and she wouldn't answer them.

The opposition, obviously, has concerns about the government's approach with all of their management or mismanagement in these areas, Mr. Chair. Let me be clear. It isn't about restructuring necessarily. It's about

Now, 19-year-olds are no longer eligible for many of the children-and-youth-with-special-needs services, and it could be argued that putting children and adult services together will help alleviate this problem. I want to ask the minister about that — the transition in terms of 18 and 19, when a child becomes an adult — and the concerns that families would be faced with as a result of this turnover. Let the minister, first of all, put that process on record.

Hon. C. Clark: That has been a priority for us in our discussions with the interim authority, and it's certainly been a priority for us in transforming our service. I don't want to confuse the member with all the jargon, but service transformation refers to the process that we're going through to change the mix, if you will, of the services we provide to meet the changing demographic needs and acuity of the population that's out there in varying communities.

You know, I really want to take issue with the member when she stands up and says that boy, she sure supports moving to community governance. She says that, and it is so empty. She has taken every single opportunity over the last two years to try and trash this process, to try and undermine it, to try and accuse the people that are working in it of being just toadies of the government. She's worked at it to try and make sure that she can inject every element of fearmongering, every element of the gutter politics that she likes to play, into this. It's really not fair and it's not right.

Some members of that board of the interim authority…. I mean, she should go talk to Lynn Rolko, who's been on that board of the interim authority for quite a while now and who has worked her tail off to try and make this work. Has it been perfect? No. Is the vision they're pursuing right and just? Yes. If this member actually believed in this vision, she wouldn't work so hard to try and undermine it.

Now Carole James, the leader of the NDP, is saying that she would like to delay all these governance changes even further. She wants to wait until after the election so she can sit down with everybody and have a good old chinwag and figure out where they want to go next. This member should go talk to people like Lynn Rolko and ask her if all of the work she's been doing on this means that we are in chaos, because what she will tell you is that this ministry has been more focused on a vision than it ever has been, that this ministry has been more focused on trying to deliver services in the way that meets the needs of the people who depend on us than it ever has been.

Is it perfect? No. Is everything just fine out there all the time? Absolutely not. We have to do more. We have to strive to do better, but the way we will do better is by giving governance for these services to the community. Why is that important? Because there once was a day when all that people with developmental disabilities could look forward to was sitting in a big institution and maybe being forgotten by their community and losing connection with society. That was the best that they could hope for.

When we talk about giving these services to communities, what we're talking about is letting communities, letting families, letting individuals have more say about what their futures and what their lives should look like; letting them have more opportunity to maintain connections with their community so that they're a part of our society, not parceled away and put in some institution. When the member stands up every day and works as hard as she does to bash this process and to undermine what it is we are trying to do with community living governance, she should remember those people.

She should remember those people who are vulnerable and depend on us. She should remember that we don't want to go back to the days when people were institutionalized, forgotten, separated and parceled away. She should remember that this is fundamentally about a vision of inclusion, about building a society where everyone can be a part, where everyone can feel valued. Will the road that we've chosen to get there be absolutely perfect? No, it won't be. Will there be bumps? Absolutely, there will be, but I'd ask the member to at least give the process a chance, to at least express some support for the vision we're pursuing.

Certainly, her criticisms are welcome. Certainly, her thoughts about how we could do it better are welcome, but all I ever hear from her is how the vision and the road map that we're pursuing to get there is fundamentally flawed. If she does care about this and if she does think that community governance can work, then perhaps she should offer some suggestions for how we can make it work, how we can change these services and transform them so they are something that are rooted deeply in our communities. Where are her ideas on this? All I hear her doing, day after day, is getting up and chipping away at it and trying to undermine it and bashing the people that have worked so hard and given so much of their blood, sweat and tears to try and make this work.

This has been a community process. It has included families and people who have received services from across the province. We still have work to do, but the vision is sound. When we are done, people will look back and they will say that we lead the world.

J. Kwan: You know what? The criticisms I have are about this government and how they embarked on this process to begin with, how they've mismanaged the entire process, and how, in fact, this minister and this government have set the hopes and dreams of good intentions from the community and shattered them.

Let me put on record…. She claims that it is the opposition who are just naysayers, that it is us who somehow mismanaged the process. No, it isn't. It's this government who's mismanaged the process. Even from the early days when warning signs were being

sounded, this government continued to ignore those warning signs in the restructuring process, and therefore chaos ensued. Yes, the opposition will be holding this government accountable with respect to that chaos.

Let me put on the record what the community has to say. Part of my role with respect to this, Mr. Chair, as the opposition member, is to bring those voices that the minister does not want to hear at all from the community — that she does not want to hear — to this forum so that the minister would be forced to hear those voices. Those voices are just as legitimate as the ones that the minister likes to hear — warning bells that show chaos was looming and problems were lurking.

In fact, I have a fax that was sent to the former minister as far back as July 8, 2002, about the restructuring process. It reads:

Several phone numbers are listed in this e-mail from Alanna Hendren to the former Minister of Children and Family Development.

Then there are documents that talk about the dollars that have been spent and paid to Mr. Walls — $68,300 in terms of consulting fees; later on, another $32,200; another $38,150. The list then just goes on with the amount of dollars paid.

It was the government who began this process, and then all these warning flags were waved by individuals within the interim authority, the transition steering committee. The individuals flagged these things, and the government did nothing. That led to a resignation by Alanna Hendren, who raised these concerns, and nobody listened. That is the problem. The minister thinks that when people raise concerns or issues, somehow they're just being naysayers. It is this attitude, I would submit, that caused the government to be in the situation of deep crisis and chaos that they're in with this ministry, the scandals that have now plagued this government.

The minister says the communities who need these services are fine with everything that they are doing, and it's just the opposition and Carole James who are complaining about that. Not so. FamilyNet, actually, put out a position paper regarding this entire process — the president of B.C. FamilyNet, Anita Dadson. Here's what they have to say about the government's work:

ministry's own figures. An estimated 6,500 children with special needs are also on wait-lists for early intervention services. Family support efforts to find efficiencies, but only if these are fully voluntary" — voluntary in the way in which the community defines them, I might interject, not the way in which this minister defines them — "implemented carefully over time and with full consideration of need and only if the minister restores the original commitment that any savings will be used first to address wait lists.

Mr. Chair, these are recent suggestions and the concerns are valid, contrary to the minister's diatribe earlier saying how great everything is and how they're actually going to be held as a vision for the rest of the world to see. She would be wise to pause, take stock, listen to the community who have concerns and take those criticisms as valid criticisms, which are being related through the opposition in this forum.

Maybe let's start there with these suggestions. What is the minister's response to FamilyNet?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, thanks to the member for introducing that long letter into the record, but I should tell her that I've already met with FamilyNet. You know, I think we had a quite productive meeting with Anita Dadson and company. I've known Anita for many years, and she's a tireless, dedicated advocate on behalf of her family and on behalf of other families as well.

I certainly appreciate the member's effort to bring it forward, but FamilyNet doesn't need to communicate with me through the opposition. They have access to meeting with me, and I certainly try at the ministry to keep an open discussion with them, because they raise valid concerns that we need to make sure we hear. But in all of the member's comments I always hear an effort on her behalf to try to undermine the process. I don't think she really believes in the vision we're trying to pursue. Although many of us may disagree with the way we're doing it and we might have criticisms about it, I don't think the member shares this vision one iota.

I think the proof of that is the fact that when she was in government for ten years, her government didn't make a single effort to move on community living governance. When she talks about the very good work that Ed John did, she's talking about aboriginal governance. She's talking about work that was done at the very tail end of her tenure by a minister who wasn't able to work at it very long, by a minister who came in from the outside and wasn't part of the inner circle of the NDP.

The NDP have never even so much as given lip service in their entire term of government to giving governance of these services to communities, so it's really a little bit much to take to hear the member stand

up and talk about how she thinks this is suddenly a very, very important issue. Let's be clear about what the member is trying to do here. Let's be clear about what her goal is. Nothing would make this member happier — and in fact, she has called for it again and again — than if the move to community governance for community living services failed.

Nothing would make her happier, because what she wants to do is try to load up as much criticism onto this process — much of it baseless — as she possibly can in order to make the process stumble and fall, and let's be clear about why she wants to do that. She doesn't want to do that because she cares any great deal about the services that are provided to the community. She wants to do that because she wants to advance her own political ambition. I think it's disgraceful.

I think what this member should do is stand up and at least say that she supports the vision and at least show us that she has some commitment to trying to make this process go forward, and at least demonstrate — not just talk about it but actually demonstrate — that she'd like to see this process work. Maybe she could stand up and tell us why it is that for two years, she stood up almost every single day and talked about how she hopes this process fails, how she hopes the government will abandon it, how she hopes that everything falls apart because she has loaded it up with all her invented concerns.

Maybe if she stands up and admits that, people in the community will at least say that finally she has been honest for once. You know what? She doesn't sound very honest to me, when she stands up here one day and says she supports the vision and then stands up the very next day and says she hopes the process fails.

J. Kwan: It's just nonsense, what the minister just said. If the minister actually checks Hansard, she will find on record that when the former minister introduced legislation about the interim authorities, at that time in second reading debate, I made it abundantly clear that, yes, I had concerns about this, and parents actually brought us some concerns which I put on record. But you know what, Mr. Chair? I also said to the minister and this government, then, that you cannot proceed with this kind of restructuring with the kinds of cuts that you're imposing on the communities, and I said it over and over again.

These are not fabricated cuts that somehow just happened in my own mind. They're happening in the community. For the minister to suggest for even a moment that somehow I invented these concerns from the community — how offensive. How offensive for the individuals and families who take time to write letters to the minister, who continues to ignore them. How offensive for them. The minister claims that she values volunteers. She claims she values the community's participation. By virtue of her comment just now, she has completely discredited all of those claims she made earlier.

You know what, Mr. Chair? FamilyNet put forward these issues, and, yes, they met with the minister. They acknowledged that in a follow-up letter, in which we actually have this information. And you know what? Their concerns continue. They say: "As promised, we wish to sum up the key points that we sought to convey during our meeting. Families' frustration…." They are these points. "Families want to be part of the solution. These are our loved ones, and we want to make it work for all. But families have lost trust, and fundamental concerns must be addressed before trust can be restored."

The minister claims she's met with FamilyNet. Their list of concerns and their list of suggestions are long and they're thoughtful. The minister would be wise to pause and actually listen to these concerned citizens.

Earlier the minister claimed that I fabricated these individuals' concerns. I have a whole stack of e-mails here. They're all recent e-mails, starting in late December to as recently as in March. I've received e-mails from community groups concerned about the process. I'm relating some of this process to this minister through the estimates process, and to suggest there were no good suggestions from the community, no good suggestions from individuals, is simply false. The problem rests with this: the minister refuses to listen, and that's been the problem of this government all along.

Commit to FamilyNet now that the government will roll back their reductions in budget cuts. Make that commitment now. Make the commitments to FamilyNet on the summary of the suggestions that they put forward for immediate solutions. I would ask the minister to make that commitment, if she's sincere about listening to families who are being impacted by her government's chaotic restructuring plan.

The Chair: Minister, just one moment, please. I just want to remind both members that some of the language that is being used here is getting dangerously close to being unparliamentary. I just want to remind the members that the debate in this House should be dignified and respectful of all members of this House.

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I'm sure that if the member was unparliamentary in any way, she might decide she wants to apologize at some point, although that would be a first for this member. But it could happen, I suppose.

We have listened to members, to people from the community. We've been engaged in discussion. We are currently still engaged in discussion with members of the community. We've heard lots of good advice from them. Some of the advice we've been able to act on; some, we haven't. Nonetheless, we solicit that advice, and we certainly listen to it. We are continuing to work in partnership with the community.

But you know, I think one of the things at the core of the member's view of community living and at the core of her hope that the switch to community governance will somehow collapse is a view — perhaps a mistaken view — that the whole move to community living is the product of one person. I'm here to tell her it's not. The move to community living is a movement that is not just in British Columbia; it's a worldwide movement. The move to allowing governance to be managed in communities by communities, in a way that meets the needs of communities, is a vision and a dream that thousands and thousands of people have had for a really, really long time. We're trying to move on that to try and make sure we help realize that vision.

It is the first time in a long time — I think the first time ever — that the community living sector has had a government that's prepared to listen to them. Certainly, under the NDP, there was a deaf ear turned to the needs and dreams of that community on this subject for ten years. It's time for a change in that. The road will be bumpy. It will not be perfect. We will not agree on everything, but the vision is sound. I, for one, want to put on the record that I hope the member is wrong. I hope that her desire to see this process collapse, that her desire to kill this dream never comes true, because there is no more important dream for the people in this community.

J. Kwan: The minister is making up information, and she does that regularly. The real issue here is this. The ministry and this government have proceeded with cuts in the midst of a restructuring process, which

everyone says you cannot do. We're now in a situation where the ministry is in chaos. We know that, and that is a fact.

The community is saying: "Restore the cuts. Restore the cuts, and then we can talk about restructuring and what the plans should be and then engage in meaningful consultation."

Let me ask the minister for this commitment. If she claims that she cares about the people, and the people have identified clearly that the government's cuts in programs are hurting them, will she commit today in this House that she will restore the cuts — the budget cuts that have taken place in the Ministry of Children and Family Development over the last three years?

Hon. C. Clark: I've answered this question a number of times, but I'll answer it for a last time tonight. The cuts this year are 4 percent — $70 million. More than half of that is going to be coming out of compensation, not service, and a large portion of the rest of it is going to be coming out of reduced demand for services. So it's not accurate for the member to suggest that's going to be $70 million in service cuts, because it's just simply not true.

We will continue to work with the sector. These decisions have not been easy. They've been difficult decisions, no question about it, but we've gotten there. We expect to be able to achieve our budget targets through the very, very hard work of the community and through the very, very diligent and, I think, very careful attention of the people in the ministry.

J. Kwan: The minister has just refused to restore the cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They are to the tune of $175 million over three years. That was one of the first things people were asking for this government to do — that is, to not proceed with the cuts and to restore the funding. She's refused to do so. She's just refused to do so.

So all the stuff that she says — how she cares about the community and she wishes the restructuring process to be successful and so on and so forth — simply rings hollow. They simply ring hollow, and particularly from a minister who claimed when she was in opposition that more moneys need to be put into the Ministry of Children and Family Development, as opposed to less.

Let me just put this one other letter on the record. It's a letter that was received on March 3, 2004, so it is a recent letter. It's addressed to the Premier. The letter was written on March 2 and received on March 3, 2004:

Then there is just a stack of letters from people about all of these. I could put them all on record, and depending on how estimates go, I may.

These are the individuals who say that cuts in services are hurting them. It's not the opposition fearmongering. It's the community writing to the Premier, saying: "This is how you're hurting the most vulnerable." For the minister to claim otherwise is simply not true.

I do want to get back to questions about the areas around children with special needs — services for children with special needs. Earlier the minister said that they're looking into the process around people in that transition period, if you will, of turning from 18 to 19.

I've just received an e-mail from an individual who has a family member, his son, who is in that transition period. Now, as it turns out, when the individual's son turns 19, that individual's son will then fall under the adult community living services program. According to the e-mail, the individual says: "Now the family has to form a micro-board to oversee the respite care. Under the new system they'll receive the same amount of money as before, but now the board will be subject to all labour relations law, formulaic job descriptions, taxation laws, etc. They'll receive the same level of service as before, but it will cost much, much more."

They're inquiring about these issues. They are concerned about the amount of time it will take for the family to engage in this process. In fact, the person has to take a leave of absence from his job so he can concentrate on working through the bureaucracy and the relationship between the adult community living services program and the CISL program under the Ministry of Health.

I'd like the minister to actually elaborate on this transition process. What exactly does a person, right now, have to do when you have a loved one who's transitioning from 18 to 19? Once a person turns 19,

what kind of paperwork would they have to fill out? What kind of procedures do they have to follow in order to get the services they need?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, it's the same eligibility criteria as when the member was in government. I imagine this might have been a question that she asked when she was around the cabinet table. It's a difficult problem. It's a discussion that I've had with members of the community living movement, with the interim authority board and with social workers. It's something that we are trying to work through, but it's not something to which there are easy answers. I suppose if there were easy answers and if the member had had the nerve to ask the question of her own government when she was sitting around the table, there might have been one by now.

J. Kwan: The minister says nerves and guts. Let's talk about nerves and guts. The minister actually criticized cabinet members who couldn't go to cabinet to fight off budget cuts. What's this minister doing now? She certainly is not showing the guts that she talked about in terms of fighting budget cuts in this ministry. In fact, she's advocating for these cuts in the ministry. She's going out there with her message box, saying what a wonderful job the government is doing, when the negative impacts which I've just put some of on the record with respect to budget cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development….

The minister has no answer for this individual, who actually has to take a leave of absence from his job so he can concentrate on working through the bureaucracy. The government likes to claim that it wants to cut red tape for businesses, but what about cutting red tape for families? Well, no answers there. That's obvious from this minister.

That's unfortunate for this individual, and that's the reality. This e-mail just came in today, and I'll communicate more with this individual to get further details to see how I may assist him in this process.

Let me ask the minister this question: is the ministry legally obligated to provide services for children with special needs in the same way they're obligated to provide child protection services?

Hon. C. Clark: Child protection is a statutory mandate. Services for children with special needs are not.

I'd like to go back. If the member — when she communicates with the individual who brought that issue forward — would let him know that we would be happy to deal with his concerns directly, as well, to try and resolve the problems that that family faces, we could do that. She should certainly let him know that we'd like to help, if we can, on an individual case. Although of course I can't discuss individual cases in the House, we're always ready to make sure that we try and address those individual concerns. Hopefully, I'm sure, when she communicates with him, she'll let him know that.

J. Kwan: Given that the budget pressures in the ministry are likely a given in the future, simply lumping services for children with special needs in with adult or child protection under one authority will have an adverse effect on programs for children with special needs. In other words, if children with special needs are not protected by law, how will services for children with special needs be protected under an amalgamated structure?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working, as I've said twice already this evening, with the independent authority on the best way to make sure that we provide those kinds of services. It's important to note that those services for children with special needs are also provided across government. It's not just the Ministry of Children and Family Development; they're provided in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Health Services. We really need to, I think, take a broad view, as well, across government and ensure that the services we're providing for special needs are as coordinated as they possibly can be.

J. Kwan: There's nothing specific to the minister's answer, other than to put forward flowery language that says oh well, don't worry; everything is fine.

Let me ask a direct question for which the minister would have to put specific information on the record. How many children with special needs are currently on the wait-list for early intervention?

J. Kwan: I'm talking about children with special needs generally. The minister might want to find one category that says there are no wait-lists, although I doubt that number too, but for the minister to come clean and actually answer the question: how many children with special needs are currently on wait-lists for early intervention?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have an exact number on that. I'm happy to inform the member that autism, for example, is one of the categories that we define as a special need for children. That's an area where we've worked very, very hard as a government to try and reduce that wait-list, and we've been successful.

J. Kwan: According to the advocates from the community, here's how many people are on the wait-lists: 6,500. That's 6,500 children, approximately, with special needs that are currently on wait-lists for early intervention. That's all categories, not just one category, and this number actually comes from the community. Let's be clear.

The minister says everything is fine; everything is hunky-dory; they're doing a great job. Not so, from the community, which says there are 6,500 people on the wait-list. What is the minister doing to address this wait-list?

Hon. C. Clark: There are wait-lists; I certainly acknowledge that. There have been for a long time. There certainly were when that member was in government. That's why, though, we've protected and increased, in some cases, the budgets for children with special needs. We want to make sure that as much as possible, we are addressing the needs that are out there.

J. Kwan: With the exception that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is faced with a $175 million cut over three years, and that's been established. In spite of the minister's protests, she cannot erase that fact. Do you know what? She says: "We're doing everything we can." Well, there's a huge wait-list problem out there, and the minister doesn't even know what that number is.

It just goes to show you how hollow the minister's answers are, when she doesn't even know the core of the problems that her ministry is faced with. She claims they are doing everything they can to address these issues, yet she has no understanding of what the wait-list numbers look like. Doesn't that indicate to you that the minister is just…? Her words are just empty. They have no meaning to them. It's just rhetoric that she's spouting out, Mr. Chair. There's no meaning, no substance to it, when she doesn't even know the depth of the problems and the concerns that the communities have.

In fact, to the point where an advocate for children with special needs has actually told the opposition that one mother who has a brain-injured toddler has been unable to get the necessary intervention for such a long period of time, she's so desperate that she's considering giving her child up to the care of the ministry as the only way to get her child the care she needs.

That's what's going on with this government and going on with the community. For the minister to not know that information just goes to show how out of touch she is with the challenges that members of the communities are faced with.

I'd like to ask the minister this question on aboriginal children with special needs: what is going on in the area of aboriginal children with special needs?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working with aboriginal communities to provide more support in remote communities. We've appointed an aboriginal infant development officer who's working on making sure that we deliver services as well as we can, get as much value for money and meet the needs of communities in far-flung places. Many, many aboriginal communities are in very small, remote places, and we need to make sure they don't get forgotten in the discussion that we have.

We are working very, very hard to invest money in infant development programs for aboriginal kids. We've increased the budget for supported child care — I don't think this is ever reflected in anything the member says, but just for the record — by $3.3 million, which is a significant increase. We're also reinvesting savings we found in efficiency in that budget. The support for the children-with-autism budget has gone up by $4.9 million. So there are increases in the budget.

There are certainly wait-lists, and that's an issue we are concerned about. That's been a long-running issue, something that perhaps even the member would have been familiar with when she was in government, because it was a problem then too. It's one of those issues that we can only address if we protect the money that's there and actually increase it where possible as well. That is certainly something we've done because the needs of special kids have to be a priority for us. They have to be at the forefront of our agenda, and we're trying to do that, as I said, across government — not just in this ministry but in the Ministry of Education, in the Ministry of Health Services and in the Ministry of Human Resources. All of us need to be focused on putting the needs of special children first and making those a priority, trying to protect those budgets and trying to improve those services if we can. We've had some success at that. There's still a long way to go, but we are very, very focused on making sure some of these positive changes happen.

J. Kwan: Once again, I would simply say this. The minister keeps saying that everything she's doing under this government and this ministry is very positive. Well, the community is saying not so, and the judgment will be made by the community. You know, she can sort of continuously say what a great job she's doing, but the community will let her know how she's doing, as they have been with the restructuring process. Even the minister's own handpicked interim authority individuals raised and flagged questions in the midst of the process and even resigned from the authority because there were problems which the government is not listening to and not responding to.

Are the aboriginal children with special needs going to fall under the aboriginal regional authorities?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, those discussions are ongoing with the interim authority and with aboriginal communities, so we are working through that right now.

J. Kwan: How are capacity issues being addressed for the aboriginal authorities?

Hon. C. Clark: That's part of the consideration of the planning process that we're in right now.

J. Kwan: Every question I put to the minister, she says, "Oh yeah, we're working on it; yeah, we're thinking about it; yeah, we're considering it," but no concrete answers to any of the questions, just like the other area with community living where people were asking: "Where are the plans?" Parents have written and continue to write to the minister saying: "Show us the plans. Engage in discussion with us before you proceed with them." Here we are in another area — the same thing, the minister going down exactly that same road with aboriginal kids. "We're working on it. Oh well,

you know, we'll see how it all goes, and we don't know how it's going to impact children."

You know what? In that process…. That's where concerns again get raised. The government will actually plow ahead with their own secretive plan, and then children and families will get hurt in the process.

What services…? I should say, actually, the services that I had put on record earlier, the list of programs and services administered by the program. Is it the intention of the government that those services will be replicated and will be provided for under aboriginal leadership with the aboriginal authorities?

Hon. C. Clark: We have five aboriginal planning committees that we're working with across the province. Those are broadly representative. In addition to that, we're working with the political leadership. That's Ed John, Stewart Phillip, Harley Desjarlais and George HoLem. We're working with them on these very issues that the member has raised.

One of the examples of that is a project called A Child's Roots are Forever. That's a project where we go through every file individually to try and determine the needs of that specific child. The history of this ministry has been to approach issues as though they are all just systemic, and we can't…. I don't think that fits. It doesn't solve…. Well, the experience in this ministry has been that that doesn't solve problems. What we need to do is actually look at the needs of individual children on a case-by-case basis — file by file. It's hard work, but we need to go and look at each file and say: "What does this child need? What can we do to try and improve the outcomes and experience for this individual child?" This project, A Child's Roots are Forever, is a solid example of the work we've been doing, in planning with aboriginal communities, to try and change the practice to try and meet the needs of kids better.

The investments we've made in early childhood development in aboriginal communities have been across the province. That's been a significant investment in making sure aboriginal children get the best possible start that they can, and that's also an investment in capacity-building — making sure that communities have the experience and the capacity that they are undoubtedly going to need when they take over responsibility for governing the services that are delivered in their community. That's a vision that aboriginal communities have long had, and it's a vision that our government shares.

J. Kwan: Yeah, the minister says she has a fan. Yes, she does in the member for Vancouver-Burrard, but let me tell you I wouldn't be cheering about that.

The Chair: You know, as I mentioned earlier, let's have some respect for the members of this House. Proceed with the debate.

J. Kwan: …those are my thoughts, and I'm offering them as we proceed, Mr. Chair.

Let me be clear about what the minister just said. She says she's consulting with aboriginal leaders — and I have a lot of respect for the aboriginal leaders; make no mistake about that — including Ed John. The minister actually, just moments ago, tried to discredit the former minister, Ed John, in his former capacity as the minister….

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, this is a point of privilege. That member is grossly misrepresenting what I said. I did not cast any aspersion on the previous minister, Chief John. I think she should withdraw that comment. If she takes a minute to review what I said in Hansard…. What I said was that that previous minister worked hard. He had a handicap in that he came in at the very tail end, in the dying days of the NDP government. He came in from outside, not from inside as an insider in the NDP. He worked hard at beginning this process of aboriginal governance, and I did not for one second — for one moment — cast any aspersions on that previous minister's work. I would ask that this member withdraw that comment unconditionally.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just say this. The former minister, Ed John, began a process of addressing aboriginal kids in terms of some of the concerns. He actually had a vision with respect to how children could be cared for in a better way by the aboriginal community, and he began a pilot project.

The minister actually claimed that the former government's process and that work was delayed and that it was bad in some way, in her own mind, and somehow didn't live up to expectations. Well, the former minister, Ed John, actually did that work and did it diligently. He began the process that's much needed, I would argue, and would actually continue to advocate for change, and she's….

J. Kwan: …to advocate for change in his new capacity as the chief and also with the summit, along

with the other aboriginal community groups. They are doing a diligent job as best as they can, but they also flagged for the minister their concerns with respect to services for children, with respect to children and families in our community. They continue to flag that. In fact, as the government is embarking on the process of restructuring, many of the aboriginal community organizations flagged the issue around impacts of cuts. They flagged them; they were concerned about them. They were concerned about the government's approach with these deep cuts and how it was going to impact the community in the broader sense.

I asked the minister a specific question with respect to programs and services that were administered by the government. I put out the list earlier. I asked the minister how she will ensure that capacities for the aboriginal authorities would be built and to ensure that…. I asked a question: will these programs be replicated by the aboriginal authorities? They do have limited capacities right now. With ongoing cuts in programs, in services and core services, this would impact that capacity-building. I'd like the minister to respond to that question.

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, just let me be clear with the member. Chief John was minister for four months at the very tail end of this government. God bless him for going out there, despite the fact that there was no commitment from her government for a decade, and starting an initiative with aboriginal people to start the process of changing over governance. Her government didn't spend one moment listening to the community about any of those issues until Ed John walked through the door in the last four months, in the dying days of her government.

I bet there isn't a single shred of evidence where this member stood up in this House and even once talked about those issues when she was in government. I'm sure there isn't even a shred of evidence of any minister previous to Chief John ever talking about those issues. So for her to stand up and suggest that I have cast any kind of aspersion on the work that Chief John has done is absolutely wrong. It's absolutely wrong, and it's irresponsible.

It is further proof that this member is perfectly willing to stand up in this chamber, where she is protected by parliamentary privilege, and say anything to advance her personal ambition. She will say anything, and she refuses to apologize. She will stand up, and she doesn't care if there is even a shred of truth attached to the words she says. That's been true for this last week, and it is still true today.

We continue, for her information, to work with Chief John and the summit and other aboriginal leaders across the province on this work that we're doing to try and change governance for aboriginal people. It was a project on the aboriginal side that Chief John started but, as I said, in the last four months of her government. In the meantime, where was her government's vision for community living services? Where was her government's vision for making sure that children and family development services were also delivered and governed in communities? There's never, ever a shred of commitment to any of those things.

For her to stand up and try and suggest that I'm casting aspersions on Chief John is just wrong. For her to stand up again and fail to apologize for it is, I think, a further example of the fact that this member will do anything and will say anything as long as she is protected by parliamentary privilege and as long as she thinks that it will advance her own personal political ambitions.

J. Kwan: The language which the minister uses on record is open for the public to review. She continues to chastise the previous administration as though somehow the appointment of Ed John is inappropriate and somehow the previous administration didn't see the need to do the work. If that was the case, why would the previous administration appoint the former minister Ed John to the position, to take on the new initiative and to take on a pilot project in addressing aboriginal children's needs and their care?

For the minister…. You know what? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chair. You can't on the one hand say the previous administration did nothing and on the other hand say: "Former minister Ed John did a fabulous job with respect to trying to address issues for children in care." The former minister, indeed, did a great job and continued to be the strong advocate that he is, and this minister….

J. Kwan: This minister is seeking advice from the former minister Ed John, who the NDP government had put in place. The NDP government sought outside leadership to take on that role, and Minister Ed John, the former Minister for Children and Families, did that work. He, under the former government's administration, began the process of recognizing the community's role and how it should be dealt with, with respect to aboriginal children, particularly, who are in need of care. Let's just be clear in terms of Ed John's role.

J. Kwan: The minister is sitting there shouting at me about where I've been the last ten years. Let me just say I was part of the previous administration for five years, and prior to that, I was on city council in Vancouver. The public knows that, and that's public information.

But you know what, Mr. Chair? You cannot have it both ways to suggest that somehow Minister Ed John did great work under the previous administration….

J. Kwan: That somehow the former minister Ed John, under the previous administration, did great work, and then for the minister at the same time to try and say that the previous administration didn't do that work…. You can't have it both ways. Either you did it or you didn't do it. The fact is that the previous administration began that work. Make no mistake about that.

J. Kwan: The minister thinks she's being funny around these very serious issues and about a community leader who has done great work in our community. This government, this minister now is seeking advice from this individual, who was part of the previous administration. Let's be clear about that.

It's interesting that I have before me…. The minister earlier claimed that there were no cuts in the services around the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and in fact the ministry didn't sustain deep cuts. I mentioned earlier that in fact the deputy had actually written to the community, saying that there are deep cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The letter says: "As has been discussed, there's a need to ensure sound fiscal management on transition funds. The ministry has been implementing $170 million in reductions since the 2001-02 fiscal year, so it is critical that funding be allocated where it is needed most. As such, the transition budget for planning will be significantly reduced from $7.8 million to $3.53 million." That's just part of the letter. This actually confirms the $170 million cut in the Ministry of Children and Family Development's budget. The opposition didn't make that up.

I have further questions arising from this letter and on this issue, Mr. Chair, but noting the time, I move that committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

J. Kwan: Just prior to the dinner break I was asking questions of the minister about aboriginal children with special needs. The minister was not able to confirm how the aboriginal community capacity building would ensure that services would be delivered by the aboriginal community. She had in fact no updated information other than to say that they're just working on it.

I put on record a part of a letter from the deputy to the regional aboriginal planning committee chair, which states that the transition budget for planning will be significantly reduced from $7.8 million to $3.53 million. That, of course, is in the context of the ministry having to implement $170 million in reductions since the 2001-02 fiscal year. The letter goes on to say that of the amount, $2.03 million will be allocated to aboriginal planning processes. How much money was allocated to the aboriginal planning process before this cut, if the minister could provide that information?

Hon. C. Clark: The member has spent the last two years very, very strongly criticizing the government for spending too much money on planning, so I'm sure she'll applaud the idea that we think we can achieve what we want to achieve with a little bit smaller budget. It was $3.91 million spent over the last year for the aboriginal planning process, and that's continuing on.

In response to the member's earlier question about aboriginal special needs kids, the aboriginal early childhood development initiative is focused on building capacity in aboriginal communities to deliver a range of services that have an emphasis on child development, parenting and other development activities. The initiatives build on existing strengths and improve outcomes for aboriginal children and their families. Thirty-seven initiatives have been established in aboriginal communities to support the delivery of comprehensive, integrated and culturally relevant, sustainable community-based programs. Communities have greater access to a wide range of culturally appropriate early childhood development support, prevention and early intervention services which support positive parenting, family and community supports; increase fetal alcohol spectrum disorder prevention strategies; and build on strengthening existing community supports and networks. Aboriginal ECD capacity-building initiatives focus on promoting greater integration of federal-provincial, intersectoral and community partnerships. I hope that answers the member's question.

J. Kwan: What is now the time line for the restructuring with the aboriginal children with special needs? Does the minister have a time line with respect to that?

J. Kwan: The minister says '06-07. Last year's budget for the restructuring process was $3.91 million. What is the total amount for the aboriginal restructuring component that's been spent by the ministry to date on the restructuring?

Hon. C. Clark: That's the number I just gave her for this last year; that was a total number. The restructur-

ing she talks about…. When I say '06-07, what I mean is the restructuring of governance. When we restructure governance and give those decisions to the communities to make, they will also be making decisions for kids.

J. Kwan: The minister actually said last year's budget was $3.91 million for the restructuring — so that's the total amount also to date?

J. Kwan: The year before was $3.26 million, and this year it's $3.52 million. That gives you a total of — I'm just adding it up, Mr. Chair — $10.79 million. Is that correct? That's all the amounts of dollars that have been spent to date on the aboriginal restructuring processes.

Hon. C. Clark: For '02-03 it's $2.36 million; '03-04, $3.91 million. Our budget for '04-05 is $2.03 million.

J. Kwan: She's always helpful, the minister, no doubt. I see that the minister actually has a calculator that she could use, but…. Always helpful, but never mind. We can actually add up these numbers. That's okay. The minister is forever helpful with this information.

The projected time line here is for '06-07 for the completion. What kind of process has the minister embarked on with respect to the delay with the aboriginal community?

Hon. C. Clark: We're continuing our planning process as I described to her earlier.

J. Kwan: Who are the participants with which the minister is consulting and working?

Hon. C. Clark: A broad range of representatives around the aboriginal community. I think if the member went and talked to her leader, Carole James, she would be able to tell her some of these answers to the questions. As she knows, Carole James used to work on advancing this process. This delay or this extra time that we're giving to this process is something that's come at the request of aboriginal communities.

J. Kwan: Always helpful, again — the minister. Carole James is not leading the process with the restructuring. The minister is; the government is. Carole James formerly, prior to her role as leader of the opposition, had been working in the aboriginal community to address some of these issues because she cares greatly about them. She has a strong knowledge base with the community, and so it's a credit to her in the work she is doing and she was doing in community.

Let me ask the minister this question: given that she is the one that's leading the restructuring process, who is she working with in this restructuring process with the aboriginal communities? Please be specific — names and organizations.

Hon. C. Clark: As I told the member already this evening in estimates debate, we were working with Ed John from the First Nations Summit, Harley Desjarlais from the provincial Métis organization, George HoLem from UNN and Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. In addition to the political leadership, there are planning communities from across the province, from friendship centres and native court workers. There is a whole range of people involved in those from across the aboriginal community.

J. Kwan: Some of the leaders that the minister has referenced I have been in contact with and have been engaging in discussions with them to get their feedback with respect to what the ministry is doing, what the government is doing and how they're doing on these issues. I know that there certainly will be more up-to-date information with respect to their points of view about the government's procedures in this area. Once we get that, we will get back to it.

J. Kwan: The minister is heckling me again about what my points of view are and whether or not I have any.

On the one hand, she just said, gee, I could actually go and talk to Carole James about some of these issues because she was involved in the community, with the aboriginal community, prior to becoming a leader. The minister knows very well the credibility that Carole James has with the aboriginal community.

J. Kwan: And she laughs. She scoffs at this, but of course, Carole James does have credibility with the aboriginal community. That's why she was hired to do this work prior to her running as leader for the NDP. In fact, this might come as a surprise for the minister, although it shouldn't be. Carole James actually advised that some of the aboriginal community leaders had said to her: "Given what you have learned in working with us, it is your obligation to now go and run for leader and actually do the work that you would do for our communities but across the province."

J. Kwan: The minister says: "Oh, maybe she wasn't that much of a loss for them anyway." You know what?

I don't want to put words into the mouths of the community leaders whom Carole James has worked with — and their vision of what they see for our community and who can actually lead a process in addressing the needs of the aboriginal community. Nor would I belittle the community leaders that made those comments to Carole James.

The aboriginal community leaders in their own right have a lot of concerns about this government, especially when this government brought forward a referendum process on the minority rights of aboriginal people. There is no shame for the way in which this government and this minister with respect to that…. They actually brought forward a referendum process on minority rights to be voted on by the majority. This government actually tried to do everything they could to set aside the treaty process. The government tried to do everything they could, quite frankly, to extinguish the rights of aboriginal communities with respect to land claims. They try continuously to do that kind of stuff.

The proof will be in the pudding — just you wait — from the aboriginal community, in terms of what they say about the performance of this government. Let me not be the judge of that. Let the community be, who are directly impacted by this government's policies and approach with respect to that.

J. Kwan: You can shout all you want, and you can heckle all you want, but the community knows the difference.

J. Kwan: With all the heckling going on, I was wondering if some of the members actually want to get up and ask questions of the minister. The government says everything is fine, and so we will wait and see what the aboriginal community has to say. I just spoke with them, and there are ongoing concerns with the government's action with regard to this.

Hon. C. Clark: A whole range of services are available for children with special needs who have been adopted. We try and support adoptive parents as much as we possibly can. We've doubled the number of adoptions under this government, which is great news — not an area that the previous administration, with this member sitting around the cabinet table, paid very much attention to at all. It's an area we're very, very proud that we've made incredible progress in, because that makes such a difference to kids to go from being in a home where there's a sense of uncertainty about where they'll be on their next birthday to a place that's stable, certain and predictable, where they can know they're going to be in the same place for the rest of their lives. That means such a great deal to them. We've worked very, very hard to support adoptive families of special needs kids.

In addition, I should say that the member makes quite an effort, I think, to belittle our government's work with first nations people and the work that first nations people and aboriginal communities have done with our government. But in just this ministry alone, it's important to note that we have established a working agreement with every band across British Columbia. Now, that's something the previous government never achieved and I don't think ever bothered trying to achieve. It's been a real focus for us, because we want to make sure we work with aboriginal communities on the ground. In addition to that, record numbers of agreements-in-principle, and we are making incredible progress at the treaty tables across the province. The Premier is regularly out at announcements with aboriginal, first nations communities to talk about the progress we've made with those first nations communities.

We are very, very proud of the partnership that we have with aboriginal and first nations leadership across the province. That's something that has grown and been enhanced under the last two and a half years of this government. It has grown and been enhanced because our government has paid attention to it — unlike the last decade of the NDP, where these processes just spun their wheels for the most part, and there wasn't really a lot of attention, although there was a lot of lip service paid.

We are on a different track. We are on a new road. It will be better, I believe. This track that we're on for aboriginal communities will mean a better future for a long time to come.

J. Kwan: Rhetoric doesn't cut it. I asked the minister a specific question in terms of what services are available to families who adopt special needs kids. I'm asking for a specific answer from the ministry of what those services are. I would expect that answer, not just rhetoric.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I want to just correct the record on the things the member says. I don't think we can leave those intentionally inaccurate comments on the record to just stand by themselves. The member has, I think, demonstrated, along with her colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and along with Carole James — the leader of the NDP — that accuracy and fairness, particularly as long as they're protected by parliamentary privilege, aren't a priority for them. I know that the member is loath to get up and apologize for the comments that she makes, but I certainly do want to make sure there are accurate comments on the record that reflect the facts.

I'm delighted to have a debate about the facts — a rational, thoughtful debate about the facts. Certainly, we'll disagree about some of them, but it's important that we work from a basis of fact.

In terms of special needs kids, there's a whole range of things we support them with — like, for example,

counselling. It could be medical support for them; it could be financial assistance. There is a whole range of things we do to try and support adoptive parents of special needs children.

J. Kwan: How much are families paid in terms of this work they do? How does that compare to previous years going back all the way, as a baseline comparison, to 2001?

Hon. C. Clark: The numbers for post-adoption assistance program maintenance rates are $701.55 for children aged 11 and under. The rate for children 12 years of age and over is $805.68. I don't have a baseline number for the member for 2001.

J. Kwan: If the minister doesn't have the base number, has that amount for families who adopt children with special needs gone up year over year, or has it gone down year over year?

Hon. C. Clark: I will try and confirm that for the member specifically. I am advised, though, by the officials around me that they understand this number has been pretty constant over the last couple of years.

J. Kwan: In terms of support services, the minister named a couple. Let me ask this broad question: have any services been cut for families who adopt special needs kids? Again, I will use that as a comparison in the budget year of '04-05 compared to the base year of 2001.

Hon. C. Clark: I am advised the answer to that question is no. The member should know that we do more than just provide financial support; we also provide counselling support and medical support, depending on the needs of the child. Much of the support we provide for adoptive parents of special needs kids doesn't come in the form of a cheque. It comes in the form of services we provide as well, and those services are continuing.

J. Kwan: The minister says there have been no cuts to families who adopt special needs children — no cuts in terms of the rate in which they are paid to provide the services and to care for the children — and that there are no service cuts in the ministry, starting with the base year comparison of 2001. That's on record. Okay. That information happens to dispute information, again, that the opposition has received, in fact, from front-line workers who say otherwise. I'll just set that aside for one moment.

After adopting special needs children, the families themselves have special needs — whether it be financial, educational or emotional support. The services provided to the families, aside from the children with special needs…. What kinds of services are available to them?

Hon. C. Clark: That's the rate I just gave the member. Again, as I said, the information I've provided to her is the information I've been advised of based on the information we have here at the House. If I need to correct that, I will, but as it stands, that's certainly the advice I've received. Again, the answer I gave about two answers ago is the answer to this question again.

J. Kwan: The support that families who provide for adopted children with special needs are the rates they get from the ministry. That's all I could gather from the minister's answer. There's no additional support in terms of emotional support for families or educational support. What can families do to get post-adoption financial assistance, and where can they get that from, outside of the rate the minister has just put on record?

Hon. C. Clark: It's this ministry that provides that support for them, and adoptive parents can phone from anywhere in the province if they need support. In addition to that, I did say — contrary, again, to the member's cavalier assertion — that we do ensure that we support counselling services.

J. Kwan: The support, as far as I understand, not only comes from the ministry; it comes from non-profit organizations as well. One of the key organizations that provided resources to parents who adopt special needs kids is the group called the Special Needs Adoptive Parents, SNAP, which has had its funding slashed by the government. This group last year won an award from the North American Council on Adoptable Children as the parent support group of the year.

I would like to ask the minister the rationale for cutting the funding for such a highly regarded organization.

Hon. C. Clark: Previously we provided money to two organizations that provided support for special needs adoptive parents. One was the Adoptive Parents Association, and the other was SNAP, which the member referred to. We consolidated that money into one organization to gain some efficiencies, if we could. We did that through our request for proposals.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister says they're gaining efficiencies. There are those words again that the minister used. The community simply disagrees with the words that the minister would like to describe how these agencies, quite frankly, are getting their funding cut. Therefore, to support services that they do provide for families with special needs children whom the families adopt…. As I mentioned, for more than 15 years the Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents has delivered adoption support services across British Columbia. It was started in the late 1980s by adoptive parents frustrated by the lack of supports available to families whose children have special needs. SNAP became a provincial contractor of services provided in 1989. Today SNAP handles 15,000-plus contracts yearly.

Then it goes on to talk about the wonderful work that they do, and of course their funding has now been cut. The minister calls it consolidated, but the reality is that their funding has been cut. They have actually written to me, as well, about this and about their concerns about this situation that they are faced with.

The minister says it has now been consolidated with another group. In terms of that consolidation, what is the budget now for this consolidated group? What was it before, when it was separate under two separate organizations?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is referring to a decision from the 2001 budget here. I'm sure, if we look back at estimates, we'll find opportunities for her to have raised that in previous years. Although if she forgot, I guess, and she chooses to raise it now, we can talk a little bit about it.

SNAP is an excellent organization. They do very good work. But we had to make a decision in the ministry about where to focus our resources at a time when we had very difficult decisions to make about allocating resources. What we did, instead of funding two provincial organizations that provided similar sorts of service and similar kinds of mandates, is that we went to request for proposals and went to one organization instead. Those decisions are very difficult, indeed, and certainly no reflection on the dedication of the group that the member has mentioned — but nonetheless, a decision that needed to be made in the 2001 budget.

J. Kwan: The minister said that services are being provided for, that families can get services and post-adoption financial assistance from the ministry. She says that these families could get educational, emotional and financial support, and she said that no other service is providing that kind of supportive service to families. So I raised the question around SNAP, and SNAP has been cut in terms of their funding. The minister likes to call it consolidation. I asked a question about what was the budget prior to this so-called consolidation, this cut that took place in the ministry. What was the budget then, when it was two separate organizations, and what is the budget now, when it's been reduced to one? I'm still waiting on that answer.

Hon. C. Clark: The services they provide include orientation for parents across the province, support groups for parents who need that, a toll-free line, information referral, resource materials — those kinds of things. I'm afraid I cannot speak to the specifics of the 2001 budget.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister keeps evading the questions about the 2001 budget, which is being used as a baseline for comparison. The minister claims that service cuts to programs, to core services programs to the community, have not been impacted by this government. We have established clearly that over three years, the government has cut programs to the community. Here we have another example, which I've identified for the minister's own knowledge base, that the government has cut these programs. She refused to provide the answer on record.

What is she trying to hide? What was the budget when it was two separate organizations providing for these critical services for families who adopt children with special needs versus the situation now under this government's administration, where they so-called consolidated the two organizations that provide for these services, which effectively means that they have cut services to one organization? What are the budget numbers, and what is the minister trying to hide by not providing that information?

Hon. C. Clark: The number for this year is about $350,000. The member is, I think, very much misconstruing my motives here. I'm not trying to hide information from the 2001 budget. I just don't have it here.

I think the job of a critic — and certainly this was my job when I was in opposition — is to bring that information to the House, if it's really dated budget information, in recognition of the fact that while a minister will certainly have lots of good advice and lots of information at her or his fingertips, certainly we don't have budget information from every single year going back three or four years. So I'm afraid I'm not able to provide her with that information, except to say that this year it's about $350,000 for the Adoptive Families Association. It is my understanding that that is a worthy organization — working hard and certainly very, very dedicated to advancing the interests and serving the needs of the adoptive parents that are so important.

I think the other thing that's important for all of us to recognize is the success that our government, our service providers and parents have had in increasing the number of placements. The Ministry of Children and Family Development only adopts special needs children, and we have doubled the number of placements for those kids. The member, I think, is always trying to look at a way to tear down the hard work that ministry officials and our service providers and our activist parents have done, but I think the proof is really in the pudding. She can point to all kinds of complaints that she has, but if at the end of the day the number of children has doubled who are finding their ways into permanent, stable, loving homes where they can expect some certainty — double the number of kids who will know where they're going to be on their next birthday — that makes such a huge difference for children.

We've been very, very focused on making those kinds of changes a reality for more kids. We've doubled that number. We intend to continue to work at it. I know that the member has lots of complaints, but I hope that she will recognize…. Even if she doesn't say it, I hope she'll recognize at least in her heart that we are certainly doing something right.

J. Kwan: You know, the words of the minister ring hollow when she says that she cares about children

very much, when in fact what the government has done is cut services. She goes: "Oh well, we doubled the number of kids with adoptive parents." That's a credit to the adoptive parents, not a credit to the minister. Let's be clear about it. It's not a credit to this government in terms of them cutting the services to support these families, who are doing an incredible job. Make no mistake about that.

The reason why I think the minister is refusing to put on record the budget numbers prior to this year is because she knows that those numbers will reflect a reduction. The minister claims that she doesn't have them. Well, quite frankly, I don't believe she can't get that information. She has very competent staff around her. She has very competent staff within the ministry, and they can provide ample information.

J. Kwan: It's not that now I say that. It has always been my view that the ministry staff do good work. It's always been my view that it's the government and this minister who don't. Let us be clear about that. It is this minister who does not do the work that is deserving of praise, when in fact what has happened under this government's leadership is that the ministry is in chaos and is scandal-ridden. That is the reality, and that is a direct result of this government's mismanagement. Make no mistake about that.

For the minister to try and sort of say: "Hey, don't worry. Everything is fine…." The reality is that award-winning organizations have had their funding cut and services to the community have been reduced. That is what this ministry and this minister are doing, and that is exactly what she's advocating for.

Here's an interesting piece of information with respect to cuts once again. Let me just put this to the minister. It's related to severely handicapped young adults which individuals or associations are contracted to protect. Here's what one letter says:

Then appendix A contains new payment rates for levels A to D. Then it actually shows a reduction for pretty well every type — a reduction per month in terms of the rate. Then the letter goes on to say: "If you are prepared to continue to provide the services set out in the component schedule to your existing contract at the new payment rates" — which show a 1.75 percent reduction for pretty well every category — "then the minister will enter into a modification agreement with you until March 31, 2006." Then it asks the individual to make the appropriate arrangements with the manager from the region.

Here you have another example of cuts — a 1.75 percent reduction in payment rates to groups that the ministry has contracted, contrary to this minister's claims that there are no budget cuts, contrary to what this minister says. This is directly from, again, the ministry who wrote these letters to these groups to say: "Accept these cuts, or we're going to terminate the contract with you." So much for her word that says no cuts, Mr. Chair.

Here's another example from the individuals in the community providing services. In this instance, the writer says:

The person then goes on to say that in his case of $4.80 per hour, minus 1.75 percent in terms of rate, it actually yields $4.51 per hour. That's the reality as well. That's the reality in terms of how people are coping with these so-called voluntary cuts, with this so-called non-reduction in services. The reality is the government…. They are cutting services. They're cutting rates for caregivers and organizations. They're cutting programs to support people and organizations in these areas. Those facts cannot be disputed.

The area of autism. Many families want autism funding to remain separate from the community living sector, and they fear that blending the two will not adequately protect services for people with autism. They have written letters to the minister expressing their concerns. In the current upheaval and delay in restructuring, has the plan for autism changed? What is the minister's plan for autism? Is it still destined to be blended into the interim authority?

Hon. C. Clark: I've answered that question three or four times this evening alone.

J. Kwan: The minister actually did not answer the question specifically with autistic children in terms of

the regionalization process and what her plans are. The minister claims that she's answered the question. Well, let me ask the minister this question: has she met with the autism families on this issue? How is she responding to their concerns?

J. Kwan: Careful what we say here. The minister just went on record to say that she's listening to everyone who's concerned with the issues, and surely there are people who actually feel that the minister is not listening to them at all. In fact, there are a whole host of people on that.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "Oh well, that's a matter of opinion." It's sort of like saying: "Okay, you can say whatever you want, but I'm just going to plow ahead and do whatever I want, irrespective of what you say." She's laughing and shaking her head, as though somehow the concerns from the community about these issues are funny. They're not funny, and it's not just, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," as the minister likes to say. It isn't, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," for these community members with children with autism, who take issue with the minister's plans and how they're proceeding with this whole thing.

Let me go to a specific question with the ministry around funding. What is happening with the autism direct funding program?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, the member stands up and talks about the fact that if I say we're listening, that must mean we're going to respond with a "yes" to every concern that's raised. The reality of public life is that people disagree, and it's impossible, I would think, to find an issue on which everybody agrees. Even the idea of governance, of vision for community governance where communities take control of delivering services — even on that there isn't universal agreement. The NDP, under Carole James and this member, is opposed to that. They are hoping that initiative fails. So even on that one, where there is very, very broad community support for the vision, there isn't universal opinion. So certainly on issues around autism and children with special needs, there are a range of opinions. Many of them are different from each other.

I think the member fundamentally, even after ten years in government, still misunderstands the role of leadership and the role that politicians need to take. We need to listen, but that doesn't mean we respond with a "yes" to every single person, because we just simply can't — because often acting, if one wants to act, means that some people will disagree with every action.

I know certainly the NDP intends to disagree with every action this government takes — not on principle, not because they have different ideas, because so far I haven't heard the member come forward with any ideas about how she would manage this ministry herself. All I've heard her do is stand up and trash ministry staff and talk about how everything is not working and how community governance is a big mistake and how she hopes it fails. I don't think we can ever find complete agreement on everything, because I certainly don't think the NDP is ever going to agree with anything. I'm just not sure that's a realistic expectation to have, and probably not a sign of leadership either.

The global budget for autism has gone up from $25.9 million to $30.8 million — $20,000 a year for children under six and $6,000 for children over six.

J. Kwan: The Liberals must be very worried about Carole James, because at every turn they raise her name. But you know what? Don't worry. Actually, when the election gets called, Carole James will be putting out the terms of what our plans and programs are, and so will the NDP. Don't worry about it. They will be there, and the NDP record is there for the community to judge in the past in terms of how we've done. The Liberal record is now on record for the community to judge in terms of how they are doing with respect to issues that concern British Columbians.

I may add that the most recent poll actually says that communities happen to be losing faith with this minister, and this government, I should say more specifically — in fact, particularly with the Premier. They're questioning the leadership of this Premier and the direction that they take.

The government promised, in the 2001 election, that they would not cut programs to communities. They actually promised that as part of their campaigning process. Soon after the election was over, what did they do? They slashed and they burned, and community programs are being cut all over the map. I've only just established some of those programs which this government has cut under this ministry.

J. Kwan: The minister laughs. Black Thursday was a terrible day for communities. Why? Because they learned the extent of the cuts which they would have to face in their own communities from a government that promised they would not make cuts. They made cuts deeper than any governments before.

Just to lay down the context of what the background is, for the minister to claim there have been no

cuts, when in fact it simply is not true…. It simply is not true, and it's not credible in terms of what she says.

The autism direct funding program, as I understand, is a direct program for children and individuals with autism. The minister claims that the overall budget has actually increased for children with autism. Could the minister lay out the specific programs within its budget for children with autism?

Hon. C. Clark: We are all looking forward to when the NDP actually comes out with some ideas, when Carole James and company can tell us what they stand for, if they do. I notice that this member has very, very carefully avoided trying to take any positions or offer any ideas or suggest any solutions to any of the concerns that have come forward. I can only conclude that they are bankrupt of ideas. Otherwise, why would they save them for 14 months before British Columbians can get to know them? Obviously….

I'll tell you what the budget for autism is, and I hope that when the member responds she can tell me where she thinks it might be better spent, because I know she wants to take a moment to demonstrate all the ideas she has bursting through her very being as we stand up and debate these estimates.

The total 2004-05 budget for autism is $30.8 million, including $14.3 million for children under age six and $13.9 million for school-aged intervention. In addition, $2.6 million is spent on the behavioral support program.

Currently, there are approximately 500 children under age six in British Columbia receiving early intensive autism intervention services. MCFD offers comprehensive one-to-one therapy and support for up to 75 children with autism spectrum disorder under age six through contracts with three service providers in eight communities, and 1,700 school children ages six to 18 are currently receiving extended autism intervention services for out-of-school intervention. EAI funding is in addition to the educational program and special education services provided through school boards. Behavioral consultation through contracts with qualified individuals or agencies is also provided. Services include child-specific training, demonstrations of behaviour management techniques and development of behaviour management plans. Children with ASD, along with other children and youth with special needs, can access other services provided by MCFD, such as respite, supported child care, speech and language therapy, occupational and physical therapy, family support and child care workers.

I'd certainly welcome the member's ideas if she has any, although I certainly haven't heard any so far in our 16 hours of debate on this. If she has any, I'd certainly be looking forward to hearing some ideas. I don't think British Columbians want to wait 14 months to find out if the NDP stands for anything. I don't think British Columbians want to wait 14 months to find out if Carole James has any ideas or any vision for the province, so I'd certainly welcome this opportunity to hear from this member ideas that she has about how we might better spend the money that we currently provide for children who have this very, very special and very, very important need.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I was simply responding to the minister's comments, and I apologize if the minister raised issues out of turn that are not relevant to the estimates debate. Of course, I can't help but respond to those kinds of questions, so my apologies, Mr. Chair.

The minister says they're doing fine; everything is just fine. As she constantly and continuously says, everything is just fine.

Is there a program called the autism direct funding program within the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: No, there isn't a program with that title. I understand if the member wants to have an election tomorrow in order to unveil her policy. That policy is….

The policies about autism that are so important for this government and important for British Columbians…. I'm sure that if that election policy is ready to roll, why hide it? Why keep your light under a bushel? If it's ready to go tomorrow if there's an election, why not unveil it today?

The Chair: Members, we've been talking a little bit off topic here about elections, other things. Could we please just keep to the estimates, and I'm sure we'll find this will move a little more speedily for all of us.

Don't worry. Information will be out in the public. Don't worry about that. The minister can rest assured.

J. Kwan: The public will have every chance to compare this government's record in terms of Carole James's platform and the record of the previous NDP, quite frankly.

The Chair: Member, back to the questions in estimates unless you're complete, and then we'll be pleased to call the question.

J. Kwan: The minister says there is no program called the autism direct funding program. The ministry, though, I think, has the program, and I may not have used the exact wording in terms of describing that program. My understanding is there is a program that is direct that deals with the autism direct funding program.

Under the ministry's rubric of delivering services for children with autism, what program…? I think the minister knows what I'm talking about. This is sort of like that incident with one of the ministers. Unless you ask exactly the right question, information won't be forthcoming even though the minister knows exactly what we're talking about. I think it was the Attorney General who actually did that with the media. The minister knows what I'm talking about. If that's not the right term to describe that program, could she provide on the record the right term? I would like to know what is happening with that program being delivered to children with autism.

Hon. C. Clark: There are over 2,200 families receiving direct funding to purchase services for their child with autism spectrum disorder. Up to $20,000 is available to families to enable them to purchase treatment services for their child under six years with ASD. Up to $6,000 is available to families to enable them to purchase treatment services for their child six years to 19 years of age with ASD. Participating families are given a resource guide and a list of qualified service providers. Families that have difficulty managing funds are assisted sometimes through a direct contract with the service provider.

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah. We are confirming that it's $4.6 million for children under six and that it is $9 million for children over six.

Hon. C. Clark: We work through a contractual agreement with the family, and we started in June 2001.

J. Kwan: How is the money administered? Is it through the interim authority?

J. Kwan: Is this the same as or similar to the individualized funding proposal that the government has been trying to implement?

J. Kwan: What accountability measures has the government put in place with respect to these contracts?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, there's an agreement, a contractual arrangement, we make with every parent. They're obligated to provide quarterly expense reports and a final financial reconciliation within 60 days of the agreement ending.

J. Kwan: According to the information that I have, parents get cash. They are also responsible for recruiting, hiring, firing, scheduling therapists — not to mention obtaining criminal record checks, checking qualifications, ensuring liability insurance is in place, complying with the rules for workers compensation, employment insurance, income tax, Canada pension and paying any taxes due. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: That's largely correct. However, if parents need some help, we're prepared to provide that through social workers.

J. Kwan: What kind of reports? Are they monthly reports? Quarterly reports? How often do they report to the ministry?

J. Kwan: So how does it work, then, once a person is contracted with the ministry to do this work? What would a parent with autism do once they had secured their funding? How does it work in terms of the process?

Hon. C. Clark: A parent would look at an approved list of contractors that we had provided, which we make, and choose from amongst that list. That list will include professional qualifications, so the parent can make a match with the needs of their children. These are not parents with autism, by the way; these are parents of children with autism. What they do is put together the plan, and we provide them with assistance in putting together that plan, if that's what they would like to do.

It is really important, I think, to stress at this moment that parents of children with autism…. Not all of them, but there has been a very, very active vocal part of that community that has been working toward more individualized funding for a long time. Their view is that they know better what will work for their children than anybody else does. In many, many cases they are absolutely correct, so our government policy is working to recognize that and to provide them with the flexibility they need to be able to design programs that meet the needs of their children.

Every child is unique. Every child has different needs. That's true of typical children, and it's certainly true of children with autism.

J. Kwan: So is the dollar figure for each contract, then, based on the need of each child assessed?

Hon. C. Clark: No. As I said, it's the flat amount we've already talked about.

J. Kwan: That poses a bit of a problem — doesn't it? — because autism is a spectrum disorder, and children with autism can have very different needs, depending on that particular child. Yet the dollar figure for each child in terms of these supports in the community is not based on that need. So much for the minister's claim that they are actually providing services to children based on their need.

Is there any monitoring system for ensuring that the funds are spent in the best way possible for each child? Aside from the reports, what monitoring procedures are in place?

Hon. C. Clark: I think we can probably just jump to the member's point here, instead of going through this whole song and dance that she wants to go through. I think, really, the point of her question and where she's going with this is to make some kind of accusation that providing this direct funding means that some of this money is being misused by parents. I think that's really quite an appalling allegation to make.

We have no evidence that's happening. The parents that are receiving the money are using it to the best purposes of their children, as far as we know. The member can stand up and throw those kind of allegations around — I know she likes to do that — but I certainly recognize and respect the real commitment that parents who enter into individualized funding arrangements are prepared to make on behalf of their children. I think it's incumbent on the member to show that same level of respect as well.

J. Kwan: You know, there is no end to how this minister will actually try to play politics with issues. I'm asking questions, and they're straight-up questions in terms of the government's accountability in the programs which she provides and delivers to the community and the needs that are required in the broader community. She just actually went on record to say that for children with autism, there is no analysis in terms of the basis of what the needs are, and therefore the dollar figures that would be required to provide for the services and support for families in this area….

I asked the minister a basic question around monitoring systems, in terms of what monitoring systems are in place to ensure that, in fact, the funds are spent in the best way. What options exist for parents who are not able to run their own home-based autism treatment program? What happens with them?

These are all legitimate questions, Mr. Chair. For the minister to all of a sudden just decide to attack the questioner is shocking indeed. I'll give the minister another chance to actually answer the questions.

J. Kwan: No, she hasn't. But I know this is the procedure that I have to operate in, in this House. I can't make the minister answer the questions, and she consistently refuses to answer questions. That's how she operates, and there's nothing I can do about that.

It's most unfortunate, because it's the public who also wish to know the answers to these questions. In fact, I have a letter here from an individual in the community who is a parent of a child with Asperger's syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder. The person wanted to raise these issues with the government. The individual actually wanted the government to keep both child and adult services for those with autism spectrum disorder as a separate service and not to roll them into the new Interim Authority for Community Living B.C. program. In fact, the reasons why the individual wanted that are severalfold.

They also want the government to stop that legislation around this issue, stop the potential cuts to the adult autism services and stop the movement of autism funding and governance into the community living sector, where the funding will not be protected for specialized services required by those with autism. They want to stop any blending of autism funding at all levels, but keep autism funding for children and youth separate from autism funding for adults. In addition, they also want an evaluation for possible restructuring of autism programs to be considered. They think that is prudent at this time, and they're asking for existing programs to be maintained until a comprehensive evaluation process involving all stakeholders is carried out.

I know the minister likes to claim that it's the opposition who's trying to fearmonger in some way or criticize parents who are trying to do this incredibly difficult job, but it's parents, also, who are looking at what the government is doing with these programs who are raising concerns. These are parents of children with autism. They are saying these things, and I'm relating these concerns to the minister. She shouldn't just simply cast aside….

The Chair: Member, could you pose that question to the minister, and we'll see if we get an answer.

J. Kwan: Well, yes. Let me just finish in terms of the e-mail that I've received from this individual. The minister shouldn't just cast aside these concerns as though somehow they are not valid and just make some cheap political point that she thinks she's somehow scoring. It's not scoring points with the parents with these concerns. They expect answers from the minister.

J. Kwan: I put the question to the minister. Let me just ask the minister again for the answers for the questions that I asked her earlier.

Hon. C. Clark: I've answered all those questions quite a number of times. I do think, though, that the

member should really just cut to the chase. I think the only reason, certainly, she's raising questions about whether or not we audit and regularly check on whether parents are using the money appropriately for individualized funding is because she's prepared to suggest that this money isn't being used appropriately. If she has some other reason for wondering why or how often we check up on parents and see whether or not they're spending their money appropriately…. If it's not out of a concern that they're somehow misspending it, I wonder what the source of that concern is. Perhaps it might help me answer her questions if she would just basically cut to the chase and ask what it is she wants to know.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister the question. I actually put the question point-blank to her, which she refuses to answer. She seems to claim that somehow every time I ask a question, it's as though there's some sort of political agenda behind it. No. There aren't political agendas behind it. These are legitimate questions that the community wishes to know the answers to, which the opposition should be holding the government to account on. Given the misspending and mismanagement of the entire Doug Walls scandal, it is no wonder that these questions on accountability should be asked of the minister to see how they're dealing with these issues.

I just read off an e-mail from a concerned parent about the government's decisions, actions and policies around autism and the programs which the government delivers. They have concerns with the government's approach to that.

These are all legitimate questions. For the minister not to answer the question and then somehow to attack the opposition for asking…. It's, well, beyond belief.

The Chair: If we can continue with…. The minister has indicated she's answered the question. I trust the member has a new question for the minister. Can we have that question now, please.

J. Kwan: Well, you know, the minister has not answered the questions. Why should I be surprised? It is her practice, and it is how she always does things in this House — not providing information to members of the public.

I asked the minister another question, which she basically just ignored. The question is: what options exist for parents who are not able to run their own home autism treatment program? What options are available to them? I've asked this question twice now of the minister, which she just ignored.

Hon. C. Clark: The programs for under six, I've already mentioned a whole number of times to the member. I guess I'll repeat that for her if she thinks it needs to be repeated; otherwise I'm avoiding the question. We also provide supports for parents of children over six who have autism spectrum disorder, and we provide those supports for parents who can't manage under an individualized funding model to make sure that they are also able to avail their children of the services that they need.

Hon. C. Clark: March 31 is the date that those will be due, so after we get to that date, we'll have a chance to have a specific number for it.

Hon. C. Clark: We haven't done an assessment of that. We won't do that until after the deadline is passed.

J. Kwan: The information that I've received shows that only about 30 percent of the families have filed to date. The minister claims that she doesn't know that information, and once again, I think it just goes to show how out of touch the minister is on these issues. Basically, she actually knows very little, or if she knows the information, she certainly is not prepared to share it with members of the public. So much for openness and accountability.

Hon. C. Clark: Twenty for over six and six for under six. I gave the member that number.

I can only assume that the reason she's pursuing this line of questioning about whether or not these things are filed is that she questions whether or not parents are using that money legitimately or not. I, quite frankly, think it's unfair to cast aspersions on all of those parents who invest so much of their time, energy and love in their children, to suggest that somehow there's some wrongdoing there. I know that's where the member is going with her questions, and I have to say that I just fundamentally disagree with her. I think it's wrong to cast aspersions on those parents, and I think her line of questioning, quite frankly, would be offensive to many of those parents, based on that very concern.

J. Kwan: It's interesting, you know. I ask questions of the minister, questions that have been put on record, and she won't answer them. Now she's creating questions in her own head that she thinks I'm asking and then providing answers to questions I have not asked. Isn't that just wonderful? If people were listening to this debate and listening to the answers from the minister, they'd think we're in Alice in Wonderland or something, because the minister is just having a conversation by herself, with herself, irrespective of what is being asked of her in this Legislature.

The Chair: Member, the minister indicated she's answered your question. She's completed that line of questioning, so if you'd like to move on, please do so.

J. Kwan: I'm going to put the question to the minister in exactly the context that I would like to put them to the minister, but not in the fashion which the minister is creating for herself — and creating answers for herself with these fabricated questions.

The crunch is on, and 30 percent or so of the families have filed a report and about 60 percent or 70 percent have not. We'll wait and see in terms of what the net result would be with respect to that. The minister says that the amount of dollars paid to the families is a flat rate. There is no assessment of the needs of the children in terms of what those needs are.

As I have mentioned, autism is a spectrum disorder, which means that some kids are perhaps higher functioning than others. Some may need less treatment or support; others may need more treatment or supports. To assign a dollar figure amount per child, of course, is ridiculous in the way in which this government is doing. One child, as I said, might need much more treatment than others. Another might need perhaps $60,000 for another program, called the Lovaas program. How does this program meet the specific needs of the different children, then, if the rate for the families is a fixed rate and there's no assessment and evaluation in terms of the children's basic needs?

Hon. C. Clark: If you want to do an intensive program, you need money in that order of magnitude. This is a new program. We're continuing to assess it and make sure that it's working as well as it can. There will probably, I'm sure, be changes to try and improve it over time. It's quite a revolutionary change for British Columbia, though. It's a new program, and it's something we should all be very, very proud of.

I'm sure there will be ways that we can improve it, but the move to individualized funding is something that has been tremendously important to parents of children with autism. It means they're able to have a great deal more choice in the kinds of services that they provide or that are provided for their children.

J. Kwan: The minister claims there are places where parents of autistic children can go to get government services to support children with autism. Could the minister provide the centres to which parents could go to get these services? Exactly what services are available from the ministry for these programs which parents are trying to access? What is the wait-list for these programs?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't send them to a place in particular. I didn't say that. What we do is provide support from community living services in designing a plan. That's because not every parent has the interest or ability or time or whatever necessary as every other parent to do these kinds of things. We support parents where they want it and where they need it. We provide behavioral psychology support and those kinds of things as well.

J. Kwan: The minister says they only do an evaluation and do a plan in terms of what the children's services might be, but they don't provide the services from the ministry. What centres across the province provide for support to children with these kinds of special needs?

Hon. C. Clark: Things like child development centres, Gateway, those kinds of things. I think the member has the briefing notes, so she should be able to find this information for herself, if that's what she chooses to do.

J. Kwan: The centres that provide these services to children and families with autism — how many kids do they serve annually, let's say?

J. Kwan: Is there a wait-list at any point in time for these centres in terms of families with children with autism who are trying to access this service?

J. Kwan: How many centres are there across the province? The minister named two centres. How many centres are there across the province?

Hon. C. Clark: There are at least 30 CDCs across the province. In addition to that, there are many, many other agencies that provide service.

J. Kwan: The province, as I understand, has a one-stop-shopping autism centre — in fact, has a number of centres in that regard — where parents can take their kids for government-paid services. Let me just stop there. Is that not true?

J. Kwan: Is it not the case that the one for Delta only provides services for 75 kids?

Hon. C. Clark: That's a very expensive way to provide the program. The member is quite right. It's not a

huge number of kids. We are looking at ways to make sure that we provide services better in communities across the province so that people from Fort St. John don't have to come to Delta or down to the lower mainland to try and get the service they need for their children.

J. Kwan: For the families with children with autism who need these services and can't get into the centre because it only provides for 75 children…. In terms of the services, what happens to these families who need services?

Hon. C. Clark: That's why we have the range of programs that I've taken quite a bit of time this evening to describe to the member.

J. Kwan: Is the minister claiming that the range of programs the minister has described provides for all the needs of the families and children with autism? Can she actually make a guarantee on that?

Hon. C. Clark: No. I think the member, in her previous incarnation in government, wouldn't have been able to make that guarantee either. We're always working to try and provide as much service and as high quality of service to as many people as possible. The challenge is that there is sometimes a greater need than there are available resources, or sometimes there's need in places where there aren't resources. We're always faced with that challenge, but we're certainly doing our best, and I think a move to an individualized funding model is something that's been widely applauded by parents across the province.

J. Kwan: The minister says that the previous government didn't provide for better services for families and children with autism. The minister claims she's doing a better job. The minister claims they are providing for the needs when in fact they are not, and that's the issue.

Let me just tell the minister where I was going with respect to the contracts I was talking about. I happen to understand that the reports are lengthy and difficult for some families to fulfil, particularly for those who have English as a second language who might have limited capacity to do those kinds of things. There is a deadline looming. People who have taken on these contracts might not have actually read the fine print in the contract about what their obligations are to file these quarterly reports, and so on and so forth.

These families, of course, are under enormous stress, and the government is not recognizing the needs of each of the children on the basis of need. The government is not recognizing that, because the rate which families are given on these contracts is a flat rate. It's a flat rate, and there's no consideration taken of the demands of the children who have these special needs. In fact, it was put out as an example in this area, where expenditures are supposed to be based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist….

For the families, if they have to make a choice about trying to purchase these special services for their children versus putting food on the table…. Which would you choose, if it were your child? These are some of the things that families are grappling with, and those are some of the concerns the community has raised with the opposition with respect to that.

According to the Autism Society of British Columbia…. The president, Michael Lewis, says that 20 years ago an estimated one in 10,000 children was autistic. Then it was one in 1,000. Now it's about one in 250 and increasing all the time.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "Oh, it's all my fault." No, these are the facts. These are the facts as it is going on in terms of the demands in the community. Those are the realities that we must face — that the government must face. What is the minister's fault is whether or not she provides the support that she claims she is providing to these families and these children. That is the issue here around accountability for the government.

The facts we cannot dispute. We cannot dispute that in the area around the provincially centralized, one-stop-shopping autism centre in the lower mainland, as an example, it only provides for 75 kids in total in terms of access to these services paid for by the government. There are many people who could not access that, and to get services elsewhere is hugely expensive, which the government does not recognize. It does not recognize the individual needs around that front. These are the concerns that we do have. These are the concerns that parents have with this government around that.

The minister says there is a whole host of services that are being provided for kids with autism and for families with autism. I would like to receive that list. The minister says she doesn't have it here, but I would like to receive that from the ministry so that we know where she claims these services could be provided in terms of the province-paid services. The one-stop-shopping centres across the province — where are they, and how many kids are accessing those services now? Then, in addition to that, those families who could not…. What is the wait-list in trying to get into these services across the province, if there is a wait list? Then the organizations or community groups or elsewhere, which the minister claims provide services for families and children because they can't get into these government-paid services — where are these services located, and how much do they cost, the different kinds of programs which they provide?

Hon. C. Clark: I certainly recognize that it is a huge challenge for parents of children with autism to make sure they have the services in place that their kids need. In some communities there just are not even service providers, much less funding. There aren't even

service providers there to provide those services because there is such a shortage of skilled people in those fields.

J. Kwan: I put the question to the minister to request the information, and the minister has not answered the question.

Actually, I would like a clarification before I move on to the FTE questions that I started last week as well. The minister actually said earlier the grants that were provided to the various organizations that she's put on record….

I've now been able to at least get a quick Hansard — a draft Hansard, if you will — on this information. I must thank Hansard for the wonderful work they do, because they do provide incredibly important information not just for members of this House but for the public as well. They were very quick in producing this information, because I couldn't possibly write down the long list of groups that the minister had named and the amount of dollars they had received under this grant program.

Having this record before me, it actually shows a total of $164 million that the minister had named. It is not clear to me, in her answer, whether or not some or all of these grants fall under the Victoria Foundation, or what foundation they do fall under. I would like the minister to clarify that information on the list that she's put forward, which totals $164.5 million. Are they being administered, then, through the Victoria Foundation?

Hon. C. Clark: No, the numbers are incorrect; $39 million is administered by the Victoria Foundation.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I was just being informed by the Clerk of the House about some procedural issues relating to today's proceedings, so I missed the minister's answer.

Hon. C. Clark: I said that $39 million is being administered by the Victoria Foundation.

J. Kwan: What's the umbrella organization that administers the other grants, then? What organization does it fall under?

Hon. C. Clark: As I read into the record already: the Queen Alexandra Foundation, the McCreary Youth Foundation, and then there's a list of others which I read into the record.

J. Kwan: It isn't clear, in terms of the information that the minister provides. Here, according to Hansard, is what she said: "Victoria Foundation, $39 million — that is, the institutional legacy trust fund, $2 million; aboriginal strategic investments trust funds, $9 million; adoption and permanency trust fund, $3 million; youth education assistance fund, $3 million," etc.

Then she goes on to say $20 million for the Queen Alexandra Foundation, and then $5 million; aboriginal strategic investment fund, $1 million, etc. Then it goes on in terms of a list of dollars given to various groups.

Then the minister says: United Way of the Lower Mainland, the ECD partnership, Success by 6, $10 million — and then Canuck Place. Then it has smaller amounts under that. It isn't clear, in the way in which the minister provided this answer, which are the umbrella organizations. Are there only two umbrella organizations — the Victoria Foundation and the Queen Alexandra Foundation? Then United Way? Are these the only umbrella organizations that administer these funds?

Hon. C. Clark: The umbrella groups, if this will help the member in her read-through, are the Victoria Foundation and the Queen Alexandra Foundation. Under Victoria Foundation, I went through a list, so she will have a list of six things underneath that, starting with the institutional legacy trust fund and ending with the Community Living Restructuring Fund. Then the Queen Alexandra Foundation starts with aboriginal strategic investments and West Shore accommodation partnership as subtitles. McCreary Youth has two things under it, and then there was a list of, I think, about 16 others that are individual organizations.

J. Kwan: We'll try to break it down and see whether or not the numbers add up on that, because the way in which the minister put the information on record, it appears as though it's $164 million in total. But the minister says that isn't so, that it's about $98 million. Therefore, the subheadings under each of the categories on the foundation funds might have been added twice, based on the information that was provided to the minister, and it wasn't clear in terms of what she actually said.

Okay. I would like to then get back to the FTE questions that I was asking the minister last week. Well, actually, I was asking the minister questions around cuts to the regions. It would appear to me that the cuts to the regions show that there are disproportionate cuts to the regions. For example, according to the information that I have, the cuts to Vancouver Island's funding are in the amount of $22.2 million, or 18.2 percent, over four years from the year '02-03 to '06-07. The Fraser region's budget, however, is only being cut 8.4 percent over the same period of time, down by $16.4 million, as

one example. The Vancouver coastal is another example. They were cut by $20.5 million, a reduction of 14.2 percent. The interior was cut $20 million, down by 16 percent. The north was cut by $8.3 million, down by 10.2 percent. On that basis there are disproportionate cuts to the different regions. Why?

Hon. C. Clark: I pointed out to the member, I think, a couple of times — actually, many, many times — throughout this debate that the savings we're getting are from the fewer children in care, which means that there's lower demand and that there are also savings on the FTE side. The fact that there are fewer children in care varies from region to region, so that impacts the budget. In addition to that, the savings in cost for staff will vary as well, depending on the rate of unionization across the sector. In various organizations, various agencies, there are different levels of unionization. Of course, the savings that are found through the collective agreement — and that's half of the total reductions for this year — will vary from region to region based on the unionization and the rate of unionization across those regions.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister says that the budget cuts are necessitated because of a reduction in caseload. The information that I've received from front-line workers indicates otherwise. They indicate otherwise.

Let me be very specific about this. How have caseload levels per social worker changed as a result of the layoffs that have resulted in the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member could restate the question. It's not that we weren't listening; it's just that I didn't quite understand. Perhaps she could give us a little more clarity around it.

J. Kwan: How have caseload levels per social worker changed as a result of the layoffs in the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've talked about a couple of times during these debates, there's a workload indicator that the ministry uses to measure what the workload is for social workers across the province, and that was something that was created by the previous NDP government. We haven't changed that.

In fact, if you look at that…. I mean, it's a calculation of the amount of time a social worker has — it's much more complicated than this — versus the amount of demand on that social worker's time from factors like children in care. Because the number of children in care has been dropping and demand for services has been dropping, the workload indicator has told us it has actually improved over this period of time. It doesn't mean it's the case for every single social worker in every office, but certainly on average we are seeing improvement in that.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister says, "Don't worry" — basically that caseloads are set on the basis of formula — and she's saying that the budget reductions are required in the ministry because of caseload reduction in the community. Is the minister saying that on Vancouver Island, as an example, the 18 percent reduction in the budget is the result of an 18 percent reduction of children in care?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I'm not saying that. I've never said that. It's a combination of things like the community youth justice contracts. In addition to the number of children in care, it's compensation changes, as I've mentioned a number of times. That's a big portion of the savings that we're finding. It will vary from region to region depending on the mix of the services that are provided and the mix of the needs that are in those local communities. That's why we see a variance between regions, as I said in my previous answer.

J. Kwan: Well, then let's go through it region by region. What is the caseload reduction for each of the regions, exactly?

Hon. C. Clark: It is an incredibly complicated picture to determine the workload indicator, as I've said, so that's a very complicated formula. It takes into account a whole huge number of different factors, but I can give her one example.

The number of children in care — and this is month to month — in the interior is down by 7.3 percent; the Fraser, down by 1.4; Vancouver coastal, 8.8; Vancouver Island, 6.5; northern, 2.7. So it varies district to district, region to region, and that's a month-to-month comparison. We track it very closely.

Again, it would be simple-minded to draw a conclusion based on just the number of children in care about the amount of workload that social workers are carrying, because we just simply…. The workload indicator doesn't work that way. It's a very complicated formula, so there are many, many more factors that go into it than that. But this is one of the factors, and I hope that by illustrating this, the member has a sense of some of the changes that we track on a month-to-month basis.

J. Kwan: That's precisely the point the front-line workers are saying. The government is actually reducing the number of front-line workers in far greater numbers than the caseload reduction that is actually taking place.

J. Kwan: The minister shouts: "No." Well, case in point: on Vancouver Island we have an 18 percent reduction in budgets and 18 percent in budget reduction. Yet in the Vancouver Island information that I've received, the caseload reduction for children in care is more in the realm of 6 percent, as an example. The budget cuts are far deeper than what the caseload reduction actually reflects, and those are the issues that front-line workers themselves have raised with this

minister and with the opposition, in terms of their concerns with what's going on within the ministry and therefore the impacts for families and children across the province.

The B.C. Association of Social Workers has taken issue with the suggestion that the number of claims of child abuse and neglect reports to the ministry has fallen in 2001 from 100 per day to an average of 85 per day in 2003. They point out that what has actually changed is the way in which reports are now recorded. Many reports no longer are classified as investigations, but now rather are labelled as "assessed further." What is the criterion for a report being classified as "assessed further"?

Hon. C. Clark: We are the data source that the Association of Social Workers would be using, so I don't know how that information would be different from ours. Certainly, the numbers that I put on the record throughout the 16 hours of debate that we've had are correct. The number of FTE reductions on Vancouver Island is not 18 percent; it is 10.5 percent. Provincewide, the number of children in care has gone down by 15 percent overall, so you can certainly see some correlation there, and you certainly see the indicators moving in a positive direction. It doesn't mean life is perfect. It certainly doesn't mean every social worker is having exactly the same experience, but it does mean that in gross numbers, we are actually seeing some improvement in those indicators.

The Chair: Members, pursuant to standing order 25, a decision was deferred until 8:30 this evening on Motion 1 under the private members' motions. It's now 8:30, and the committee must rise and report out, so I would look for a motion from a member.

J. Kwan: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, just before the Chairmen report out, I'm going to ring the division bells to call the members to the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are voting on private members' Motion No. 1, which reads as follows: "Be it resolved that this House recognizes the tremendous potential of the oil and natural gas sector in British Columbia and supports exploring all opportunities to expand this sector."

Hon. C. Clark: I call the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: I was asking the minister questions on the change criteria for investigations. Prior to the procedures in the House that changed…. I didn't actually catch the minister's answer on the criteria for a report being classified as assessed further. I would like the minister to put that on the record again. Prior to the vote…. I'm sorry. I missed that answer.

Hon. C. Clark: You know, prior to the member dashing out to try and avoid the vote and equally true for the opposition leader, who was over in estimates across the hall and decided to not show up for the vote on something incredibly important for the northwest of British Columbia….

The minister is completely out of order. She is not actually supposed to reference who is in the House and who is not in the House, and she just violated that rule and the practice of this House.

The Chair: The member is correct. It's not in order to mention the absence of a member.

Hon. C. Clark: I take that back. I'm sure that anyone who wants to refer to these issues can go look at the vote. It was a standing division. They'll be able to…

The minister broke the rule once again, ignoring the orders of this House, the orders of this Chair. Is she challenging the Chair in her approach? Maybe members and people in this chamber think it is funny. It isn't. Mr. Chair, I would like to get your guidance on this issue, please.

The Chair: Member, I have the point. It is not appropriate to talk about members' absences in the House.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, I certainly apologize to you and to any members of the House if I have offended any rules in this respect. Yes, I apologize for that. I certainly didn't want to offend any members. I know the member in her strict observance of the rules of this House and the protocols in this chamber would be certainly personally quite offended…

Hon. C. Clark: …and has expressed that in the most profound way she can muster.

Hon. C. Clark: In answer to the question she raised about the data for how we collect the numbers of child protection complaints, I don't know what data she refers to from that, but as far as I understand the only data that exists is the data that the ministry collects. The information that she's provided on that is not correct.

J. Kwan: Just to put this information on the record, there are two opposition members in this Legislature. We've been engaging in debate with the ministry since two o'clock in terms of question period and then following debate in both Houses. Then we had about a half-hour break for dinner. Mr. Chair, both my colleague and myself have been on our feet since that time. Actually, it is true. I took an opportunity also to — well, quite frankly — use the bathroom, if I may.

The Chair: Member, I believe we've covered the point of order. Can we please continue with estimates. The point of order has been covered.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, in terms of my ability to actually continue to work around the clock. That's what opposition members have to do, given that there are only two members in the House, and I fully accept those responsibilities, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Member, I believe we've well covered it. Continue with the debate of estimates and put forward a question to the minister, please.

J. Kwan: I would like to ask the minister the question…. The minister says…. Actually, she didn't answer the question.

Assessed further — is she now saying, then, there is no such thing within the ministry? When they deal with complaints coming in or how reports are to be dealt with, is there no such thing as the term "assessed further" within the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: We do track the number of protection reports that are made in the ministry. We are diligent about that because it indicates levels of workload, and it tells us something about the external environment the ministry is working in. That's very important information to have. In answer to the member's question, no.

What I did say is I'm not sure what the source of her information is. If she could perhaps tell me without…. Obviously, I don't want her to violate any sources, but if she could perhaps tell me on what her information is based, I might be able to help answer some of her questions more usefully. In fact, I would be delighted to do that.

I'm always delighted to engage in a debate. I'm always delighted to let my position be known on issues. I hope this member finds herself in a position where she is more willing to let people know what her views are on particular issues. It's not just offshore oil and gas that people are interested in her views on. It's her position on things like the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Where does she stand with respect to issues like funding for autism? Where does she stand with respect to issues like making sure services are delivered in communities by communities, that vision for community governance? I'm sure she must have positions on some of those issues, and I'd advise her not to wait until the election to let British Columbians know.

The Chair: Minister, can we keep it to the estimates at hand. I believe the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a question for you.

She wants to know where the source came from. It came from the B.C. Association of Social Workers. They are particularly concerned with how this government is approaching the issues around claims of child abuse and neglect in the community. In fact, they have the information — these are front-line workers — that the ministry has the numbers that claims of child abuse and neglect reports have fallen from 100 per day in 2001 to an average of 85 per day in 2003. That is be-

cause the government has actually changed the classification of the requirements for investigations.

I'm canvassing these questions with the minister. If there is no such thing as assessed further as a category for evaluation, what are the categories for the ministry to investigate claims of child abuse or neglect reports?

Hon. C. Clark: The categories…. It hasn't changed significantly, so I don't know. I think that's what the member is trying to assert here. Maybe we can cut to the chase and get to her actual question, which I think is…. She is making an accusation that the ministry has somehow changed the way we categorize these things so that the numbers will go down. That's just simply not correct. It's not accurate information. I think it is important for the public, at least, to recognize…. Although I know that this member doesn't see it in her own political interests to recognize these things, it is important to recognize that the information this member has put on the floor of the House is not accurate.

J. Kwan: So the minister is saying that the Association of Social Workers is wrong in terms of their understanding of the different categories. The minister says that there has been no change in the categories for investigation. For the record, what are the categories for investigation, and what are the criteria that are attached for each of the categories?

Hon. C. Clark: Investigative report; family development response; investigation after family development response; further assessment required; offer support services; no further action; refer to community agency; forward to section 16 worker; determine need support services; offer special needs day care; return to parent in B.C.; return to parent out of B.C.; determine eligibility for at home; and not coded.

J. Kwan: Under what circumstances are claims of neglect or child abuse investigated?

Hon. C. Clark: If there is any reason to believe that a child is in need of…. If there is investigation needed and a child is in need of protection, we investigate.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. She said if there is an investigation needed, then we'll do an investigation. I asked the minister the question on the criteria to determine when an investigation is needed. Is there a set of policies which social workers apply in trying to assess the situation?

It's no answer to say: "Oh well, you know, when children are in need of protection and need to be taken into care, and so when an investigation is needed, they investigate." What kind of answer is that, Mr. Chair? That is no answer at all.

What are the criteria for determination of an investigation of claims of child abuse and neglect?

Hon. C. Clark: Section 13 of the act makes this definition for the member. If she wants to refer to the statute, if she doesn't believe me, she can go check the statute. There are many available in the chamber.

They provide for investigation, they provide for referral, and they provide for us to provide support services. Our professional social workers, who have a wealth of experience and a wealth of training, use their judgment to determine whether or not children are in need of protection. When children are in need of protection, that's when we start an investigation.

J. Kwan: Under the other categories for which reports have to be made, could the minister advise…? Since 2001, under those other categories that the minister had listed, how many reports have been made under those different categories?

Hon. C. Clark: Reports aren't made under those categories that I described to the member. The question the member asked me was what the categories for ministry action are, and that's what I gave her. Reports come in, and then there are a number of different actions the ministry takes. That's the list I described to her. I can't give her year-over-year numbers in that kind of detail right offhand. It's a long list of possible actions that the ministry could take.

Certainly, the member can rest assured that when a child is in need of protection, the ministry investigates and takes appropriate action. We have seen some very positive indicators in the field, and I think that really speaks to the fact that social workers are diligent, professional and hard-working. The changing culture in the ministry since our government took over, versus the way the NDP managed it, has meant that social workers are able to use the broad range of skills they've been trained to use to try and protect children, to try and support families, to try and make sure families work.

Her government had a completely different response to that, and frankly, it didn't respect the very, very important training and wisdom that social workers bring to the field. We have made a very big cultural change in the ministry in allowing them to use that range of skills they have, and I think there are big payoffs in that for kids.

J. Kwan: Unfortunately, the people who are front-line workers completely disagree with the minister's point of view around that. In fact, the Association of Social Workers has just sent the minister a letter condemning the actions of this government with respect to how they're handling the cuts and how, in fact, they are making these cuts that impact very negatively on children and families across British Columbia.

The minister says that she doesn't have the information at hand with respect to how many reports have been made under the different categories. Well, we'll be back at estimates debate tomorrow, and we'll be asking further questions of the minister in this area, of course, and other areas as well.

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General today. I would begin by introducing members of my staff. I'm going to give you three of them, and the rest of them will cycle through depending on the issue — whether it's the Insurance Corporation of B.C., B.C. Lottery or other issues.

First of all, I'd like to begin introducing the members of my staff: acting Deputy Solicitor General Tony Heemskerk to my left; assistant deputy, management services, Jim Crone; and resource planning analyst Peter Taylor. As well, I have ADM Gary Martin; the director of police services, Kevin Begg; and numerous ancillary people at the back of the room to guide me through this process — which, as the member opposite knows, can be an interesting exercise.

The portfolio covers a broad range of public safety programs and services such as law enforcement, corrections, crime prevention, victim services, liquor and gaming regulation, consumer protection, and emergency preparedness and response. It's our key priority of the last year to further our commitment to making our community safe, which is always an ongoing challenge for any government or any community, as vagaries and different challenges within crime and other issues are always a challenge within any culture.

Emergency response. For example, this past summer, as the members opposite know, we evacuated over 40,000 people during a very difficult season in the province. We have moved forward with the recommendations of the Filmon report, which we have taken forward to put in place for next year. As we've gone through that emergency side, we've had to deal with different things from floods to fires to avalanches. We've actually created now, in cooperation with our partners, a national avalanche centre, which never existed before — and those sorts of things.

As we move forward, the challenges within our province will be all levels of crime, from organized crime right down to street-level issues with regard to crime, issues in and around property crime and issues that communities are concerned about.

With policing, we are obviously trying to modernize and create an integrated, modern policing structure with a plan that will work long term for British Columbians. In trying to accomplish that, we have done a number of things with regard to policing in B.C. In July 2002 we amalgamated the Esquimalt and Victoria police departments. In the upper Fraser Valley of the lower mainland, the RCMP operations were integrated in Chilliwack, Hope, Agassiz and Boston Bar, basically to create the upper Fraser Valley area force. The results of those types of things have proved to be less duplication, reduced operating costs and an increased integration of specialized services.

Recently we have been looking at public feedback with regard to other integration initiatives across the province. We're very proud, frankly, that we are the only jurisdiction we can find anywhere that will actually have a real-time information management system for policing, called PRIME in British Columbia — which really comes out of the leadership of law enforcement in British Columbia and the cooperative relationship with the federal force, and the provincial force as well.

There are a number of concerns in and around this area. I know there are a number of members that will have questions with regard to everything from property crime to auto theft to the graduated licensing program to street racing and other issues with regard to the ministry. I'm sure there'll be questions with regard to impaired driving and alcohol issues as we go forward, enhancement of road safety and enforcement, crime prevention and other support for victims of

crime, along with issues in and around our provincial jails, consumer protection, liquor and other issues with regard to the ministry.

Our mandate focuses on public safety. While many factors influence that and challenge the ministry's ability to carry out its mandate, we are moving forward. We are finding opportunities to take new and innovative approaches using technology, integrated services and efficiencies. I'm proud of our accomplishments. The ministry is in a strong position to build on its past successes and to continue to implement a strong long-term plan for policing and community protection in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: By happenstance, by previous scheduling, my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I had a meeting scheduled with the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers chapter in the lower mainland. We spent well over an hour with them, and we promised that we would raise this series of questions and issues that they have. They also told us that they had met with other Liberal MLAs in the lower mainland and had raised these same matters with them as well.

Let me just review some of the issues they brought up with us. The first issue that they talked to us about was having a more streamlined policing process for dealing with people suspected of driving while drinking. They presented us with two forms — Mr. Chair, this is all new to me, so I actually have the forms here — that the police in British Columbia need to fill out, which are substantial. They have been informed by the police that an experienced police officer can take four hours to fill out the paperwork necessary and that an inexperienced or new police officer can take up to eight hours to fill out the paperwork necessary to proceed with charging a person who may have been driving drunk. Of course, they also note that in British Columbia the police are not allowed to charge people, but I believe that is a standard across all…. Crown counsel does charges for everything, not just drunk driving, so it's a difference between other jurisdictions and us across the issue of pressing charges.

They noted, though, in late 1999 — I think it was December, at the end of the year in 1999 — there was a form introduced in Alberta. It's the Alberta administrative licence suspension program. Yes, it was introduced in December of 1999 in Alberta. It has been touted as a much more effective way of getting the paperwork done in a legitimate, balanced, fair and expeditious way that can lead to charges. Can the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a couple of questions there. First of all, the member is right. In British Columbia charge approval is done through the Crown with regard to these types of offences. It has certainly been a concern of law enforcement and of this ministry for some time. We've actually brought it up with the Attorney General with regard to the possibility of restoring some form of charge approval to the police at the summary conviction level, which is Criminal Code offences that are summary convictions. What's required — as the member is aware, having looked at the form…. It's a fairly complex process. The law enforcement community hasn't come to us, actually, and said they have a problem with the form. They haven't come to us, and neither has the traffic safety committee of the B.C. chiefs, in discussing this with staff.

There is a frustration with regard to impaired driving at a number of levels. One is that the charge approval process requires, at the front end, an excessive amount of information to be prepared. It's like you are preparing to go to trial all the time rather than laying a charge and then seeing what your plea is and what your process is next. In other jurisdictions a basic court process like you were describing with Alberta would take place. Then it would go forward. Once it got into the courts, if a trial date was set, then a further detailed court brief would be done. We do more of that at the front end because of the charge approval process in B.C. Our estimations are that the average, including the four hours the member refers to, is about eight hours of police officer's time for each impaired driver. It takes up about 25 percent, I believe it is, of the provincial court time in trials, with regard to impaired driving. There seems to be a process in B.C. where we have more of these contested, with regard to trial time.

We would like to see that streamlined. We'll certainly look at the Alberta model that the member is mentioning and make sure that we have it. I'll make sure my staff do. I have the same concern, frankly — that we need to streamline the process with regard to charges for impaired driving.

We have the paper out there, at the same time, as far as the impaired driving review is concerned. The number of options are out there being discussed. We've received input from MADD with regard to that as well. We hope to have those recommendations ready later this year.

Can the minister please tell us: what is the difference between not how people are charged in Alberta versus here but the process that…? After charges occur, what is available to the government, to the police and to the courts in terms of convicting or removing the licence of a person who has been driving drunk?

Hon. R. Coleman: On a Criminal Code offence it's the same anywhere in Canada. It's just the process as to how the charges go through. In Alberta they could do the more simple process and go directly to charge without having to go through a Crown charge approval process. In B.C. they go through a charge approval process which requires more detail, more information, etc. We do find our jurisdiction seems to have, anecdotally…. I mean, it's not anything more than anecdotal, but we seem to have more not-guilty

pleas with regard to impaired driving. We seem to be a bit more litigious with regard to the issues in the courts in British Columbia. That may be different than other jurisdictions, but that's sort of anecdotal. We've heard of it, but I don't think there has actually been a study to do the comparison.

The challenge with it is, of course, the time of the police officer and the success at the other end. Other jurisdictions have looked at a provincial offence. They have a different offence somewhere between the Criminal Code charge of impaired driving and a provincial offence. That is part of the impaired driving review, but it is not necessarily supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, unless we're looking at a lower, .05-type of charge.

We've made some changes in the past year with regard to what we had available to us. We now have given power to the superintendent of motor vehicles to do an administrative suspension of up to 90 days for somebody that's had two 24-hour suspensions in a 24-month period. We haven't really had the impact of that to see how that is going to basically be dealt with. With impaired driving, it is the loss of the licence and the availability to use the licence to go to and from work or whatever, which is not available under the Criminal Code in any way whatsoever, that seems to be what brings us to a more litigious level with regard to these being challenged in court.

J. MacPhail: The Solicitor General makes a good point — that the Criminal Code is the Criminal Code across Canada. It's these administrative actions that various jurisdictions are taking to deal with people who are impaired and how to keep them off the road.

I'd like to read this into the record and ask the minister for his reply. Well, let me start by asking: is the minister saying that currently, administrative suspensions of licences up to three months are in effect here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. For two 24-hour suspensions in a two-year period, the superintendent has the ability to have an administrative prohibition for up to 90 days. There are other prohibitions, obviously, within the act with regard to points and what have you. That's the provincial side. We don't have, today, a provincial offence.

The member also may be referring to other administrative prohibitions that we're looking at — for instance, the Interlock thing, where the courts could order somebody to have a device in their car that they have to blow in before the car would start and that they have to pay for as part of their penalties. Certainly, we're looking at that. We also think there's a value to looking at adding counselling into our package in British Columbia, like some jurisdictions have. We're trying to find the practices across the country where we can improve on how we deal with impaired driving.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's why I'm exploring these. This is about 15 months after the promises were made by the government. In January of 2003 there was a whole series of promises made, and it sure didn't seem that the action was going to take this long.

Does the minister have any statistics on the imposition of these administrative penalties imposed — these new ones? What is it — two occurrences in two years? What are the stats, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll get the member those statistics. I don't have them in front of me. Maybe I'll tell the member why we went this way, so she'll understand. When I looked at impaired driving from an enforcement perspective, I looked at the fact that on an annual basis in British Columbia, there are about 45,000, 24-hour suspensions. So 45,000 people get 24-hour suspensions. I think there are somewhere around 7,000 impaired drivers, about 3,500 of whom are actually convicted or receive suspensions as a result of being charged with impaired driving.

My concern was that as we move through to look at how we might be able to improve how we deal with impaired driving, we move on things, as quickly as possible, that we could do immediately. What we could do immediately was give the ability to the superintendents to suspend for two 24-hour suspensions within a two-year period, and we've done that.

J. MacPhail: The minister said he'd get me the statistics? The minister's nodding yes.

Let me just read what's happening in Alberta. The Alberta administrative licence suspension became law in Alberta in December of 1999. This means that drivers charged with an alcohol-related offence will face an automatic suspension of their driving privileges, no conviction necessary — and, as I understand it, no previous history of charges either.

This is the latest information I got off the website of the transportation safety board of the government of Alberta. The Alberta administrative licence suspension program is an effective deterrent. In the first full year of operation Alberta law enforcement officers issued approximately 8,700 administrative licence suspension notices, and a further 8,900 were issued in 2002.

Then there's another question about how people appeal this. From December 1, 1999, through December 31, 2001, a total of 196 administrative licence suspension appeals were heard by the Alberta Transportation Safety Board. Of the 196 appeals heard, 44 percent, or 86, of the appeals were successful, and the licence was returned to the driver; 56 percent, or 110, of the appeals were dismissed. In the course of 8,700, only 196 were appealed, and 55 percent of those were unsuccessful.

Manitoba has this now. It's not often that I compliment Alberta, but it does seem to me that this is a pretty effective program. I'm not sure what else needs to be studied. As I understand it, it's a three-month suspension. It automatically imposes a minimum three-month suspension. If the alcohol-related offence results

I also understand that charges are over and above this suspension. What is it that we're studying? Why can't we just impose this model? I understand that Alberta learned about this model from Manitoba, which has had it in place very effectively for six years.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't appear to have here whether this is actually a charge that gets laid and brings an offence with it or whether it's just an automatic administrative penalty.

I would be surprised if they had the ability — well, they may have under provincial legislation out there — to have an administrative penalty with regard to somebody who's just picked up for being over…. I would imagine there has to be some burden of proof with regard to how you can suspend a licence. If somebody wishes to blow, etc.… I don't have that information in front of me.

I know we would like to get to where we have a provincial offence or an ability to do something different. It will require some legislation as part of the package that we're going through. All I can do at this point in time is undertake to the member that I'll make sure that the Alberta experience is taken into account here. I actually thought we had reviewed other jurisdictions as we came into this paper, but I don't have anybody here at the moment that can give me that answer. I'll get the answer for the member.

J. MacPhail: Let me just be clear — and I'm not a lawyer. Here's what it is. It's the Alberta administrative licence suspension program. It's aimed at keeping impaired drivers off Alberta roadways. It automatically imposes a minimum three-month suspension or disqualification on drivers who are charged with an alcohol-related offence. If the alcohol-related offence resulted in bodily harm or death, the term is increased to six months.

It does not require a conviction in order for the suspension to be imposed, and that's why they have the appeal system in place. As I said, the appeal system in place has resulted in very, very few challenges, and over half of those challenges have failed. That's what I'm referring to. I certainly hope that the government will look into this and investigate it. As I understand it, the charges proceed through the courts as well, but in the meantime, the person is suspended.

The other issue…. By the way, all of these are issues that Mothers Against Drunk Driving have asked us to raise with the minister, and the people that we met with, very dedicated volunteers, are of the chapter in the lower mainland, so their experience and anecdotes are from the lower mainland.

They were also very concerned about the lack of screening devices in police cars. They cited an example. Screening devices for impairment…. They didn't call them breathalysers, so I assume there's a term called "screening device" for alcohol-related suspicions. They told us that currently, if a police car stops a driver in south Burnaby and doesn't have a screening device, the officer has to wait for a car with a screening device to come to the scene. Since there are not enough police cars with the device — or very many at all — this causes delays in starting the paperwork.

Can the minister tell us whether that anecdote is based on fact? How many vehicles in the GVRD, for instance, have screening devices, and how are they allocated for use?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're talking about roadside screening devices. They were really redone three years ago and upgraded for use by police in British Columbia. They are available to the officers when they go out on patrol. I don't have the numbers that are available in the GVRD because each operation, whether it be city police or detachment, would actually purchase those as equipment for their police officers. We can endeavour to try and accumulate that information for the member.

We meet regularly with the safety committee, the traffic safety committee and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, and I meet regularly, as well, with the chiefs. I have not had that issue brought up to me as minister in the last three years by the police — that they're short of these, that there's a problem with them. I did know that we upgraded them because there is a calibration issue with regard to them and that sort of thing. That may be the issue that MADD is dealing with.

They also have a device that they would like to see us look at as we go through the impaired driving review, and that is a wand. Basically, that is not a device for blowing in relative to taking a sample, but it's a wand that gives them an indication that there is alcohol present when they approach a vehicle. That's one of the devices that would be reviewed as a result of this review.

We will find out whether police think they have a concern with a shortage of these devices. It hasn't been brought to our attention that they do.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have any idea how many devices are in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. It's not actually possible for me to necessarily have that number at my fingertips, simply because West Vancouver would have some, North Vancouver would have some, Vancouver would have some and the Chilliwack detachment would have some. The municipalities that pay for their policing, whether at 90 percent or 70 percent, would include that type of equipment as part of the budget of each individual department, which would be identified by local detachment commanders with regard to the equipment they would have for their police officers in each community. We don't take a provincial inventory of that, I believe, but I will find out.

J. MacPhail: What kind of process is in place with the Solicitor General coordinating with police forces across the province to improve tackling drunk drivers?

Hon. R. Coleman: In B.C. in policing, which has been the case for some time, there is the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, which meets a number of times during the year. Their executive meets regularly with the director of police services. They identify their issues and work with government with regard to policing issues.

In addition to that, there is a traffic safety committee of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, which is really your men and women in charge of traffic in different jurisdictions across the province, whether it be Prince George, Kamloops, the Okanagan or whatever. They also have a very large working group. As a group they identify issues. I've spoken to the group a number of times. They actually meet quarterly, and they have workshops and working groups on each of these issues to identify concerns and make recommendations. That's basically how that coordination takes place.

J. MacPhail: Are there minutes of this meeting? Do we get public reports? How does the public know what advances are being made in tackling drunk driving? Let's be clear. The government made huge promises in this area — huge, right from the Premier on down.

Hon. R. Coleman: I understand that minutes are taken, and they're circulated to the members and to the police services division. I don't know that we've ever had — to my knowledge, at least, or to the knowledge of my staff — a request for the specific minutes of specific meetings. I don't know why. There's nothing there, other than recommendations coming forward, that anybody would be concerned about. Obviously, I'll look at the availability of that information.

We are also moving towards our statistics improving, our data reporting improving and an annual traffic report being put together with regard to all the issues from impaired driving to speeding and that sort of thing.

When we went through the whole issue with regard to impaired driving last year — as I moved forward and did what could immediately be done, like the 24-hour suspension issue — we received a number of pieces of advice with regard to how Charter issues would be applied to different things we might try in B.C., even versus other provinces in Canada. That was, hence, the impaired driving paper, which has gone out for circulation. We're now working through what can be implemented this year. We're working through that with the Attorney General's office.

The issue in and around the police and their communication — that's the process they go through quarterly. They meet; they come back with issues. If there's a glaring issue that's brought to their attention with regard to something that needs to move quicker, they would identify it to the director of police services, who would then bring it to me. With something that needed to move, if it could possibly move on some issues…. Some of this is legislative, some of it's regulatory, and some of it is stuff that has to be dealt with by a change in policy.

J. MacPhail: The Mothers Against Drunk Drivers congratulated the government on enhancing the graduated licensing program, and I concur with that, even though it's not a popular matter. Well actually, it is a popular matter at home. It's fine, much to my surprise, but they raise another issue, and that is remedial training for convicted drunk drivers.

I recall exploring this issue at length through ICBC when I was in government and — we didn't have a Solicitor General there — the Attorney General. We were exploring very thoroughly a program of how remedial training for drunk drivers would be implemented. It was a very interesting debate that occurred between ICBC and the Attorney General — both public services very willing to proceed on this. What it really came down to was who pays for the remedial training.

This is a program where, when you're convicted of drunk driving, you have to go through some rehabilitation programs. In fact, I recall a private member's bill put forward by the opposition party — the Liberals, when they were in opposition — some time after 1996 where they proposed exactly this: that there be legislated, mandatory rehabilitative and remedial driver training for those who were convicted of drunk driving — and yet, nothing has happened. What's the status of that promise made by the government?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of issues in and around this. First of all, a few months ago MADD, the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, were very concerned that we were…. A story came out that we were decriminalizing impaired driving in British Columbia because we had in the discussion paper the notion of a possible provincial offence with a lesser, .05 level that would be a provincial offence and would allow us to issue an offence ticket with a fine and an immediate suspension with regard to that.

There's some concern in that body with regard to whether that should be allowed, because the Criminal Code has obviously a more stringent offence of impaired driving. We frankly have recognized that we're not doing particularly well with that, with the number of convictions and the number of charges with regard to it, so provincial offence seems to…. Other jurisdictions had some advantage with regard to actually charging more people. There is some opposition on both sides of the fence as to whether there should be a provincial offence. That's part of this process.

Remedial training, treatment and counselling. We think that a repeat offender should have…. Again, somebody has to order — probably the courts — the remedial training as part of the penalty. If it's part of the penalty, who pays is always a question. We think the user should pay, but there is always some debate around that. All of that is being considered. We're actually presently in talks with the Ministry of Health with regard to how we could have remedial treatment and counselling, frankly, for these folks who have the regular, repeat offender who's obviously got an addiction problem that needs to be addressed.

Having said that, I'm still concerned as the minister about the gap between the impaired driving Criminal Code offence and the 45,000, 24-hour suspensions. I would like to see us close that gap somehow, either with a provincial offence or some way we could actually streamline the process so we could move quicker and more efficiently on the other people that are in between the two, because that is a huge gap when you think about that versus the other. Then, when you look at the stats of how many people you actually check and you find on a 24-hour suspension or on impaired driving versus the number of cars on the road, there's still a grave concern about how many people are on the road that have alcohol in their system.

J. MacPhail: When is the Solicitor General going to have a program in place for rehabilitative, remedial driver training for convicted drunk drivers?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working on it. We're hoping that we'll have legislation in the House this fall — because legislation will be required to do this in B.C. — and move on that as soon thereafter as the legislation comes into the House.

Hon. R. Coleman: Most jurisdictions, as I understand, have something like this in place. The challenge is basically…. We're the only province without a compulsory rehabilitation program. Our challenge is to make sure we have an offence and buy-in from our courts and prosecution to actually make the rehabilitation take place as a result of the impaired driving.

J. MacPhail: I am always perplexed at how people say: "Oh, British Columbia is such a unique place because of our justice system, our judiciary." That's given as a reason all the time. What possible reason would there be to allow that to prevail over just insisting that the government at least do its bit by putting in a compulsory rehabilitation program, as this government promised when they were in opposition, and letting the judiciary at least have the tool available to it?

The corollary question is: is the minister committing that in the fall legislative sitting he will be legislating a mandatory rehabilitation program for convicted drunk drivers?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working on it. You know, this is the first comprehensive review of impaired driving in British Columbia since CounterAttack came into place in 1978. We have actually, as soon as we could, moved on certain things. We can get immediate suspensions, 24-hour suspensions two times in a two-year period. That was a big step forward to move on, as quickly as we possibly could. We took the paper out. We've taken it out for discussion. We've taken the input. Now we're working on the legislative and regulatory changes needed to make these things happen and give those tools to the court.

I realize that this sort of anecdotal thing gets said from time to time with regard to the courts in B.C. That's not what's holding up the process. It's that we need to make sure we have legislation that will work, legislation that has all the different tools in it that we've put into the discussion paper to make it work. We're trying to expedite it as quickly as possible, given the legislative calendar and drafting, and all those other aspects, as well as moving forward with what can be accomplished. I believe we will see a number of changes with regard to impaired driving in addition to what we've already done in this fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: My last question was: is he committing to legislation in the fall that will mandate a compulsory rehabilitation program for drunk drivers?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows I can't commit what might happen at cabinet. I can make this commitment. I intend to bring it forward and move it down the pipeline to try and get it accomplished this year.

J. MacPhail: All right. Well, I know from my long-since-fading experience that a lot of that work had been done — a lot of it. We were literally at the stage where we were discussing who pays for the program.

It was an interesting debate. ICBC said, rightly so, that drunk drivers should be paying — I think I've got these roles right — for the rehabilitation program themselves. Then others in government, including the Attorney General…. I must admit I was sympathetic to the other side, that there should be some role for government to pay for the program, particularly for those who could ill afford the program but desperately needed it — we never questioned the mandatory nature of the program — and who may not have the full resources available. We talked about loans….

Anyway, it's not like this work has not been done. What is the current status of CounterAttack? The minister brought it up. What is the current status of CounterAttack funding in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: CounterAttack is still ongoing in British Columbia. There's still a relationship, and the advertising is still ongoing.

There is a big difference, though. The shift is taking place shortly, and that is this. CounterAttack in B.C. used to be funded this way: a police department would receive money from ICBC, or ICBC would pay for police officers to go out and do CounterAttack on their days off or evenings. They would be paid time and a half to do that job, whether it be in the RCMP jurisdiction or in the municipal jurisdiction. As minister, I identified that as a concern, along with members of senior management of police who said they were seeing too much time being spent by police officers on their days off, which was actually having some effect on their regular duties in some jurisdictions.

We entered into a memorandum of understanding with ICBC last fall that sees the money that's being spent on road safety measures and CounterAttack moved into the ministry. We can now take the money and pay for an integrated traffic unit and integrated officers across the jurisdictions to enhance our visibility on CounterAttack and also on all other traffic issues. By doing that, we accomplish a couple of things. Even if we use an officer that's seconded in from Vancouver or whatever as part of the integrated unit — or whether it's RCMP — we actually pay 70-cent dollars for those officers because we have an agreement with the federal government on the provincial force. We're actually getting better use of the money and better visibility of policing, because we'll add additional police officers.

CounterAttack will not drop off. It'll actually still be there, and people may see more of it as a result of the integrated traffic unit and the application of those funds being spent better. CounterAttack exists; it's continuing to exist. The advertising relationship which is part of this package, which is with ICBC, will also continue as part of the package, as far as saying, "Your local police are out checking," etc.

J. MacPhail: Roadblocks are still part of the package, as I understand it. The minister is nodding yes. So how many…? I mean, I've noticed myself that there are far fewer roadblocks. My own personal experience is that there are far fewer roadblocks in Vancouver. In 2002 versus 2003, what was the change in roadblocks — both the occurrence and the effectiveness of them?

Hon. R. Coleman: In 2002-03 there was no change. What they do with them seasonally with regard to CounterAttack is…. They've always targeted different times of the year — like the Christmas season, what have you — where they enhance the number of roadblocks. That hasn't changed. What will change, though, is that I think you'll see more roadblocks with regard to a year-round effort now that we're actually applying additional police officers on the street.

J. MacPhail: Sorry; is the minister saying that there were as many roadblocks in 2003 as in 2002? How about in 2001?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member identifies the issue. The same amount of money was spent on CounterAttack, CounterAttack, CounterAttack — in each of those years. It goes to the police departments, and they apply those funds.

For me, there was some concern about how we would actually measure the success of those and target the dollars and numbers — hence, the new relationship with regard to that funding. That continued as normal, or as it had been going on, through to the end of last year and even into the beginning of this year. As we move forward with the integrated unit, we intend to see funds flowing for the same thing — CounterAttack — but, in addition to that, also a higher level and higher visibility of policing on the streets with regard to overall traffic enforcement — period.

J. MacPhail: Well, the reason why Mothers Against Drunk Drivers raised this issue with me and my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was that they used to attend roadblocks with the police, and they no longer do — or very infrequently. So it was they who raised the issue; it was they who had determined they'd noticed a substantial change.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's a local relationship between each department and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, if they set that relationship up. It's not something that we arrange or mandate from this ministry.

J. MacPhail: I want to turn to the Purssell report, which was in the media earlier this month but also resurfaced today. It's in the media again today.

Let me just, for the record, describe this Purssell report. It was a study led by Dr. Roy Purssell. He's the head of the emergency department at Vancouver General Hospital. He looked at 619 patients who had a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit for impaired driving. The medical team led by Dr. Purssell reviewed trauma registry records from six B.C. hospitals between January 1, 1992, and March 31, 2000, identifying impaired drivers who were hospitalized for crash-related injuries. Those patients were then linked with two Insurance Corporation of B.C. databases.

The study found that the mean age for injured drinking drivers in B.C. was 34 years old, almost 80 percent were male, and the average hospital stay was 14 days. But they then reported, as I understand, that while injured patients in B.C. routinely had their blood tested for medical reasons, police are hampered by complex, time-consuming regulations that require patient consent or court order to see blood evidence.

Eventually, the study led to the conclusion that 41 percent of these people admitted were not convicted of any Criminal Code offence despite the fact that police had identified alcohol as the contributing factor in 70 percent of the cases. The study, published this month in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, found that only 11 percent of intoxicated drivers admitted to B.C. hospitals for crash-related injuries were convicted of impaired driving.

I'm wondering whether the minister has anything to learn from this. It seems like an invaluable study. The minister has no partisan obligation to defend this study, so let me just reassure him of that. I'm wondering what the next steps are from this study.

Hon. R. Coleman: I've read the information with regard to the study as well, and it concerns me. It concerned me but, frankly, did not necessarily surprise me, because even back many years ago — and I'm talking about a long time ago, before I was ever involved

We have the ability to compel a breath sample or give a demand for a breath sample under law. If you refuse a breath sample, then there's a different charge under the Criminal Code for refusing to give a breath sample. The challenge with this is that there have been a number of defences with regard to rules of evidence and what have you and with regard to the ability to take blood versus the ability to take a breath sample from people who have been injured in accidents. There are a number of case laws out there where people have had a head injury or a bump during the accident. They go in and give permission for a blood sample and afterwards say: "I did not understand at the time" — because of shock or whatever the case may be — "the reason for the sample."

It is an identified problem for us. The inspector in charge of traffic for the RCMP in British Columbia has started a process to enhance the training of officers in the traffic and on the patrol side of the province with regard to rules of evidence and how we can improve that procedure. The doctor is correct. It is a problem with regard to impaired driving and accidents that has existed. Part of it is that the taking of a blood sample is considered, as I understand it, a lot more intrusive than taking a breath sample.

As a result of that, there are some other rules that apply that make it more difficult to achieve the purposes you would with regard to the level of intoxication of the person who has been involved in the accident. Oftentimes the physical evidence of the person who's observed at a hospital after an accident is difficult, because the physical evidence that somebody might say is intoxication could also be related back to shock and other issues with regard to an accident. That's an evidentiary challenge for police.

Then there's also the situation that occurs with regard to continuity of the evidence, which is the fact of the matter that you need to have some continuity of when the person left the vehicle, when the blood sample was taken, whose custody they were in, who observed them and whether they had the opportunity to drink any alcohol post-accident, which can also become an issue with regard to these.

This is a big challenge with regard to impaired driving. I know we're improving training for our officers with regard to it. How we can get to where the blood sample could be more easily accessed with regard to injury and accidents — I don't think any jurisdiction has been able to come up with a solution to that as yet.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister talk about any of these issues on a pan-Canadian basis with his colleagues?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we do, actually. On these types of issues, as these reports come up, we would often have some discussion between justice ministers, either through the annual meetings that we have or at a deputy level. In addition to that, the law enforcement community across the country also addresses them and tries to bring forward ideas with regard to it.

I wish I could give the member an answer to this one and say: "Gee, there's a way to go fix this." I don't like the fact that people who are drinking and involved in accidents actually have a lesser conviction rate than those people who aren't, but we are bound by certain rules of evidence and access to the evidence and the continuity of evidence with regard to how we prepare a case.

I would welcome anybody that could give me a better solution to it — including the medical profession, if they feel they would be in a position that they could somehow include samples that would be available for evidence for this type of thing. I think there's some concern, even on the practice of doctors, with regard to whether blood they've taken with regard to other tests for the hospital could actually be given to police for the purposes of checking for the alcohol content.

I wish had an answer for you, but I honestly don't. It's a concern. The report wasn't a dramatic surprise. Anybody that's been in law enforcement would know that that's one of the most difficult portions of the evidence with regard to impaired driving and automobile accidents.

J. MacPhail: One article that's describing this report…. I will quote from it. It was a Vancouver Sun article, March 11, 2004.

Can the minister expand on what sorts of issues could be challengeable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given that the police do have the ability to take these samples under section 254 of the Criminal Code?

Hon. R. Coleman: The section's there, but the application of it is the frustration. You come to a car accident where there's been alcohol involved. An individual is injured, put in an ambulance and taken to the hospital. Does the police officer stay with the person from the time they get in the ambulance and go to the hospital? Do they take care of the rest of the accident scene? What do they investigate? What's the manpower requirement? That's where the whole continuity comes into it.

Then there's the aspect about how long ago the accident was. Was any alcohol consumed after the accident by the individual, which has often been used as a defence within the courts? Then, frankly, the sample has to be taken in a proper manner. It's not something a police officer can take out and take a sample at the

scene. There's always been concern about somebody taking samples who is not qualified to take samples at any accident scene with regard to how shock can affect an accident victim and all that.

It is a challenge. It's going to continue to be a challenge, and we need to find ways to deal with it in our strategies if we can. At the same time, she mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that is true. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to taking blood is probably a lot different from how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is applied by the courts with regard to taking breath samples.

Police are out there trying to operate within the envelope of what they're allowed to do with regard to evidence collection; the ability to have continuity of a particular suspect; whether or not the diminished capacity as a result of a motor vehicle accident is such that when they make a demand for blood and the individual says yes, will the courts accept that, even though they'll make that demand? Oftentimes that is found to not be the case since the person maybe had a slight concussion or was in shock.

There's no pat answer for this one. It's something we'll continue to work on with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the law enforcement community and jurisdictions across the country.

J. MacPhail: Under the graduated licensing program, the driver is restricted in who his or her passengers can be. Is the passenger allowed to be drunk?

Hon. R. Coleman: It would depend. If it is in the learner stage, no. My understanding is that person is actually supposed to be there supervising the driver and to have some care and control of the automobile.

In the end stage, where there's a zero tolerance for alcohol, the driver needs to be sober, but we don't have any restrictions in there with regard to the passengers.

J. MacPhail: A parent who's drunk could call their kid to come and pick them up. Is that allowed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under the end stage, yes, but not under the learner stage unless they're supervised by an adult.

J. MacPhail: Is there any way of monitoring that? It does seem to me that either the graduated licensing system is there to say that a person isn't fully ready to drive until they've removed their "N" or not. Isn't it possible that an N-driver who has passenger restrictions…? There are still passenger restrictions on N-drivers, as I understand it. Why wouldn't the program insist that the passenger be sober?

Hon. R. Coleman: The graduated licence program, when we changed it last October, was changed to restrict the passenger load. As the member is aware, only one person could be a passenger in a vehicle unless they're members of immediate family. The reason for that is the peer pressure side. Statistically we know that if you put a number of passengers in a vehicle, with regard to peer pressure, the preponderance of accidents goes up dramatically.

As we went through the graduated licence process — the whole process, consultation, the document that went out and making the decisions with regard to it — I can't actually remember seeing any e-mail or letter addressed to me with regard to the recommendation that there be an alcohol restriction on the passengers of the vehicle.

I guess the reason for that was people felt at least when a person gets their "N", they have a driver's licence. It has certain restrictions on it. One passenger. It has restrictions with zero tolerance of alcohol and those sorts of things for that two-year period until they actually go get their final licence, but they do have a driver's licence. It was just not an issue that was brought forward.

We worked through this thing with groups of parents that had lost children with regard to car accidents. We worked through it statistically with ICBC, with community groups as we went through that consultation. We felt that we came up with a pretty good package. It's probably the toughest in Canada. Other jurisdictions are starting to follow what we've done. I think we actually did a pretty good job on the graduated licence program.

J. MacPhail: That issue was brought to my attention by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. Another issue that was brought to my attention by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers organization was a mandatory breath sample device connected to a car's ignition system that would allow convicted drunk drivers to start their cars only after providing a breath sample. Apparently they cost $1,000. Is the government giving any consideration to that?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's actually in the discussion paper. That's what I referred to earlier when I called it "interlock." The courts would be able to put that in place, and the person would have to blow in it in order to start their vehicle.

As with anything else, it is part of the solution. You need a continuum of the package, I think, as you deal with these different issues, whether it be impaired driving or other issues. It goes on the vehicle of the individual who has been charged with impaired driving and has a repeat offence. That is something that comes, obviously, after the suspension would be served, or it could be on the vehicle even while the suspension is served. The fact of the matter is it doesn't stop…. We don't have interlock devices in all the other vehicles to which the individual may have access — you know, son's, daughter's, whichever other vehicles the individual may have access to in their neighbourhood. But it is part of the solution, we think. It is part of the package that we're working on bringing forward.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's get to that package. Let's see. If the government introduces it in the fall of 2004,

that'll be 18 months after they made great promises, three and a half years after they were elected and months just before the next election. In fact, I would be surprised, if the legislation is passed in the fall, that anything will be in place by the next election.

I do want to refer to the consultation paper. The discussion paper is dated June 2003. I got it, but there was no news release. Was there a news release that I just missed or how did this paper get any publicity so that people could respond? Here's why my question is important. When the story broke at the end of January 2004 that the government was considering decriminalizing drunk driving as part of this discussion paper, people who were worried about that proposal found that the time for responding to the discussion paper had ended. Was there a news release? How was it distributed? What was the time frame for reply?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to check on the press release side of this. I do know that it went out, and to broad consultation, including…. We actually sent it to and had meetings with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. When that issue came up — I think it was in January — with regard to the decriminalization, I actually immediately phoned the president of MADD because of some comments they had made with regards to decriminalization. I explained what we were talking about, and they were more comfortable with it because it was the provincial offence, which is a decriminalized offence.

Let's be clear. If you went to .05 and you had an offence for .05 that said you would receive a charge on a ticket in the province with a fine and an immediate suspension of up to three months, for instance, that's decriminalizing that charge. It doesn't affect the Criminal Code charge, but there may be a different offence that could be in the middle there that would actually get more people off the road. I don't think that's not supported. I think the concern is that we move away completely from the criminalization side of impaired driving. Somehow we have to find the balance for better results. That's why that's considered.

There has not been a decision with regard to a provincial offence simply because of the controversy around it, but it does exist in other jurisdictions. They have used it to some of their advantage. There is some concern with some of our groups in B.C. that that is a decriminalization and, therefore, we shouldn't do it.

Certainly, this had a broad application. It was up on the website from June through to the end of the year as well. It was actually announced last June with regard to it. I believe there was a formal announcement on it, but I'll get the member the information.

J. MacPhail: It wasn't the Mothers Against Drunk Driving who said that there was no formal announcement or even a news release. It was the articles in The Tyee by Barb McLintock that I gleaned that from. It's those two articles. I'm sure the minister has seen them, because he's interviewed extensively in them.

It says in the articles by Ms. McLintock…. One is dated January 30, 2004, in The Tyee, entitled "Liberals May Soften Drunk Driving Law." Then there's a follow-up article of Monday, February 2, saying: "Liberals Back Away from Drunk Driving Changes." I'm just giving the minister the reference for my questions. Now, the article actually confirms that contained in the paper — and I read this — was a plan to make the Criminal Code offence of impaired driving, as the minister has described…. Well actually, is he saying…? The article says, "…replaced by a provincial offence under the Motor Vehicle Act," but is it my understanding that the minister is saying it would be in addition to the Criminal Code offence?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. The initial article, frankly, didn't get it right. There was a discussion between myself and the reporter with regard to a provincial offence versus a Criminal Code offence. She interpreted that to be a de facto decriminalization. We don't change the Criminal Code provincially, as the member knows. The impaired driving charge, which is there and exists under the Criminal Code, exists. This is the possibility of having an additional charge that may allow us to have the ability to process the people that are in that gap between the 24-hour suspension and impaired driving.

I have in front of me the June 10 release, "B.C. Proposes Tough New Drunk Driving Laws," for the member. I'll make it available to her. It was made on June 10, 2003.

Now, in this article by Barb McLintock, the Solicitor General said in answer to a question…. When the government was first considering decriminalizing drunk driving…. The Solicitor General said it was in 2002. Given that the minister is disputing that he said he was decriminalizing, fair enough, when did this plan start to percolate?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it's not a plan; it's an option. The option to possibly have a provincial offence came through looking at it across the country. I would say that 2002 is probably fair. In the fall of 2002 we started to look at issues that had come to us from the B.C. chiefs with regard to impaired driving. Our concern was…. At that time my concern was that gap between the number of 24-hour suspensions and the number of impaired drivers actually charged and convicted in B.C.

There was also an identified concern that came from the criminal justice branch, of course, that 25 percent of the Provincial Court time was being spent on impaired drivers. And why was that? It was something

that we should check and see why. Obviously, we're not getting the level of results that we particularly want if we have that many people out there driving in certain states of impairment.

We needed to move forward with strengthening our enforcement and encouraging how we could do that. We felt it was important, the Attorney General and I, that we look at all the options that are out there and consult with the groups that are familiar with this. We've done that. I think we'll be ready with the package this fall. I think that if there's something we could move on sooner as we move the package forward, we'll do that. We'd actually like to get as many of these things in place as possible that could work and would fit within our system of justice to make them work in B.C.

J. MacPhail: The minister referred to some statistics. Can he tell us what the statistics are for the number charged with drunk driving in 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Hon. R. Coleman: Going by memory — and I can get the exact statistics — I think it's basically been a flat line over that period of time — about 7,000 charges for impaired driving on an annual basis. About 50 percent of those were convicted or pled guilty with regard to impaired driving. It's right in that number. It's been relatively constant, if I recall, but I will get the actual statistics for the member.

J. MacPhail: Okay. There was a report that people charged with drunk driving in the first three months of 2003 were up 22 percent over the previous year, 2002, and the number of those who received 24-hour licence suspensions for being intoxicated jumped 18 percent during that period of time. It's the first three months of 2003 versus the first three months of 2002. I just wondered what that worked out to in an annual situation.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not sure we'd have the final crime stats for 2003 yet, but I'll try and get that comparison. I do have the stat that the number of impaired driving charges recommended by police decreased by 20 percent, from 8,738 to 6,932, between 1995 and 2001 and that during the same period of time 24-hour driving prohibitions increased by 13 percent, from 38,791 to 43,923. That's the stat I was concerned about — the drop in actual impaired driving charges recommended and, obviously, the increase the other way with regard to the 24-hour suspensions. That's what we're trying to address here.

J. MacPhail: The Solicitor General doesn't think that has anything to do with paperwork? He's assured of that? The 24-hour suspension paperwork is a heck of a lot less for the police than the paperwork required for laying a charge or turning over paperwork to the Crown to lay a charge.

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh no. I don't say that at all. I actually said earlier that I'd like to see some charge approval given back to the police on summary conviction offences, because I think some of the processes we have law enforcement tied up in with regard to these types of charges are onerous. As a result, time constraints on the officer on the street probably lead them to take a second choice, which is the 24-hour suspension versus, perhaps, proceeding with a charge.

I think we need to streamline that for police. I'm actually on the public record pretty regularly about charge approval for police, and I've asked the Attorney General to look at it. They are doing a process at their branch with regard to how we could look at charge approval for police on summary conviction–type offences under the Criminal Code. I think that's actually a very important aspect, a very important thing.

One of the unfortunate things was when charge approval was removed, and that's many, many years ago. The challenge now, of course, is that you actually have to take your entire law enforcement community and you have to train them up on charge approval if you start to give them summary conviction charge approval, because they haven't been making those decisions for, oh, a good 15 years or so now.

So you've had an entire culture come through that have not had the power of charge approval with regard to laying charges under the Criminal Code at any level. We need to get that training up as well now. The police are, frankly, ready to do that training and upgrade their skills if they can get charge approval, because they think it streamlines some of the criminal justice system for them and for the public and, obviously, for results.

J. MacPhail: The minister, I hope, is saying on record that he is not wanting to decriminalize drunk driving. He actually got reported that he was, and the reporters used his own words to justify making that assertion. Nevertheless, if he's saying that he's not decriminalizing drunk driving, great, except that the evidence….

A scenario could unfold like this. The number of arrests for drunk driving is on the rise, the charge approvals for drunk driving are on the decline, and all of a sudden this new procedure gets put in place that's theoretically not an alternative to Criminal Code charges for drunk driving but could be used as that.

What is the minister doing to ensure that not only is his new system of provincial offence under the Motor Vehicle Act proceeding but that's he's beefing up the ability of Crown counsel, police, doctors to lay charges of drunk driving under the Criminal Code and be successful in conviction?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's make it clear. I do not have any intention whatsoever of decriminaliz-

ing impaired driving. The discussion paper, however, has in it the possibility, for discussion, of a provincial offence for impaired driving, which would obviously be at a different level than the level of the Criminal Code charge. Some people might characterize that, because there's another option for charges, as decriminalizing the Criminal Code offence. That's what some jurisdictions across the country are doing now. They have a provincial offence, and they have a Criminal Code offence, so they have the two offences.

What the member was describing earlier with regard to some of the administrative penalties where charges get laid and then administrative penalties can step in is being dealt with in other jurisdictions. We have not made a decision with regard to that.

When the reporter asked me the question, he said: "Is this decriminalizing impaired driving?" I said: "No. The Criminal Code offence exists, because I can't change that. But if we made the decision to have a provincial offence, that wouldn't bring a criminal record with it, because we can't give a criminal record on a provincial offence."

Obviously that's not a Criminal Code offence, but it may actually catch within it some of the people — those 45,000 people — that are in roadside suspensions and that are not presently being processed or charged by police for any level of impairment. I want to strictly make it clear: we have not made that decision yet because it is controversial in discussion, and we are looking at the other jurisdictions as to how it's working there.

The fact of the matter is that we should understand one thing: we're not actually being particularly successful on convictions with regard to impaired driving in British Columbia. We need to have a better rate of charge and conviction. That means we have to look at how we do our business in such a way that we can improve the tools to police and perhaps get a better understanding of how to deal with the prosecutorial side of impaired driving in our criminal justice branch, which is not in this ministry.

I do believe that there are different…. I mean, we're not the only jurisdiction that's experiencing the Criminal Code aspect and conviction rate with regard to impaired driving, because of the case law and the issues in and around it.

J. MacPhail: Given that, what is our conviction rate for drunk driving in British Columbia compared to, let's say, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta?

Hon. R. Coleman: The different jurisdictions deal with this issue differently. I don't have the stats available, but I'll get them for the member. I can tell you this: 25 percent of all the trials scheduled in provincial court were for impaired driving; 34 percent of all impaired driving cases resulted in trial being scheduled or held, compared to 6 to 7 percent of other Criminal Code cases.

If you think about it, 34 percent of all charges of impaired driving resulted in a trial being scheduled for them, and only 6 to 7 percent of all other Criminal Code cases actually get scheduled for trial. The conviction rate, though, once we get them to trial, is 70 percent. Once we get that 34 percent that result in being tried, we get about a 70 percent conviction rate.

J. MacPhail: On what was the minister basing his comments that we don't have a very good record here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: For the member. For me, when I make that comment, it's this: if you have about 6,000 or 7,000 people that are charged with impaired driving and 50 percent of them actually get convicted or plead guilty, and we have a 70 percent rate…. There are only 34 percent of them that go to trial, but out of that we get a 70 percent conviction rate. So 30 percent of the people who go to trial are not convicted.

Then you have those who plead guilty — right? Then you have those charges that, either because of issues with regard to other portions of evidence or what have you, get to the charge approval process and don't proceed all the way through, get whatever decisions made by the courts and the Crown, which we have no control over…. Sometimes it's just delays. It's sort of a package. My concern is that we should be where we are in a position to streamline this process for police so that we could actually, frankly — if we catch more people — charge more people with impaired driving in B.C. and get them off the road.

J. MacPhail: Let's switch to the changes in the liquor laws that the minister brought in. Can he update us on the changes that have occurred there? I will be putting this not only in the context of the business but also the effect it's had on drunk driving.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know which specifics the member wants to discuss. I'll walk through them.

There were 19 different classes of licences when we became government. We changed that to two classes of licence: liquor primary and food primary. That recommendation and process had been going on for a few years prior to us becoming government and was continued through to its conclusion. There was a liquor review group through UBCM and the branch and government going back prior to us becoming government with regard to that.

We changed that. There was a change in April 2002, I believe it was, where we allowed spirits to be sold in cold beer and wine stores, which was a change with regard to those operations. We then made a number of changes. When we did the two licence classes, we allowed for a number of other changes to take place. That was all with regard to issues in and around the basic running of liquor. We've done trade practices changes to basically have the understanding of how trade practices are to be more understandable and

streamlined for not just the people in the business but the people trying to do the business as well.

There was a process that went on whereby it was thought that the liquor stores would close. The file was moved to me in June 2003, as far as the liquor distribution branch was concerned. We sat down and negotiated with the BCGEU with regard to the liquor stores. We came to an agreement with regard to how we would move forward with them relative to closing some, restructuring some, changing some in how the wages and benefits were structured with regard to that. That process has been ongoing. That agreement was also part of a larger agreement that also took place in a vote last fall with regard to the overall BCGEU, which I wasn't involved in.

We allowed some things to happen that different local governments had asked us to deal with. One of them was the extension of hours with regard to the opening hours for liquor establishments, liquor primaries in particular, where they wanted to go to a 4 a.m. opening. We didn't mandate that. What we did is in our regulatory change. We changed it so that a local government could make that decision if they wanted to. Whether they wanted to do it seasonally or whatever, it was entirely up to them in consultation with their community, if they wanted to extend the hours past the normal 2 a.m. openings.

The city of Vancouver, as the member is aware, has been doing this for some time. The local establishments have recently decided to reduce that to 3 a.m. because of some concerns about how people are behaving within the liquor establishments or in public. With regard to conversations with Vancouver, Vancouver can change that any time they wish, like any other community, because it's actually their call.

That being the package, at this point in time today there is a moratorium on any new, private liquor stores being allowed to be applied for or gotten in B.C. We did open up the window and received applications from people that wanted to put what we refer to as licensee retail stores, which we refer to as LRSs, with regard to beverage alcohol in communities. There are some communities that have put different restrictions locally with regard to geographic locators as to how close they have to be to each other. They can do that through their local zoning bylaws and that sort of thing.

In general, I guess that's the description. I'd be glad to answer…. If the member wants to get more specific, I'll pick out each one as we go through.

J. MacPhail: What I'm curious about is the shift, if any, that's occurred as a result of these changes. It's on that basis that I'll be asking questions.

What change has occurred in the sale of liquor on an institutional class basis since reducing the licences from 19 to two? Is there a shift in any way away from primary liquor institutions to primary food institutions in the sale of alcohol, not just liquor?

Hon. R. Coleman: There really hasn't been a significant shift in the number of liquor primaries versus the number of food primaries that are in the business of liquor. There is always a cycle with regard to businesses coming and going. The liquor primary industry has probably seen quite a change in the last ten years with regard to how, for instance, a neighbourhood pub used to be then versus how it is today. I think that it's a more difficult business for them and that they actually concentrate on some of the entertainment aspects and food more so than they did in the past. At least, that's the indication.

On the restaurant side, basically, there has been no spike in licences; let's put it that way. There's been no spike with regard to them. It's a fairly consistent process coming through the branch and the number of licences. Some restaurants go out of business; other ones go into business — that sort of thing.

J. MacPhail: Then, let me ask this: how much alcohol is being sold through government-owned liquor stores and private liquor stores?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll break it down for her this way. First of all, just so she understands, all liquor is actually sold by us. It goes through our hands, either through a bonded warehouse or through the distribution branch. When a licensed retail store does its business, oftentimes it has its shipment go to almost like a subdistributor, which we use our liquor stores for. It's one of the concerns we have with regard to how we can efficiently manage liquor.

I'll give her the numbers. I'll go back…. Maybe three years would be sufficient. The percentage of sales by government liquor stores at the retail level was 57.6 percent in 2000-01, 58.5 percent in 2001-02 and 56.4 percent in 2002-03. During the same period of time, the licensee retail stores — which are the LRSs, the private liquor stores — were 15.9 percent in 2000-01, 15.7 percent in 2001-02 and 18.2 percent in 2002-03. The 3 percent is probably related to the introduction of spirits in those stores.

At the same time, we also have what they call agency stores, which are mainly rural agency stores. They accounted for 4.2 percent in 2000 and 4.5 percent in 2002-03. There is presently a moratorium on rural agency stores. A new regime is being put into place with regard to distance criteria and some of the aspects with regard to making sure they are actually rural stores versus them showing up where they're not supposed to.

Then we have licensee sales, which are sales to restaurants, pubs and hotels. That's about 20.9 percent of the total sales of liquor in B.C., for total sales of 100 percent.

J. MacPhail: What training does the private liquor store sales staff have to have? I understand there's a program that the government–owned liquor store salespeople have to go through. Is that the same training that the private liquor store people go through?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are presently putting in place a new responsible beverage service program,

which the LRSs will have to participate in. Up until this point, they have not had any special training. They have just been a retailer with regard to the sale of alcohol at the retail level and have not had the same level of training we've had in the liquor stores. So we're actually implementing the responsible beverage service program in those stores.

J. MacPhail: Do I understand it to be a mandatory program? How will that be imposed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Number one, it will be mandatory. Number two, it will be along the lines of other programs like the FoodSafe program, where they'll have to have their certificate. We will do as we do…. With regard to that, our regular inspections will include the checking of the certificates to make sure the certificates are in place and the people have been properly trained.

J. MacPhail: Is liquor distribution still within the responsibility of the liquor distribution branch — the warehouses and all that?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two aspects of liquor. There is a liquor control and licensing side, which is where the licence classes are defined, the training — all of those things with regard to inspection and discipline in and around liquor. Then, there is the liquor distribution branch, which has the distribution centre and the liquor stores. All of their employees are under the liquor distribution branch. We call it the LDB, but it really is the 200-plus liquor stores and the LDB. Then, there is an interactive relationship on how we distribute alcohol by using those people with regard to sales to licensees and how we ship to them — the ability for them to have orders shipped from the liquor store or by actually having licensees come and pick up their orders.

It is a system that is actually under review. We're doing a look at the distribution now to see whether there are efficiencies for both sides with regard to it. But the distribution branch is still the distribution branch for the liquor stores.

J. MacPhail: I'll get to the liquor licensing in a moment. I want to just finish on the issue of municipalities and liquor licensing now.

The minister referred to one matter with the changes he introduced in terms of liquor policy and legislation. It was municipalities now that could determine the length of opening of bars, cabarets and all that. What other changes in approval regarding liquor have moved from the provincial level to the municipal level?

Hon. R. Coleman: The primary change would be that we require a local process with regard to a liquor primary. If a local government doesn't want to do that process, we will actually go do that process and charge the licensee, because we feel a local process is important.

If a liquor primary is denied by a local government, we don't overturn that decision. If they make a recommendation that it not be approved, we don't approve it.

For the LRSs, they're allowed to control where a licensed retail store can be by zoning. The occupant load in the past used to be designed by different licence classes, where you could have a pub licence category that had 69 and another one at 120 and this sort of thing. We moved all that to the local occupant-load building codes. Whatever capacity local government determined by their building code is the capacity of a facility, we bring the licensing capacity to that number on the licence that we issue to the proprietor.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask the minister whether this is a shift or not. In a letter a woman named Mary Freeman, who's the acting general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, wrote on November 10, 2003:

Hon. R. Coleman: The means of control is zoning. All we did was allow the shift to take place that the store could be in a different location within the same community. The zoning is the control for this. If there is no zoning in place that allows for a liquor store, whether it be government or private, to be on the property, then they don't get approval from local government and they don't get approval from us. The zoning is the means of control at the local level. If it's not zoned for that purpose, obviously, we don't issue a licence for that use.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but there are more opportunities for application for zoning consideration because the government has changed this rule. I make no judgment on the nature of the change, but it does seem to me that more applications can come before a municipal council regarding liquor licences. Was this discussed with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and what was their reply?

Hon. R. Coleman: What it is, is this: the municipalities asked that they have more input, and they'd like a tougher process for liquor primaries. Back when we

We've always said that the ownership of an LRS has to be tied to the ownership of a liquor primary. There's obviously been some argument and discussion, even among the public, both internally and externally, and to various governments as to whether you should go and say: "All right. You have the private liquor store, which is the licensed retail store. You have to go and apply for a licence separate from the one that's already been approved for the liquor primary."

Some people think that there should be a separate regime, that liquor primary is not tied to the liquor store, that we should just open it up and actually have the ability to apply for a private liquor store no matter who you are. We made the conscious decision — because we know the licensing regime with regard to liquor primary and we know the people who are involved and we know our screening process — that we wanted the people that are in the business in B.C. in liquor primary to be the ones that would be allowed the LRSs. Traditionally, the beer and wine store was an LRS.

The only difference was that there was some concern at some community levels that when you have a number of liquor establishments that would be liquor primary concentrated in a particular area, you could end up with a number of LRSs concentrated in a particular area. One of the things suggested to us was that we look at the ability for those stores to relocate within the community in a way — the controlling factor being that if it's not zoned for the use, you can't go there and we're not going to license it to go there. The control on that side was this.

Now, on allowing them to be separated from the liquor primary, at the latter stage, no, there was no consultation with UBCM. When we went through the first consultation, it was certainly something that was brought up to me as a minister, about the location of an LRS on the site of a liquor primary that might be better served if it was in a better parking location or a better-lit location within the neighbourhood. That's where it came from.

J. MacPhail: I just downloaded this from the ministry's website — "Liquor Control and Licensing." It's about applications for change or for a licensee retail store. I did a quick count. It's rough, but I think there are about 450 applications. The document says: "City/Town, Establishment, Street Address, Status." The status is blank throughout the entire website. You'd think that somebody would have the foresight to not put a big red flag like that and delete the status column if there's not going to be anything there. But who am I to suggest what gets people going crazy?

What's the role that municipalities have to play in these 450 applications? What is happening with these 450 applications?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were initially 525 applications. Like I said earlier, there's a moratorium on any applications now. The application process was closed at the end of November 2002. There were 525 applicants: 138 have been licensed; 241 are in preliminary approval stage, which means they haven't got a zoned site that they've been able to bring forward and meet the ability to get there; and 86 have an approval to construct. The remainder of those, out of the 525, which is about 60, have been terminated or withdrawn.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Anyway, I take it that the process is closed. Is there any…? No, never mind. That's fine.

In terms of changes that create greater responsibility for municipalities, we talked about the bar hours situation. I live in a city, Vancouver, where this has been quite an issue of discussion. What other municipalities and/or communities have changed bar opening hours and how?

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been five that have gone permanently to 4 a.m. and 13 that have gone to 3 a.m. I'll give some examples. Fruitvale has gone to 4 a.m. Dawson Creek has gone to 4 a.m. Prince George has gone to 3 a.m. across the board. Just so we're clear, in Fruitvale it's across the board to 4 a.m. Greenwood actually went to 2:30 a.m. across the board. The district of Kent has allowed for 3 a.m. closings on Friday and Saturday. The district of Stewart has gone to 3 a.m. Thompson-Nicola regional district has gone to 3 a.m. across the board. The city of Trail has gone to 3 a.m. I can actually make the detailed list available to the member, if she wishes.

J. MacPhail: I want to link two pieces of information. I think this may conclude this area of discussion for me, and one of my other colleagues will take a few moments to ask some questions. One is on the website for the Solicitor General — the liquor reform project. It says phase 1 is the phase that is now underway, and the Solicitor General has described that. Phase 2 is this: "The second phase of the project will implement the government's decisions on legislation, regulation, revenue collection, distribution, retailing and any other areas that may be impacted." I gather that it is the implementation stage. That's how it's described.

I also note that there's been an organization formed called ABLE B.C. It's the B.C. Liquor Licensees and Retailers Association, the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association and the B.C. Cabaret Owners Association. They announced that they've joined together to create a provincewide organization to represent liquor licensees. It will be known as the Alliance of Beverage Licensees, ABLE B.C. It's an alliance that was formed in response to the government's request for a single point of contact on issues facing liquor licensees.

I was pleased to see at the bottom of their news release…. No, I'm sorry. Partway through their news release it says: "In the coming year, ABLE B.C. will focus on working with government to develop and implement proactive and effective programs for re-

sponsible use of alcohol." This was released earlier this month. This organization's birth was announced on March 3 of this year, so it's timely. I'm pleased that those organizations are doing that, and it's timely because the government's phase 2 — for all intents and purposes, we've been led to believe — will start this fall — the legislation, etc.

I wonder if the Solicitor General can give us and the public some assurances that his ministry, in working with the industry, will also include the police and municipalities to ensure that responsible use of alcohol is the paramount goal — not the sale of liquor, not a fight between municipalities and the government about off-loading, but responsible use of alcohol is the paramount goal — and that the aim is to reduce drunk driving — and addiction, I would hope. Let's include addiction in that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that is the goal. I would also like to just sort of outline a little bit of history here, because having dealt with the liquor file in this province on the licensing side for two and a half years, you can appreciate that there are a number of what we would call interest groups with regard to alcohol in the province.

There were three organizations that would have gotten what we would have called a liquor primary licence — those being hotels, pubs or cabarets, for instance. All of them had organizations. Most of them had participants in both organizations or were a member of another organization. ABLE weren't told to make this happen, but I certainly, in my discussion over the last couple years, encouraged the people involved in the liquor primary business in B.C. to look at whether they could come together as one organization so that we could get some consistency of discipline, not just from their professional body but in the ability to deliver education programs, to deliver advertising programs that would assist us with regard to responsible beverage service, impaired driving, get-a-ride-home — all of those things which, frankly, tended to be sort of ad hoc depending on the organization, and it would be better off for the public to get it.

If you talk about issues with regard to enforcement related to minors — the public safety messages we want to get out there, the recent dry-grad initiatives we've been undertaking through the distribution branch — we want those to flow over into the private sector as well.

I think it's a good step. There's obviously more to be done, but the whole goal here is to reduce intoxication. When we started out this whole aspect to begin with, there were really three or four main goals we had. The main ones were service to minors; overconsumption; the illegal sale of liquor, which is liquor that wasn't coming through our system that was being sold into the system and was denying people, taxpayers and otherwise, and us from tracking the amount of alcohol that was being consumed; and the whole issue in and around impaired driving and intoxication.

The member is right. There are a number of issues in and around alcohol. If we took the other drugs that exist in society, like the other illegal drugs, and combined them with their social aspects and actually measured the social costs of alcohol to our society, we would find that alcohol is more than the rest of them combined — in auto accidents, injury, family disputes. All of those difficulties come from alcohol.

As we moved forward, we put in place a number of disciplines: two pieces of ID for people under the age of 25, and you have to ask for the ID. We want people under-age not to be drinking in our establishments, because we know that people who start drinking at a younger age actually have a higher degree of addiction problems later on with regard to alcoholism. They actually become addicted earlier and longer term, and they have a higher percentage of addiction.

All of those aspects are priorities for us. If we can get a professional relationship with ABLE…. We aren't going to loosen the laws on liquor, but if we can get the professional relationship on the education, responsible beverage advertising, the whole deal of issues with minors and overconsumption and all of that, along with our own discipline that we've put in place with regard to how we're checking on this all time, and if we can add a couple of changes….

One in particular I'd like to see government do, which I've asked that we put into the offer to see if we could get it done this year, is to actually have some value to the liquor ticket that is issued in the province. One of the things police have identified to us is that they can go into a bar in Vancouver or any other jurisdiction and can find a number of under-age people and can make them leave. They could actually give them a ticket. There is an issue with regard to the bar owner and how they could be dealt with — with a ticket or whatever.

The problem with liquor tickets is the percentage actually collected in B.C. is very low, because they're not tied to any discipline, whereas a driver's speeding ticket or a traffic violation in B.C. has about a 94 percent collection rate. I think the collection rate on liquor tickets is about 20 percent, and the difference is that it's not tied to anything. If you don't pay your traffic ticket, you will go get your driver's licence and before you're allowed to renew, you'll pay your tickets, or you'll pay your points. You don't do that in liquor. What happened is we have a discipline in and around that that says this ticket is a joke.

What we're looking at trying to do is tie that liquor ticket to the drivers' licences. They weren't able to get the discipline back in place, so when the ticket is issued to you by police, there are some meaningful results of the enforcement activity. That has been brought to our attention by law enforcement, and I'm working to accomplish that.

What we want to do in conjunction with the organization…. They actually tell us when there are certain issues they think can be improved on. If they are flowing that information to us here — police are flowing it to us here; local government is doing it to us here

— we can actually continue to enhance all our policies in and around liquor. Nobody is cut out of this process. The police are a very important aspect of the input with regard to the liquor issues in B.C. They've identified the that they'd maybe like to see us attach to that.

This isn't even actually a download, because local government did ask us to give them more opportunity with regard to their ability to have some disciplines — where bars are located and where liquor stores are located — in their community. We've given them that. At the same time, we've made it very clear that our licensing branch is going to back up those local communities in the issuances of licences where they don't want them.

I think the liquor reform project is still ongoing, because the next step is obviously how we retail and how we distribute. The branch and the employees of our stores have identified to us how we can improve our stores and those aspects with regard to it. We'll continue through this process in the ensuing months and deal with the liquor file, as I refer to it.

Our whole goal when we started this process was the increased focus on public safety with regard to the use of alcohol, and we'll continue with that being our main focus.

J. MacPhail: I would just like to say that my next topics of discussion, after my colleague asks some questions, will be the police complaint commissioner and the Frank Paul matter, and then gaming.

G. Halsey-Brandt: For the information of the Solicitor General, my questions will be a bit on the budget and then some around crime and policing in British Columbia. You may have covered off some of this. I was up at another meeting earlier, so forgive me.

I'd just like to say before I start, though, that I certainly appreciate the focus you've brought to the ministry. I think it was a good idea to split the Solicitor General and the Attorney General apart, and it has certainly given you the opportunity…. You've been out front, whether it was the fires last summer or dumptrucks, I think, on Thursday. Whatever the issue has been, it's been great to have you out there and responding on behalf of the government.

A couple of questions around the budget, and these are in the estimates book, pages 123 and 125. They're just global at this point — the corrections, the policing and community safety, and the Emergency Program Act. I notice there have been some reductions in those budgets, and sometimes it's in parts of those global budgets — the corrections at $174 million, the policing and community safety at $251 million, and the emergency program at $15 million. I wondered if you could spend a moment explaining those reductions, particularly when I look at the emergency program.

We had the Filmon report and others. Perhaps a response to that report may be under other ministries; I'm not sure — perhaps under Forests or something like that. Could the minister please comment on those budget reductions on those three areas of the ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: On the corrections side, we've actually done a restructuring of corrections in British Columbia over the past three years. We moved on it very quickly when I became minister. Our analysis was such that we had a number of correctional facilities that were operating anywhere between 30 percent and 37 percent, 38 percent capacity. Most of them were open custody operations where we weren't receiving from the court system the low-risk offender that would actually be incarcerated at that level, so we started to reorganize the corrections system.

We actually closed a number of those facilities and absorbed, in the front end, some costs as we did that. In addition to that we had a plan to close the B.C. correctional centre for women because we were in an unfavourable relationship on the cost of the federal prisoners we were also incarcerating. We went through a plan to actually move them to the Alouette correctional centre by revamping that centre and then moving where our remand would be taking place.

In addition to that, as a result of that restructuring, we saw some of our occupancy costs come down, and that's why you're now seeing decisions made in 2001 being reflective of the reduction of the costs of the corrections branch.

At the same time, we restructured our programs out into the community with regard to who was delivering them. We took some of them more in-house than we had external, and I think we actually came up with a more efficient system with regard to that.

On the policing and community safety branch, there are a number of things that affect that budget and the numbers. I can tell the member that the policing budget in British Columbia has gone up every year since we became government with regard to policing. There are some costs one year over the other that are different. For instance, we've taken the major cost of PRIME, already front-end loaded, and spent those dollars, and they're not required in the next fiscal year.

The next thing is that we have some savings with regard to small capital. We actually made some investment in small capital like cars and things like that up front. I think it was prudent, because we wanted to upgrade our small capital, and we don't have to do that now year over year.

There's another one that affects, and that is that in the past two years the even-handed investigation which is the missing women's task force investigation, dealing with not just the investigation in Port Coquitlam but other outcroppings of that investigation with regard to leads and DNA and that sort of thing. It is expected to actually go down in cost requirements by about $4.1 million next year over last year. Having said

that, what we've done now is actually put that cost into the global budget of the ministry rather than accessing contingencies. That will be used as part of the overall investigative capacity of government.

The policing side. In addition to that, what you don't see within the budget is an additional $13 million to $15 million that's coming in from ICBC for our integrated unit for traffic and the bait car program, which we've also enhanced from the ministry. That's why there are differences in those.

With regard to the Emergency Program Act, I believe your question was the $15 million. It's one of those votes that you basically try to risk-manage the dollars year over year. We know the fires cost us a certain amount, and we took those into last year's costs with regard to that. We were fortunately able to keep it within the forecast allowance of government. We actually stopped a program that we had before. It was a flood assistance program, where we would actually match dollars on diking with local government. That program ran out at the end of this last fiscal year, so that money isn't in there.

The other challenge, of course, is that we can have a flooding event that takes place in Fort St. John in August like we did in the middle of the fires last year, and by the time all the numbers are assessed and those come through, sometimes they flush over, fiscal year over fiscal year. What we do is try to risk-manage the numbers and maintain the operation of the emergency program. Sometimes we have to access other contingencies with regard to one-time events that may take place during the year.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Would that number, the $15.6 million, then be based more on, let's say, an average of ten years or something? Obviously, things will happen that you can't foresee, so you keep a budget in there that gives you maybe a five- or ten-year average so that you can have those funds. No one can budget for major catastrophes. We can go to contingencies for that, but at least it's based on some kind of historical record in terms of government expenditures.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the member is pretty close to being correct. The average cost of threshold events for the ten-year period from fiscal 1993 to 2002-03 was $9.2 million. The average cost including 2003-04 now jumps to $15.4 million. The costs are net costs to the province, that we have. It's net cost to us after recoveries from the federal government under the disaster financial assistance agreement.

What happens is that the first $4 million of a disaster are really ours. From there till about $20 million, it's a 50-50 split with the federal government. Once we go past $20 million, it's a 90-10 split where they pay 90 cents on the dollar; we pay 10 cents. That's how that number is calculated.

G. Halsey-Brandt: My next question is around the integrated crime unit. It was before, as we know, the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, and it dealt largely, I think, with gangs and organized crime groups. It's my understanding now that it's been changed into the integrated crime unit.

I guess I have two questions out of that. I'm not sure whether this is under the RCMP or if it is municipal detachments as well. Are they just from the lower mainland or from all around British Columbia? Who makes it up, and then who pays for it? That's the first question.

The second one is on the civilian oversight. Who determines the policy direction? The general direction provides a civilian oversight to the integrated crime unit.

Hon. R. Coleman: We pay for it either way. We had the Organized Crime Agency, which government paid for. It had a budget of $9.3 million a year, plus one year we actually gave it some additional funds for some other investigations that came out of the proceeds of crime.

The B.C. chiefs and the senior management of the RCMP basically came to us and said that an organized crime agency, with its own body, own civilian board, etc., really wasn't the model they felt would work long term to fight organized crime. They felt we should take it and create an integrated organized crime unit and bring it under the management of the RCMP with a board of people that would be chiefs of police and a CEO who is appointed through those chiefs, with regard to its operation and also with regard to having the direction so that it was coordinated.

It's a very good move for a number of reasons. The first one is that we pay 100-cent dollars for the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. If I move it under the provincial police force, I pay 70-cent dollars for the organized crime, for all of those officers. This basically finds us $4 million more that we'll leave in the budget to fight organized crime. The second aspect of it, though, is that on a national level we have a relationship with the outlaw motorcycle gang and the tracking of organized crime through our federal force, which is the RCMP. That intelligence is shared at the provincial force level.

Wherever anybody has integrated the organized crime unites into a unit under that umbrella, the sharing of intelligence has gone higher, and the effectiveness of the investigations has been improved. Although the Organized Crime Agency was having some very good success, law enforcement thought we could really enhance that success by making sure this was an integrated unit versus being just an agency.

The third aspect of this was, of course, the fact that it would allow us to have an integrated unit, and we'll second investigators from all law enforcement in British Columbia. Whether you are a municipal officer or an RCMP officer, you'll be allowed to be seconded into this integrated unit, just like we've done with the integrated homicide unit.

We know that's a very effective measure for a number of things. It raises the level of our whole

structures of intelligence and expertise with regard to organized crime. When some of those people do a two-year secondment and then go back to their own local departments or agencies, they actually bring a level of expertise that then flows down — a trickle-down effect — right through all police in British Columbia.

We also are very optimistic because this is an initiative that doesn't come from somebody in government making a recommendation. It actually comes from the law enforcement community, the leadership of policing in B.C., so it comes from the very people who are running these departments. They're saying to us: "We think this is the best model. We think it should be under the management of the RCMP. We think you get a better bang for your buck."

Frankly, at the end of the day, it allows us to not so much focus on, let's say, having a building and structure where it says: "There's the Organized Crime Agency." We actually get more into saying, "You know what? We could really use an organized crime unit of six or seven or eight people on the lower Island or up the central Island, because we have a Hell's Angels impact in Nanaimo," or whatever the case may be. We want to have a group of people concentrating on specific investigations, and we get more mobility this way. We believe we're getting a better intelligence structure.

All of those aspects together will allow the law enforcement community to do the job they need to do. It also allows us, obviously, with things like wiretaps and whatever, to have shared services so that we don't have duplication all over the place with regard to how we do investigations.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Just to clarify, when you say the organizational structure, I guess it's run by a CEO and the B.C. chiefs, so the B.C. chiefs are municipal force police chiefs and RCMP superintendents. Is that right?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to clarify, the number was $9.83 million for the organized crime agency, not $9.3 million.

Yes. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police is made up of people from the municipal departments and senior management and detachment commanders from across the province of B.C. in policing. It actually is a pretty workable organization. I think they take quite a bit of leadership with regard to law enforcement, particularly in the last three years or so, I've seen a tremendous capacity for them to want to look at new innovation and opportunities to improve policing in B.C. in a cooperative manner.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Just on the marijuana grow ops, they're probably the biggest criminal activity, certainly in my riding and probably in British Columbia. I think, Mr. Minister, at one time you mentioned we've probably got about 4,000 grow ops in the Fraser Valley. Most communities have green teams and that sort of thing trying to deal with the situation, but I find that with — what? — 170 local governments, they tend to reinvent the wheel.

Is there an overview that's provided by the integrated crime unit, or is there a provincial initiative that provides assistance to these different local police forces in dealing with marijuana grow ops? Or a strategy of how together, instead of each municipality having its own green team, for lack of a better word…? Is there also coordination on top of that in terms of how we tackle that crime?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no doubt that the members have heard me speak on the issue of grow ops and heard my opinion with regard to a number of issues in and around this particular subject — and will continue to do so.

The RCMP, through the federal level, have actually created a unit that is coordinating those green teams across the province. As we regionalize some of our structures in policing and integrate our units for drugs, etc., as we're moving to integrate policing globally across the province, you'll see more and more of that type of coordination taking place. You can't operate in isolation with regard to crime; you have to have integrated units.

You have to be able to move across borders. Organized crime and criminals don't actually stop at the border between Langley and Surrey when they decide what crime they're going to commit, so we need to have the ability for our expertise to be fluid, to move with the crime and actually solve it where it's at. That's where integration comes in, and that's where that coordination comes in. We're moving down the road toward what the member is describing.

G. Halsey-Brandt: On another question, on street racing. I think, in the middle of the summer of 2002, we had a tragic accident in Richmond where RCMP Constable Jimmy Ng was killed. I know that through your ministry, you brought in several measures in terms of roadside suspensions and that sort of thing. I'm sure those are going to increase, because the level of street racing, I believe, has gone down — certainly in my area of the lower mainland, anyway, and I think in British Columbia — as a result of your initiatives.

I've got a question, though. It is on page 22 of your service plan. It talks about assuming responsibility for the management of enhanced road safety programs. Are these the programs that ICBC used to fund? They used to give money to your local police officers to look for speeders, improve certain intersections and that sort of thing. Is ICBC no longer going to be doing that? Is that going to go through your ministry, in terms of that enhanced road safety, or have I got these two programs confused in my mind?

Hon. R. Coleman: I hope you're right on the street racing issue. I hope that our changes in graduated licensing and tougher penalties, maybe even the whole message we've been trying to get out there, are starting to work. I think we're still going to have some difficul-

ties with those issues moving forward. But I think we, as a government, should be proud of the fact that we actually moved on some initiatives that made sense with regard to the practical application of pushing back at that problem.

To the second part of the member's question, yes, and it's a wonderful thing. ICBC was spending about $13 million to $15 million a year on these different enhancement projects — not enhancement of intersections but corridor patrol, things like CounterAttack, additional traffic enforcement and that sort of thing. They might go to the city of Richmond or the city of Vancouver and say: "We'll pay you to do this." No additional police officers would be added to the department. What would happen is they would take police officers on their days off and pay them overtime to go out and do something, so they'd be paying time and a half and, in some cases, double time for that.

I looked at that when I became minister. First of all, I identified the concern through both the RCMP and some of the major municipal forces that they thought these extra hours were actually having an effect on the efficiency of officers on their regular shifts. The second aspect of it was that it struck me that if you're spending time and a half of 100 percent dollars to do a job that you don't need to, then maybe you should look at how you're doing it.

What we've done is enter into a memorandum of understanding for an integrated traffic unit. Basically, the money that ICBC is spending is now coming to the ministry, and we're doing it through the provincial contract. That's why it's a beautiful thing. What we're able to do now is, with 70-cent dollars, take the $15 million that used to be spent at time and a half and do it at 70 cents on the dollar. We'll actually get increased enhancement of traffic enforcement, and we'll add police officers to the streets. We're actually going to hire more police officers to be enhanced in all those communities.

Frankly, local government will love this, because we're not going to bill them for those police officers. We're going to have an integrated traffic unit that's going to give overarching support and increased visibility to policing across jurisdictions in B.C., because we're going to apply the dollars where they should be and in the best way they should.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It'll make those dollars go a lot further. It was always a program we had a problem with.

Just turning now to proceeds of crime, particularly pages 125 and 126 of the estimates. There's just sort of a nil amount in there on page 125. I think that goes over to the other side as well, although there's a figure of $426,000 on page 126. Does it mean we're not getting any proceeds of crime? If I could just ask you to spend a minute outlining the protocol to me from the feds to the province and how that works. If we are getting proceeds of crime and the funds are being used by the ministry in a program in British Columbia, could you explain to us what that program is? Or are the funds not coming through from the federal government?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the whole process of getting proceeds of crime through criminal charges is highly complex. It's very difficult — at the court level, at the federal level — with regard to how we do it. We don't put a number in there, because we don't know what may come in from one year over another. We don't know whether an investigation we actually completed in August of last year will see proceeds of crime flow through in this calendar year or whether the trial could be a year from now or whether there are going to be appeals — all of those aspects.

When we do receive the proceeds of crime, what we've done is target it to major investigations to back up, mainly, the Organized Crime Agency or organized crime types of investigations and to help with initiatives, in some cases, where we want to do additional training on other aspects of policing. It's not, frankly, a large dollar like some people think.

We have an initiative that we're working through the system to try and get to where we can actually look at some civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crime and start treating it more like provincial tax law so that we can actually go after assets with regard to crime. At a different level, Ontario has brought in legislation with regard to that. We've reviewed that, and we're working on ours. It's something here in British Columbia we'd like to bring in later this year, if we can get it done.

That would then put some reverse onus on the criminal to prove that the assets they have, when we take down a grow op or whatever the case may be, were actually bought with legal money. If they aren't, then we're going to seize them. We think there's some long-term benefit to that as far as pushing back on the whole aspect of the organized crime issues in B.C., but the application at the next court level is very difficult, very onerous, and it takes a great deal of time. Then you wait for your results year on year. So it's not something that we could ever budget for, as far as putting a line item in there.

G. Halsey-Brandt: My last question. As the minister is aware, the Vancouver Board of Trade released a report on property crime in October 2003 and set out a number of recommendations, some of which have a provincial impact — keeping chronic offenders in custody, some words around trespass and a whole bunch of other things.

I caught part of a speech by the minister. He spoke to the Board of Trade, probably after the report was released. Perhaps you addressed some of them there. I'm just wondering what lines of communication are used by your ministry. First of all, I guess, are you going to be responding to the report — or dealing with portions of it as it may come out, if that's a better way to look at it? In the sense of your ministry dealing with this sort of report — or local governments, which are the front line in terms of dealing with property crime and marijuana

grow ops, drug trafficking and prosecutions, etc. — is there a civilian communication system that you have with groups like the board of trade or local governments around British Columbia to say: "Yes, we are working together with you to solve these ongoing problems?"

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. I actually met with the Board of Trade when they brought out their report, and I've spoken to them, as you know. I continue to have some discussions with them as well as probably 20-plus chambers around the province that I've now spoken to and met with and given ideas in their communities.

This stuff has all been incremental. We started out by changing the Residential Tenancy Act, for instance, which came into force on January 1. In that act, a landlord can now go and inspect their property once a month without having to go before an arbitrator. If they give 24 hours notice, they can go inspect their property. That goes to the very question about whether a landlord knows there's a grow op on their property. They now have the legal ability to go check their property, and we know it takes more than a month to grow a crop. They should be watching their property. We gave them the power of eviction for illegal activity — immediate eviction for illegal activity. We gave some disciplines into that side of the marketplace.

We've worked with the B.C. Real Estate Association over the last number of months in getting them to put in the property condition disclosure statement on the sale of a property where there's ever been a drug lab or a grow op on the property. It's part of the disclosure that's required. When you start to affect the value of property with regard to that thing, people will start to wake up again.

We are now looking at other aspects of whatever else we can do with regard to it. We've certainly been petitioning the federal government to double the penalties with regard to grow ops and other illegal drug activity. The reason we feel that is we want to send a message to our court system that we need help here. Frankly, in British Columbia we are a place that these people do business because the jurisdiction immediately south of us is quite harsh on this. They just increasingly raise the bar on their penalties to push the business into British Columbia rather than having it in Washington State, for instance.

There's a continuum of practices. I received a report on Friday that I'm reviewing with regard to the massive, disproportionate number of companies selling hydroponic growing equipment in this jurisdiction versus Alberta, Washington State and other ones. That leads me to believe that we need to look at what we can do about that. No decisions are made, because I only got a quick look at the report on Friday. It's obvious that we have to come up with some way to discipline, regulate or watch it, with regard to who's buying and who's selling.

At the same time, we need to increase, as we've done…. We've actually improved the relationship, I think, in the last two years with regard to the information-sharing with B.C. Hydro and law enforcement with regard to the theft of hydro by grow ops, which amounts to about $50 million a year. There are all kinds of issues with regard to training and information that we need to give to our fire departments and other people that may actually go into one of these things. They're increasingly more booby-trapped. There are more weapons involved. When you have live feed of power without breakers or what have you feeding into these things, they're increasingly dangerous. That's a whole public safety issue in and around the community, the neighbourhood and what have you.

We're going to see this thing evolve over the next while, and we'll continue to try to find whatever tools we can. We do actually engage with these groups with regard to the whole issue in and around crime. What we have to understand, though, is that there are certain powers in other jurisdictions people like to point to that we don't have. For instance, we can't arrest you for a bylaw offence in Vancouver relative to street crime, whereas in New York they have some very interesting powers with regard to what they could do.

We don't have the same continuum relative to how we will deal with the repeat offender in our system. We have young offenders in our system who are doing 20, 30, 40 auto thefts. It seems pretty clear to me that after about the fifteenth, the twentieth or the thirtieth, somebody should figure out that they're not getting the message from the penalties we're giving them, because they continue to do this.

What are the solutions? We need to look at all those solutions. One of them could be penalties tied to release based on education, because we know that 90 percent of the people in our provincial jails don't have a grade 12 education. Maybe you have to take that level and say: "Okay, we're actually putting you into some disciplined environment where you have to achieve this before you can move on." I think that we as a society need to deal with all of these things.

The Attorney General has started a street crime initiative in Vancouver, which we're going to watch through its process. We're going to continue to work with law enforcement to find the long-term solutions.

K. Stewart: My question to the minister revolves around the Youth Justice Act and the diversionary requirements for youth with regard to the local police and the RCMP. With the change in the Youth Justice Act, there's more intervention necessary from the RCMP and the local police with regard to what they can do with youth. Just generally, could the minister give us some idea as to what effect those changes have had on the reporting of crime and the delivery of justice in the communities, by what the police have to do with regard to the diversionary aspects and — I know it's a federal act to do this — the funding for the programs that are necessary to be implemented for those conditions that are now put upon the process?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to give you the answer and then, unfortunately, probably send you to another

ministry for the rest of your answer. The diversionary decisions are made at the local level with regard to how strong the local diversion program is with police and that relationship to youth justice.

We fund a $5,000 startup fee to any local initiative for a diversionary program and about $2,500 a year in ongoing funding for those programs. How youth corrections deals with their other aspects with regard to terms of sentencing and probation and their incarceration and their aspects to programs…. Youth justice and the youth corrections centres are not in this ministry; they're in Children and Family Development.

D. MacKay: I am going to look at a couple of avenues with the minister. The first thing I'd like to start with is…. I guess my attention was brought specifically to this program on Saturday of this past week when, once again, we've had a young lady in Ontario who was found tragically murdered. She had been taken from her house back in October. That brings me to the issue of the AMBER alert program that was introduced.

The minister indicated that we would be implementing an AMBER alert program in the province, and we started down a road to deal with that issue. It was discovered that the program had already been started by a number of volunteers within the Vancouver city police and the RCMP. I'm wondering if the minister could give me some idea of where we are with the implementation. Are we getting close to seeing the AMBER alert program up and running in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, thanks to that member and the member for Chilliwack-Kent in particular, who actually pushed very hard on the AMBER alert program back last fall when we were looking at it. The first time we looked at AMBER alert, we found out that a lot of the scope of what was contained in an AMBER alert was already being done by various representatives of the law enforcement communities, in some cases relatively well, through E-comm and that sort of thing, but not so relatively well in other areas of the province with regard to its coordination.

What we've done is actually brought those folks together to form a committee on AMBER alert. They had differing ideas, as they came through the process, as to how it should work or who should be taking the lead and that sort of thing, and they needed some resources. We watched that through. I was concerned that it wasn't moving as quickly in a direction to success as I would like, and I wanted to push harder both for our external partners in the media and to make sure that there was a focus to this.

We identified some financial resources we could put against the program. Basically, a workplan assigning responsibility and time lines for individual tasks has been developed. In addition, we're creating a non-profit society that would be allowed to take long-term donations to AMBER alert to build a bit of a legacy with regard to the program in the long term.

We strongly support AMBER alert as an enhancement to our existing system to protect children and provide safe streets and schools. We firmly believe that our existing system for responding to child abduction cases is good and getting better. AMBER alert is going to enhance that system and set a standard for other jurisdictions to follow, and we expect that system to be up and running by the end of April.

D. MacKay: The issue of the resources…. We're talking about financial resources, I'm assuming. I wonder if the minister could enlighten me as to the actual cost of the resources and to what programs those resources have been directed. Or was it just given to the group to spend as they saw fit?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we didn't give the money to the group. We hired a contractor who reports directly to police services. We approve all expenses. We're the ones that are basically driving the workplan, and that is so we will get it done by the end of April.

D. MacKay: I'm encouraged to hear that we're looking at the end of April for a startup date. I'm sure that will be a very well received program once it's up and running in this province.

I'd like to just investigate the gambling and the casino issue that has cropped up several times in the riding that I represent and, more specifically, in the small community of Granisle. We campaigned on a platform of no expanded gambling. I'm just wondering if the minister could tell me, when he assumed his role as the Solicitor General, what the status was on the number of casinos that had been approved for the province and whether or not we have increased the number of casinos and the number of slot machines that were in place when he assumed his role as the Solicitor General and whether or not we've actually increased the number of slot machines we have in the province today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sure the member is familiar with Granisle. Granisle is actually a good example about gaming — and I'm going to get to the answer — and how it's misunderstood in the public with regard to how it will actually work for communities.

The community of Granisle is about 360 people, something like that. They feel that a casino in their community with a hotel and conference centre would regenerate their community and would be the panacea for economic redevelopment in their community. The reality, unfortunately, is that a casino in Granisle would probably not last a season, because there would be no volume of people to come and use the casino and actually get any return on the investment, either for whoever the investor was or for the equipment that might be put in by the Lottery Corporation.

When I became the minister in 2001, I looked at the casino gaming file in B.C. There were 22 casinos in British Columbia at that time. Some had been promised up to 300 slots. Some thought they were entitled to up to

300 slots. There was some legal activity taking place with regard to those issues.

There had been a process by the previous government allowing for a thing called destination casinos to take place — which was the idea that you would build a casino and resort and all that, and then they would come and basically make large investments. Frankly, the destination casino initiative was an abject failure. It was obvious that the corporation needed to be allowed to go do their business based on market, on the business of delivering to the marketplace on behalf of British Columbians what the marketplace would allow and what it would accept, based on not increasing the number of casinos in B.C. or the number of gaming centres — like bingo halls — because we weren't going to create any more facilities.

What's happened is this. The corporation has taken that capacity and looked at it and said: "We should be applying it to market. We should actually be applying it where the best return on a machine or a project would be." Rather than having, probably in a year from now, 22 casinos, you could be down as low as 15. Frankly, the casinos in British Columbia will be somewhat larger and more modern, bring in the modern facilities of design to attract customers from south of the border and the tourism aspect with regard to it and community gaming aspects.

That's a marked improvement over what we had when we became government. That obviously equates to additional revenue to government, because the slot machines are actually put in the marketplace and not sitting on a shelf somewhere not doing any business.

As we've done that, we basically made some changes to gaming so that the regulatory side was moved into the gaming act, and the management side, the conduct and management of gaming, was given to the Lottery Corporation. They've been basically given the latitude to go do their business. They will place gaming relative to the marketplace, within the envelope of the fact that we have bingo halls and casinos and that we're not going to create any more casinos than the 22 that existed at the time we formed government.

D. MacKay: It's the B.C. Lottery Corporation that determines where the slot machines will be placed. Based on the fact that we had 22 casinos in 2001 and that it was assumed there would be 300 slot machines for each of the casinos, that works out to about 6,600 slot machines. I wonder if the minister could advise me if, in fact, we have utilized the 6,600 slot machines that had been in place in 2001.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'm not tying a number to the top end of this, necessarily, because of the marketplace. Today we have 22 possible casinos, and 19 are operating out of the 22 possible. Of the 19, 14 have a total of 3,700 slot machines. We are nowhere near even the 6,600 total the member mentioned, and we don't anticipate being there for some time to come. We may get there in the next fiscal year.

D. MacKay: The issue that I continually hear from my constituents is that we have expanded gambling. Every time they pick up a newspaper or watch the 6 o'clock news coming out of the lower mainland, we're talking about increasing the slot machines for the racetrack or for some casino down here.

The impression that I'm getting on a daily basis when that news comes out of the lower mainland is that we're increasing gambling, but we're not doing it up north. Why do we keep saying that? Obviously, you've answered that question for me — the fact that we've only got 19 out of 22 casinos in operation today and that we're using probably half of what the allocated number of slot machines is. That certainly helps me respond to that issue.

Before I leave Granisle, I'd like to just talk about policing costs. I'd like to ask the minister about the process to close down a police detachment in a small, rural part of British Columbia. What is the process to shut down a detachment in a small community?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I go to Granisle — because the one thing the member didn't ask me about with regard to gaming…. There are some people who think that if we add a single slot machine, we've expanded gaming; there are some people who think that if we keep to the number of facilities, we haven't expanded gaming. The reality is, what we need to do is allow our corporation to do the business of government without interference. They have to address themselves to the marketplace. That includes a new initiative they're looking at with regard to community gaming centres, which are bingo halls that may be enhanced with some slots in them so that we can actually protect the commitment to charities in the long term. The charities will at least have the money protected that they're receiving from various top-ups and grant programs today.

With regard to how we change a detachment, basically, the RCMP, in the case of most of these, would be affected. Actually, all of them would be affected by the provincial force, because they are communities that aren't paying for their policing. They're all provincial officers. The provincial officers and all changes in policing essentially, I guess you could say, would come to me.

They do it by the number of calls in a community and the studies with regard to efficiencies they can achieve for better policing in an area. They visit with local government. They make the recommendation, and they make a request to restructure the location and structures of detachments to the minister. The minister approves that, so I am actually the one that makes the final decision. I could say no. I haven't seen one come to me that did not have a strong enough business case to make the changes they were recommending.

D. MacKay: Again, I'll go back to the small community of Granisle, which is located an hour and 25 minutes out of Houston — which is the closest de-

tachment to the village of Granisle. It's my understanding that we have actually lost one of the two people that were stationed in the village of Granisle and are talking about losing the other position and policing the small village of Granisle from Houston. The question remains as to the…. Does the travel distance have any bearing on whether or not we close the detachment?

Hon. R. Coleman: One of the challenges we have in rural policing in B.C. is having, sometimes, people that actually want to go to locations. The other is whether we are overpolicing an area at the expense of another. I have no requests in front of me with regard to shutting down the Granisle detachment. I know there is some review with regard to the member that's there today and how that detachment should operate. The senior management would be looking at that and discussing that with the community. Certainly, we'll make sure the member is aware of it as we go through that process.

D. MacKay: Well, that is good news for the community of Granisle, but the fact remains that we have actually lost one of the two. We've lost 50 percent of the detachment to the community of Houston, and that's where the issue is. The idea of having one member at a detachment, I thought, was something that had been done away with. We didn't think it was safe to have one member at a small detachment in our province.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's been no decision made with regard to whether you have one man or two men or no men, or where you would patrol Granisle from. I would be speculating as to what the results of any discussion or consultation would be. However, you do have to take into account the size of a community and the number of officers you're deploying relative to the level of crime you're trying to deal with.

I think there has been a change over the years to not have one person stationed in a particular area alone. At the same time, holidays and shifting and illness and what have you often leave people in our rural detachments alone for extended periods of time, as well as when transfers take place. Then backfilling the transfer and finding somebody that will take the posting sometimes will also cause that problem.

I would suggest that on this particular issue with regard to Granisle, we'll be looking at it over the next number of weeks or months. I know that nothing will change until such time as that proper process of consultation takes place to see what's best applicable.

D. MacKay: The other issue that I'd like to pursue now is the policing of small communities. It has obviously been a bit of a controversy with the small communities throughout British Columbia. The only community I represent that isn't affected by this new program the minister's working with is the community of Smithers, which has a municipal contract with the province. Every other small community in that northwest part of the province is going to be affected by this new program, and I believe the minister has indicated that we're going to be looking at waiting for the next federal census before we start on a new program. I just wonder: is that process still moving ahead, and are we receiving any negative feedback from the communities that will be affected?

Hon. R. Coleman: One of the interesting challenges I got when I became minister was to look at policing. As we went through committee, we had people who came from communities that were paying for their policing and we had people from communities that weren't paying for their policing. Those that came from communities that were paying for their policing wanted to know why other communities weren't paying and why the government was paying 100 percent of their policing costs. We looked at an initiative, initially, to just go and get the 70 percent costs that we get from communities of over 5,000 and up to 15,000 from the smaller communities. That was met with some resistance.

We then went into a process with the UBCM last year to look at it again. We were looking to actually find the dollars that would come from that — about $40-some-odd million — into enhancing policing, long term, in the province…. We went through a process and looked at maybe having them pay not 70 percent but 35 percent, which is half what a community over 5,000 would pay.

We then looked at how we could implement that. There was some concern about communities having enough time to prepare for it. They came back and asked us for time to prepare. I sat down and had a look at it with the Premier and other members of executive council and felt that, if we were going to actually apply this fairly, we needed a fair census. The next census, I believe, is in 2006, and so we said that we would move to 35 percent recovery April 1, 2007, with regard to smaller communities under 5,000.

Has there been feedback? Yes. Negative? Yes. Positive? Yes. It depends on who you're talking to. The people in certain areas of this province are upset that we didn't move on it quickly so that they could actually get a regional policing funding model — in the Peace, for instance — across their region. They were upset that we waited till 2007.

There are communities that are paying for policing that are upset because we didn't move early. There are people that are upset because we are only going to go for 35 percent when we do go. There are also small communities that are upset because they don't want to pay anything, and they don't believe they should have to. There are other small communities that have said: "It's about time we did pay some of our fair share, and we get that. That will allow us to actually have some input as to the level of policing we think we want in our communities and how we're going to pay for it to make sure it's efficient in the long term."

There is no 100 percent consensus on any side from anybody with regard to this issue, but since we did

that at UBCM, we have had more positive than negative from communities writing back and saying: "Thank you for giving us the time, and thank you for being fair on what you think the formula would be with regard to us because we are smaller." There are communities out there paying for policing that do make the argument that a large industrial tax base, which really affects their community from a crime perspective, is outside their community. They don't have access to that tax base, yet they're paying for policing, and the people in the regions outside their community are not. It's going to be an ongoing discussion with UBCM, I'm sure, over the next couple of years as we try to get to the end-game of this, but I think we'll get there in a fair manner.

D. MacKay: I'll move on now. If you've answered this question before, I apologize for not being in the room if this issue was brought up. Dealing with the PRIME program we've embarked on and the fact that technology is moving at such a rapid pace, I wonder if the minister could tell me what the cost is going to be to implement PRIME across the province, and what is the date we are looking at for the implementation of this program provincewide?

Hon. R. Coleman: On time and on budget, as near as I can figure; $14.5 million is what we think it's going to cost. That will get it to the door. Some communities that don't have them will have to buy some laptops and put them in their cars in order to use the system in the cars, but that's something they know about. In addition to that, we have gone live on the lower Island. We are on the lower mainland and the interior now working through it. We said when we started this that our expectation was that PRIME would be up and running in 18 months. We have about 12 months to go, and I'm told we're going to make it across the province in 12 more months.

Madam Chair, noting the time, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. No?

D. MacKay: To the minister, having to do with the RCMP and the strength of the provincial policing component in the province: I wonder if the minister can tell me what the authorized strength is for the RCMP in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's approximately 1,700. We run at about a 6 to 8 percent vacancy rate usually, with transfers and health or leaves or whatever the case may be. That strength is determined through a floor letter with the federal government and some other aspects with regard to the adjustment of those numbers.

D. MacKay: I think you may have answered my second question. That was: are we at full strength for the provincial component of the RCMP today?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that we're running at the normal vacancy rate, which is about 6 to 8 percent.

D. MacKay: I wonder if the minister could tell me what the average cost is per member on an annualized basis.

Hon. R. Coleman: The annualized rate is about $108,000 per member. That's our 70 percent. That's our provincial cost.

D. MacKay: The next question I'd like to ask has to do with the police-public ratio with the RCMP versus the police-public ratio for the city of Vancouver police. Does he have a comparison so I could get some idea of what the ratio is for every member that's out there on the street as compared to the public population they're serving?

Hon. R. Coleman: It actually varies quite a bit throughout B.C., depending on the municipality and depending on the rates of crime, etc. The city of Vancouver is about one officer per 450 people. For the rural area, which is the provincial force, it's about 1 to 800 people. In between that, between the city of Vancouver and up and down, depending on whether you're in North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey or whatever the case may be, it ranges in and around those numbers, depending on whether it's urban or rural. The numbers usually are less in more urban areas, simply because of the ratio of crime and the population base and the amount of police officers required in a more dense population versus the more rural population.

D. MacKay: To the minister, my final question has to do with the RCMP contract with the province. I understand it's for a ten-year term — the last time it was signed on. I wonder if he could let me know when the existing contract is due to expire.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for your information, member, the last contract was actually a 20-year term that expires in 2011. We've already started to have discussions with the federal force and the federal government with regard to that contract.

D. MacKay: You probably answered my last question too. It was: are we looking at renewing the con-

tract, or are we looking at a B.C. provincial police force to take over from the RCMP when that contract expires?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're looking to renew that contract versus go to our own provincial force. There are a number of reasons for that. We've looked at, obviously, the value per dollar with regard to going to a provincial police force, where we would pay 100 percent dollars, versus a proportion, like we do under the provincial force.

We think that in the last two to three years particularly the RCMP have become much more fiscally accountable to us with regard to some of the issues we had when I became minister in 2001. We've actually got the commitment from them that they want to be our provincial police force, and they want to meet our standards with regard to how we want to police British Columbia. I think we've established a pretty good working relationship, and there is nothing before me today that would indicate to me that we would change.

J. MacPhail: As I said before the supper break, I'm going to go to the Frank Paul case and the police complaint commissioner situation generally. I know that some aspects of this are sensitive, and I do want to deal with this in the most civil way that we can. The reason I say that is because my riding, Vancouver-Hastings, and my colleague's riding, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, have the largest off-reserve aboriginal population in all of Canada. This came as a pleasant surprise to me when I first got elected to the seat of Vancouver-Hastings.

Since that time, much of my constituency work on behalf of my community has been in ensuring that aboriginal first nations and Métis neighbours get the same benefits, rights and service from the government as do the rest of us. It's been a challenge. It's been a huge challenge. That's one aspect of why I am concerned about that particular case.

The other reason why I am very interested in this case is because it was my previous government that put in place the police complaint commissioner, an independent officer of the Legislature. We were the first in Canada to do it. I'm not even sure whether anyone has followed us on that. We were the first in Canada to put in place an independent officer of the Legislature who was the police complaint commissioner.

I remember the process. We came to the conclusion that it was necessary, not only for the protection of members of society who had complaints and didn't want to go to the police force directly, but also we had many, many police officers come forward and say to us: "Yes, an independent process is the right way to go." They gave us advice on how to make sure the independent process worked to meet the needs of all parties. It's in that spirit that I am going to pursue this.

Today in question period we asked the Solicitor General questions about the reason why he wasn't going to agree with the police complaint commissioner's request for a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. It's the second time that the Solicitor General has rejected an inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, who — as I'm sure everyone in this room knows, but for the record — was an aboriginal, first nations man who died as a result of exposure to the elements after being left by Vancouver police in an alley on a winter night. I think it was in Vancouver.

Let me start by asking the Solicitor General about his initial reasons for refusing an inquiry. In his letter to the police complaint commissioner, he stated: "I am significantly concerned with the possibility of opening a coroner's inquest during which culpability, liability and issues of racial discrimination are likely to become the central features of an attempted cross-examination."

I really was perplexed. In fact, knowing this Solicitor General, I actually had to check with certain people about whether indeed he was being misinterpreted. Why would the minister think, first of all, that this was an improper possibility?

Hon. R. Coleman: The request from the police complaint commissioner at the time was not for a public inquiry. It was for an inquest. I don't think the police complaint commissioner at the time understood that an inquest is not about a finding of fault but a finding of fact. He had made a request so that there would be the ability to cross-examine witnesses and compel witnesses to come before an inquest, etc., which isn't actually within the realm of the ability, as I understand it, with regard to the inquest.

To be fair, if I were to talk about it today, I think probably the language used in that paragraph taken by itself is, frankly, not very good language. Having said that, it was to basically identify back to the police complaint commissioner that a coroner's inquest was not the vehicle he was looking for, because the coroner makes recommendations with regard to information. In this case, there had been a coroner's inquiry, and it seemed clear in that case that the coroner had met its mandate and should not be required to review these issues again. And they had done that.

Subsequent to that, the police complaint commissioner didn't make a request for a public inquiry, which he could have done at that time. There was subsequently another police complaint commissioner appointed, as the member knows, because at the three-year period of the legislation there was a requirement for a sort of review of how this was working. Out of that came an interim police complaint commissioner when the other commissioner resigned for reasons we won't get into in this discussion.

That police complaint commissioner, although he reviewed the file — and I did have discussions with him — was not sure there was a need to move to the inquiry level. He also felt that there was no jurisdiction, because a previous police complaint commissioner had already made that decision. Subsequently, a new police complaint commissioner has come along who also has made the request.

I want to say this about this file. I think the issue with regard to Mr. Paul is a tragedy, and it's not a tragedy that I'm going to tie in to any individual community within our society. The tragedy is this. We as a society have not found a solution to how we can help folks in the situation we find this individual and others in, at times, with regard to law enforcement, health issues, etc., in our society.

We don't have a place where we have people who have severe addiction problems or the powers on the law-enforcement side to do any more than to take somebody into custody long enough for them to leave custody…. We can't find them long-term solutions. We can't move them into a health facility. It's not like the police could take somebody in certain conditions to an emergency room and have them accepted in this province.

We need to find those long-term solutions. I feel it's very important that the initiative I've started with the two ministers, the Minister of Health and the Minister for Mental Health…. We will be engaging all these communities, the aboriginal community and other communities, with regard to finding long-term solutions for people with the severe addiction problems that are there. I think that's what the outcome would be of any public discussion of this particular file: that we need to find those long-term solutions. I want to move forward, with everybody in this House, and find those long-term solutions for these folks.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that, but in the meantime, we have Mr. Paul's family, who want to make sure that they've done everything possible to learn from their relative's death. I appreciate those comments that the Solicitor General has made, but I think that doesn't preclude an avenue of a public inquiry.

Perhaps the minister could walk me through, then, exactly what did happen in his communications with the various police complaint commissioners. He's saying that the letter of October 4, 2001, from Don Morrison, the then police complaint commissioner, asking for an inquest was an inappropriate request. The minister wrote back and said that was…. Well, what the minister wrote on December 20, 2001, was: "In conclusion, I do not find sufficient grounds to recommend to the Attorney General that an inquest would be appropriate in this matter."

Did the Solicitor General advise the police complaint commissioner about the procedural technical matters that would say that his request was inappropriate? I've read the letter, and other than…. The letter does say: "The Coroners Act does not require information utilized by a coroner to be tested by cross-examination or any other such means. The coroner is obligated to determine the identity of the deceased and to determine when, where and by what means he/she came to his/her death." I assume that's the basis on which the minister, the Solicitor General, says that there wouldn't be an opportunity for cross-examination.

Did the Solicitor General talk to Don Morrison, then the police complaint commissioner, and say: "Sorry. Your avenue won't achieve what you want"? Or did the minister just assume that Mr. Morrison should have known that he erred, in the Solicitor General's judgment?

Hon. R. Coleman: I didn't directly have a conversation with Mr. Morrison in this regard, because as the member knows, he's an independent officer of the Legislature. My final paragraph in this, though, did agree with something Mr. Morrison did ask about. I said it would be timely to conduct an evaluation of police policies and practices concerning the detention and release of persons who are or may be unable to care for themselves under section 50 of the Police Act. I go on to say that I've asked the director of police services to include this issue as the next high-risk item for examinations in his regular audit of the police agencies within the province, which we do.

The police officers that were involved in this particular case, as the member is aware, did not actually follow the policies that were in place at the time and were disciplined at that time through the process that existed. I just feel, having looked at this and having reviewed it and taken the advice from everyone from the chief coroner on through, that the best public policy here is to move forward with a long-term solution for people in similar circumstances.

J. MacPhail: I don't see how one can without allowing the Frank Paul family at least every avenue of available justice systems for them to get at the root of their problem on behalf of all of their family. I'm really trying to figure out a reason why the Frank Paul family doesn't deserve an inquiry into this.

The Solicitor General didn't communicate with Mr. Morrison, the then police complaint commissioner, about the error of his ways in requesting a broader review.

Mr. Chair, I've forgotten the name of the interim police complaint commissioner. He was a lovely man from Alberta who….

J. MacPhail: Ben Casson. Mr. Casson. What, if any, communication, formal or informal, occurred between the interim police complaint commissioner, Ben Casson, and the Solicitor General on this matter of a further review into the death of Frank Paul?

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Casson was a retired Provincial Court judge from Alberta who was living in the area. He was the interim commissioner while we were selecting a new one after Mr. Morrison left.

He had done a review, and he didn't deal with me directly. He did communicate to my staff and to the new commissioner, first of all, that he felt the facts were already well known and that there was no juris-

diction to go back and request an inquiry after one commissioner had already made the decision not to make the request. Then he communicated his information directly to the new commissioner, not to me, because the jurisdiction would go from officer of the Legislature to officer of the Legislature.

J. MacPhail: It's the Solicitor General's assertion that Ben Casson, the interim police complaint commissioner, thought the matter should not proceed any further. That's what I interpret him to say. I'm actually going to follow up with Mr. Casson on that directly.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. That's what I interpreted. What did Mr. Casson say about doing further inquiry into the death of Frank Paul? Directly or indirectly, what did he say?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding was that he communicated that he could not reopen the case because the previous commissioner had made the decision. He did not refer the file to us, and he advised the new police complaint commissioner of his opinion on jurisdiction.

J. MacPhail: What decision did the previous police complaint commissioner, Mr. Morrison, make that prevented Mr. Casson from taking any action? Mr. Morrison asked for an inquest — let me just make sure; this is important — a recommendation for a coroner's inquest, and the Solicitor General turned him down. Did Mr. Morrison close the file in his office at that point, then?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the police complaint commissioner had 90 days to review and call for the public hearing, and he didn't do that. When he doesn't do that, then it lapses. He chose not to do that, so the discipline that was imposed at the time is what the discipline would have been under how the act would perform. I'm not privy to every portion of the file with regard to the police complaint commissioner's office because it's held at arm's length from the minister, so I would suggest what we would try and endeavour to do is try to get that chronology from the police complaint commissioner's office for the member. We will make that request on behalf of both of us so that we could have that information.

I have been pretty disciplined in not actually trying to phone over and say: "Do this with a complaint, or talk about a specific complaint before the police complaint commissioner." I haven't done that in two and half, almost three, years as a minister because of the independence of the office. What we're getting into is a discussion about the statutory authority and when who did what in an office that I have no jurisdiction over. I will try and endeavour to get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. That would be very helpful. As I understand it so far, police complaint commissioner Don Morrison wrote October 4, 2001, to the Solicitor General asking for a coroner's inquest. The Solicitor General replied on December 20, 2001. It was received December 27, 2001, by police complaint commissioner Don Morrison. After that, of course, we get into a situation of where there was in interim police complaint commissioner, and I guess the 90 days is important, as the minister says. I would very much appreciate that chronology.

In fact, I doubt that it would be very difficult to get…. We may not conclude estimates tonight, so we can perhaps have it for the next time. We'll wait to ask further questions about Ben Casson's period of time as interim police complaint commissioner and his action, if any, on the Frank Paul death.

I need reassurance on this. In December 2001 and into January 2002, that was, as I recall, the time that the government was proceeding on the referendum on aboriginal rights and aboriginal treaty-making. That's what I recall. I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, the last almost three years blend together with not a lot of firm grasp on the year in my own mind — not in yours, Mr. Chair. I would never accuse you of that. But I'm sure I'm right on that.

Did the Solicitor General take into account the fact that the government of the day, by all accounts — his own government, by us in the opposition, by community groups — was proceeding on a controversial referendum on aboriginal rights and title and how that might relate to a further exploration of the Frank Paul death?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can absolutely assure you that none of this had anything to do with what the member just described. When I got the request from the police complaint commissioner, I referred it to the chief coroner of the province for him to come back with me with regard to how the inquiry was handled in 1998 and whether he saw fit that it was necessary to have an inquest. He gave me that advice, and I responded to the police complaint commissioner after consulting with senior staff. I did not at any time take into consideration anything to do with a referendum or otherwise in making that determination. It was simply based on the advice of who I think are some competent civil servants who had an understanding of the file.

J. MacPhail: In January of this year, January 2004, the current police complaint commissioner, Dirk Ryneveld, wrote to the Solicitor General to ask for a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul? Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, he wrote to the Attorney General. He wrote to the Attorney General because within the act it refers to minister, and then it refers to Attorney General, and we had not made the changes necessary to make the act the responsibility of the Solicitor General. He actually wrote to the Attorney General.

He also sent a binder of information at that time, which I, again, have reviewed. I've reviewed it myself, and I also had it looked at by the chief coroner, who responded back with the same comments as he had in 2001 with regard to an inquest and to the file as he saw it. Through that consultation process and looking at it and looking at the fact that we need to move forward with long-term solutions for people in this situation and that we need to concentrate on getting that done, I didn't at that point, with the advice of staff in reviewing it and with different people in my department, see the public interest in a public inquiry.

J. MacPhail: Okay. By the way, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. The news release from June 10 of the liquor control thing — I didn't get a copy of it. It's probably because I wasn't here.

Would the minister please read into the record the letter Mr. Ryneveld wrote to the Attorney General asking for a public inquiry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have a copy of the letter here, so I will get a copy. I will ask staff to get me a copy of the letter, and I will provide it to the member — Mr. Ryneveld's communication to the Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I do understand that the binder included videotape evidence that had never been seen before. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding — and I will confirm for the member — is that he provided the videotape, but the videotape had been seen before by various authorities. I will confirm that for her, though.

J. MacPhail: Actually, the Solicitor General is correct. As I understand it, the police complaint commissioner wrote to the Attorney General in January of 2004. The videotape evidence had been made public in the fall of 2003. It showed Mr. Paul. Well, actually, it showed the smear left by his soaked clothes on the floor of a Vancouver police station. Mr. Paul appeared to have passed out from drinking, and it showed the smear left from him, theoretically, being dragged out.

Did the Attorney General and/or the Solicitor General reply in writing to Dirk Ryneveld's — the police complaint commissioner — request for a public inquiry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know what correspondence the Attorney General may have sent. I met with Mr. Ryneveld a little over a week ago. I talked to him about this and basically some other concerns he had about how the ministry would communicate or they would communicate with the ministry in the future to make sure that independence was protected. I advised him at that time that he would be receiving a letter from me with regard to this. That letter has not gone out yet, but evidently it's ready for my signing in my office.

J. MacPhail: I must admit I'm confused about the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General said at one point that Mr. Ryneveld, the police complaint commissioner, wrote to the Attorney General in January because it was the Attorney General who had responsibility for this matter. Then it was the Solicitor General who looked at the binder of material and talked to the chief coroner about how to proceed. Why?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the member is right. The police complaint commissioner wrote to the Attorney General. The information came in there. I wasn't advised of the initial letter. I heard about it, and we contacted the police complaint commissioner's office to see if they could provide us with the information as well. At that point, they identified to us that in actual fact the act had not been changed by order-in-council, whereby certain powers under the act actually appeared to be with the Attorney General.

In March — I believe it was the 11th — the order-in-council was put through to change the designation under the Police Act to me so I could continue to deal with the matter. There was a gap. There was a gap between who had jurisdiction during that period of time — Attorney General versus Solicitor General. In the act it refers to the minister at certain places, as I understand it, and other places it refers to the AG. We've actually fixed that, but at the time the letter was sent, the Attorney General had the jurisdiction with regard to this.

J. MacPhail: Well, all right. I must admit that I find it a little bit curious that this police complaint commissioner writes a letter to the Attorney General. The Solicitor General isn't even copied on it. He hears about it and goes and asks for copies of the material, but he's the one that proceeds to work on the file up to and including asking the chief coroner for…. I assume the chief coroner is a man, Mr. Chair, but I don't know this.

He goes and talks to the chief coroner. It's the police complaint commissioner that points out the legislative gap. It seems like a crevice to me, actually. The government does nothing about changing the legislation, and yet it's the Solicitor General that still proceeds on this.

Tell me, does the Solicitor General know if the Attorney General took any action whatsoever on this re-

quest from the police complaint commissioner up to and including March 11, 2004?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't believe the Attorney General did anything with the file up to that point, although I did understand that he did refer the binder over to Crown counsel, which is not in my jurisdiction. The police complaint commissioner sent a copy of his correspondence and his package, however, to the chief coroner, who is under my jurisdiction. The coroner's office is under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. That's where my information initially came from with regard to the issue — from the chief coroner, who was reviewing the file.

J. MacPhail: What legislative change occurred to put the chief coroner under the direction of the Solicitor General? Could he quote that to me, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was an order-in-council. I will get you a copy and the date of the order-in-council.

J. MacPhail: Why are these things being done by order-in-council? What order-in-council was brought forward that now makes it the Solicitor General's responsibility to receive information about warrants, for instance? What order-in-council occurred that gave him that authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, I am responsible for the superintendence of policing in the province as the Solicitor General. The police brief me on investigations as they see fit on a regular basis.

J. MacPhail: What makes the Solicitor General understand that he's responsible for that? Up until this government was sworn in, there was no such thing as Solicitor General. So please, what is the…? Can I ask the minister right now to tell me all of the orders-in-council and/or legislative changes that make him legitimate in legal matters such as the one he just said?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will tell the member this, and then what I will do is undertake to get you all the orders-in-council, if you don't mind. I'll get you copies of them so you can be clear about it.

Under the Constitution Act ministers are assigned responsibility by OIC. According to my discussions here, I was assigned the responsibility with regard to policing, etc., in British Columbia at the time I became the minister. The coroner was done separately, on legal advice from leg. counsel, on another OIC. Then the police complaint commissioner, which is a section under the Police Act, was clarified by OIC on March 11.

I will get the detailed explanation for the member as soon as possible and get you the copies of the OICs.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to, off the top of my head, pick the section and the responsibility, etc., so what I've done is to ask for somebody who'll immediately go get the copy of the March 11 OIC so that I can share it with the member.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'll take the minister up on his offer of all and every OIC that gives him reason for existence.

I am curious. Why didn't the minister then contact the…? Why didn't his office notify the police complaint commissioner that this change had been made?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was an oversight, and I've apologized to the police complaint commissioner for that. It was during the week that the House didn't sit. It should have been done more expeditiously, and it wasn't. I've already told him about that.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what difference the sitting of the Legislature makes. You'd think you'd have more time to actually do administration — but whatever. The minister says he apologized.

In terms of the change for superintendent of police being…. The minister is now in charge of, the head of, the superintendent of police, or the superintendent of police reports to him. That, I gather, hasn't been done by OIC, and that's the reason why police report to the Solicitor General on investigations. How does that link to special prosecutors, then? Who's in charge of special prosecutors? To whom does that department report?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that special prosecutors are in the realm of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. It's in the Attorney General's ministry. As I understand it, the selection and the decision is over there, and I have no involvement in that whatsoever.

J. MacPhail: The police give the Solicitor General information about ongoing investigations that may impact — what? Let's just use the example of what happened at the end of December. I don't want any details. I don't want any…. That's going to happen later on — perhaps this week. Why was the Solicitor General contacted by the police? Why was it the Solicitor General who informed the Premier? I don't even want…. Mr. Chair, I don't want to go into any details. I swear to the minister that I'm not going to go into any details.

Under what authority did the police contact the Solicitor General on the eve of the raids on the Legislature? That's question number one. How did a special prosecutor get appointed before the raids on the Legislature?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, I'm not going to get into the details of the investigation either. I will tell the member this. The police from time to time brief me on investigations that have either issues

around resources or concerns that they have — issues in and around organized crime, complex investigations that may require us to find additional funding or resources with regard to them — and give me the details.

The issue of the one at the Legislature was strictly a case where they asked me to travel to do the protocol and the introduction to the Speaker. They then informed the Speaker of the information. The Speaker then signed a document allowing them to access the Legislature. They had processed that absent of me through protocol both provincially and federally and with legal counsel, etc., and the courts. I had no knowledge, and did not until it was actually disclosed, that there had been a special prosecutor appointed with regard to that particular case.

Nobody was informed of the searches at the Legislature until after the searches were already started, so there was no breach of protocol. I only informed people what the police advised me I could inform with regard to what they were going to be saying when they went with their public presentation the following day.

J. MacPhail: I really do need to know how this splitting of duties works in the best interest of the public. Can the minister tell me — I just simply can't remember the exact date, but it was in December sometime — when the special prosecutor was appointed in this matter? I think his name is Mr. Berardino. When was he appointed?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct: it was in December. I actually don't know the date. I'm sure I can ask and get you the date from the public record, because I'm sure that's in the public record from the Attorney General, but I was not involved in that process whatsoever.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know. The special prosecutor was appointed in early December, and clearly, the Solicitor General is saying that the Attorney General didn't tell him anything about that. What role, if any, is then required of the Solicitor General? The Legislature was sitting while the special prosecutor was appointed. We had a special sitting to deal with ordering IWA workers back. Cabinet was meeting, the building was busy, and there'd been a special prosecutor appointed that no one knew about — no one knew about.

What exactly did the police tell the Solicitor General? Did he have any words with the Attorney General about lack of information on his side? If the Solicitor General is truly the chief cop, chief police officer — sorry, Mr. Chair — shouldn't those details have been known between the two at least? What if files went missing? What if activities were put at risk while the Legislature was actually sitting?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the responsibility for policing, not prosecution and not courts. Frankly, a special prosecutor being appointed is not necessarily something that somebody should advise me of. I don't think anything could have been compromised by the special prosecutor having been appointed in December or whenever that took place. That would happen with regard to a file, so the police would be in a position to discuss the file and what they needed to accomplish with it with the special prosecutor as they went forward with whatever procedure relative to things like search warrants or whatever the case had to be done.

The fact that the special prosecutor was appointed is simply because that, as I understand it, is the way it's done with regard to certain types of cases where law enforcement goes to Crown and they move in this direction. I would be concerned, frankly, if people felt they had to advise me when a special prosecutor was being appointed and that I should have that person's name or have any discussions with them. Under no circumstances would I do that, simply because that is the reason to insulate a case with the special prosecutor — so no minister of the Crown has any input into the preparation of the case.

J. MacPhail: I'll go in exactly the opposite direction of the Solicitor General. I think the public should have been informed that a special prosecutor was appointed. In fact, I'm appalled that the government didn't let the public know that a special prosecutor had been appointed. I can absolutely guarantee that if the previous administrations — any previous administration — had kept the appointment of a special prosecutor secret, this member and his leader would go absolutely nuts in crying foul.

Did the special prosecutor not talk to the police, and did the police not tell the Solicitor General about…? All right. Let me put it in the positive. What, if any, communication went on between the police and the special prosecutor that the police informed the Solicitor General of?

J. MacPhail: In advising the Solicitor General of the pending raids on the Legislature, the police informed the Solicitor General of none of the reasons why. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Your question was what conversations the police had with the special prosecutor and what they advised me of. None, I said. Did they inform me of the reason for the warrants when we went to visit with the Speaker? Absolutely. Would I reveal any of the details with regard to those warrants? No.

J. MacPhail: At any point since the appointment of Mr. Berardino — I hope I'm saying his name correctly — as the special prosecutor, has the Solicitor General had any conversations with him? I'm not going to ask the nature of them, just has he had any.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the ongoing investigation, do the police keep the Solicitor General informed of ongoing investigation activities, or do they simply come to him when they require further action by him?

Hon. R. Coleman: Only when there's further action required. They have not been briefing me relative to this investigation. They have said on a number of occasions in other meetings that they would hope as much information as possible would soon be made public. It is their wish to have that happen, and of course, that is not within their capability. That's within the decision of the courts. I believe the next date is April 1 that there may be something released with regard to the public and the investigation.

There are a variety of interests that are involved with regard to that. They are conducting their investigation. That's what I would expect them to do. If they had an issue with regard to resources or with regard to something that needed to be done that would not jeopardize the investigation, they may come to me. Other than that, they don't put me in that position, and I don't discuss the investigation publicly to jeopardize it either.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, who comes to the Solicitor General? What police forces come to the Solicitor General on this matter?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Is it in the case of both the aspects of the warrant — the proceeds of crime and corruption and then the other one, the summary that was just released? I don't know what summary phrase we're using for the other ones. The two separate avenues of investigation…. Are both being handled by the RCMP?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that yes, they're coordinating it. Although there are other police departments involved, they are taking the lead with regard to leading the investigation, I understand.

J. MacPhail: I would really appreciate all of the information that leads the Solicitor General to have the legal powers to do what he does.

Back to the Frank Paul tragedy. I have a question that I honestly don't know the answer to, because I don't know what requirements are made of police officers. I do understand that the Solicitor General at one point was an RCMP officer. Now that the police complaint commissioner reports to him, was there any issue of advice?

If the police complaint commissioner is making recommendations to the Solicitor General, did he have to speak with the conflict-of-interest commissioner about former duties as an RCMP officer and these new duties?

Hon. R. Coleman: I left the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1980. I'm on my third career since then. I have no benefits accruing from that career, because I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension or anything. There has never been any indication when I've met with the officer of the Legislature responsible for conflict of interest that there would be any with regard to my ability to be the Solicitor General of the province.

J. MacPhail: I have two other areas that I'm going to explore in this particular matter, and then we'll be moving into gaming.

The first is: what was the new evidence, if any, that emerged from Mr. Ryneveld's binder and letter that he sent to the Solicitor General in January concerning the Frank Paul death?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to give the member the detailed information. I'm going to get it for her. There was one where a correctional officer thought they might have, in their original statement, been incorrect in their observations. The second one was that there may have been another witness to Mr. Paul being placed in the alley, but that was not clearly identified — a concern that couldn't be frankly confirmed by the pathologist with regards to whether Mr. Paul had expired prior to being left where he'd been left.

Rather than try and walk through those at this moment, I'm actually going to pull all of those out of the file and give them to the member. I'm more than happy to give you any information I have. I will get that information to you post-haste.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister make a written reply to Dirk Ryneveld, the police complaint commissioner, after the police complaint commissioner's January 21, 2004, request for a public inquiry? If so, could I have a copy of that as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I stated earlier, I met with Mr. Ryneveld. The correspondence to him is prepared and in my office. I will copy the member in on that correspondence.

At question period today the Attorney General said that he asked Crown counsel to review certain aspects of the evidence of the Frank Paul case. Where do we go from here? It's the Solicitor General that's in charge — as per the OIC, I would assume — of the powers and duties of the police complaint commissioner. Does the Attorney General report on Crown counsel's findings to the Solicitor General?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's a completely different process. The Attorney General, when he received the material, decided to send it over to Crown for a review of the information that came from the police complaint commissioner. My understanding is that there was a review back in 1998-99 with regards to charges, etc., that was done by Crown at that time. None proceeded. Crown can review any file, I believe, with regard to this. I had no influence or involvement in the decision to send the file to Crown. That was completely — and as it should be — independent of me with the Attorney General.

Crown will do a review. If they come back with a need for action under a criminal statute or whatever, it would then proceed down through the normal charge approval process to charges and trial, etc. That would be a different process, which I'm not involved with.

J. MacPhail: When does the minister, the Solicitor General, anticipate releasing publicly the letter with his answer to Mr. Ryneveld regarding his request for a public inquiry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will do that in the next few days, as soon as we're done here, and I've had an opportunity to see the final draft of the letter subsequent to the meeting with Mr. Ryneveld.

J. MacPhail: I was reading the business pages earlier this month, and both Gateway Casinos and Great Canadian Casino are reporting substantial profits. Both of them are crediting the changes that this B.C. Liberal government has made to expand the gaming industry. I'm not making it up. It was right there in their news release. Gateway Casinos, which earned $10 million last year — that's profit of the company — noted that "its B.C. casinos performed above expectations during the year due to changes in the B.C. casino industry that included replacing slot machines with interactive video-based machines."

We had a huge debate in the 1990s about what were called VLTs, video lottery terminals. Maybe I could ask the minister what the difference is between a video lottery terminal as it was defined in the 1990s and an interactive video-based machine that Gateway Casinos is now using.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's actually very little difference between what would have been called a VLT back in the nineties…. But we don't, obviously, put VLTs in pubs and bars in British Columbia, which is where VLTs were considered to be called video lottery terminals. We had existing in policy, at one point in time, only what they call spin-and-reel slot machines. It was identified by the corporation as part of the modernizing of its operation. That technology, frankly, was leaving the marketplace, and the video-based slot machine in casinos would allow them to change the front face of the operation and modernize their operation.

I'm surprised that…. I guess it's nice that Gateway thinks it made that big a difference, because we only started to do that partway through last year as they started to modernize some of the equipment in some of the casinos. I would think, more than anything, that their comments are probably addressed to the fact that we've allowed the corporation to do its business to marketplace rather than do its business by us interfering with how it does its business or being involved in how it does its business. I would think that would be the more positive aspect of having the corporation actually concentrate its business on where it puts machines relative to the marketplace, which obviously gives a better return per machine than putting them in a marketplace that isn't very active.

J. MacPhail: Gateway Casinos is probably as thrilled that they made that much money just with half the year. They're probably looking forward to '04 for sure.

The minister made a big deal — and I can't remember whether this was the big-deal debate in the 1990s — that VLTs were precluded from going into bars and casinos or corner stores, etc. Was there a policy on that in the Lottery Corporation at the time, and if so, what was the policy? I'm not sure why he raised the matter, and I don't have enough personal memory to remember my son's name, so….

Hon. R. Coleman: I think VLTs have always been this thing that people refer to as: "No VLTs in pubs and bars." If you look at other jurisdictions across the country, what they've referred to as a VLT is like a slot machine in a pub or a bar or, as the member alluded to, in corner stores or even in some cases in hotel lobbies in some places in other jurisdictions.

I think it was a conscious decision of the previous government, and certainly a conscious decision of ours along the same line, that we would never go down the

road of putting those into the pubs and bars of British Columbia or into the other areas with regard to it. That was my understanding of the description of what a VLT was. It was an interactive video machine that was in a pub or a bar. Payouts were held a bit differently because of how you put the money in or got the money out — to charge it in and charge it out. That technology is evolving all the time, but it was her previous government's policy and is our policy as well. I'm not sure if we've ever written it down as a policy, but I will check.

We don't put VLTs in pubs and bars because that was the one thing that was identified to successive governments. I think if you went to a jurisdiction like Alberta today, they'd probably tell you if they could claw one part of their gaming structure back, it would be with regard to VLTs in that hospitality sector.

J. MacPhail: Great Canadian Casino goes on to say for their annual report…. They claimed record profits and revenues, and in their news release they credit new games tables, longer operating hours and more slot machines for their 14 percent increase in net earnings. Perhaps the minister could tell me what changed in terms of new games tables permitted and longer operating hours, and what slot machine expansion has occurred for Great Canadian Casinos?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were more slot machines put in, in Nanaimo and Victoria and recently in Coquitlam. The number of gaming tables was increased to marketplace, as were the number of slots, and we did allow the operating hours to change to 21 hours.

J. MacPhail: What does "were increased to marketplace" mean? That's a term I bet 90 percent of the people wouldn't understand, so could we have it in plain English?

Hon. R. Coleman: You have a casino, for instance…. I'll use one that I'm familiar with. In Coquitlam there's a casino. The wait time for access to a table or a machine could be in excess of an hour at many periods of time during the operation of the facility. The market obviously needed more, so the corporation adds more in order to fulfil that marketplace with regard to the operation of that particular casino. That is what I refer to as the marketplace.

There are actually casinos in B.C. that we could probably pull some out of — in particular, in some of the cities in the interior — and we would actually get the same revenues as we do today because they're not active. We don't have the same volume of use as we do in higher marketplaces. That's what I'm referring to.

J. MacPhail: The hours have been increased, so the casinos are open 21 hours per day. What were they permitted before, prior to this government expanding hours of opening?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was a permissive change. It went from 18 to 21, and today there are four casinos doing it.

J. MacPhail: What's been the number of slots increased in, let's say, the last two years in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: About a year ago there were 3,300, and today there are just under 3,800.

J. MacPhail: When this government took office, how many slot machines were there?

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll go back and get you the exact number. There were two destination casinos in the stream when we took office. One was Wells. I think it got 85 slots. The other was Cranbrook, which got 225 slots. They were not up and running in 2001 when we came to office. There were some other adjustments that were being taken care of, and there were also some people that were in process. The Lottery Corporation will get me the exact numbers. I just have the numbers of 3,300 a year ago and 3,784 today.

Now, I'd like to look…. I'm at the service plan for the B.C. Lottery Corporation, '04-05 to '06-07. Can the minister tell me the revenue, the returns, the net income that is expected from the Lottery Corporation from '03-04 through to '06-07?

Hon. R. Coleman: Sorry, hon. member. I was just confirming that both summary outlooks were exactly the same. It's $725 million for fiscal '03-04, $850 million for '04-05, $950 million for '05-06 and $1.01 billion in '06-07.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I have the revenues, the net income, for '01-02 for the corporation at $606.1 million. Is that accurate? Let me put it this way: 2000-01 revenues were $562 million. That would have been up until March 31, 2001. Then the revenues from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002, were $606.1 million. Is that accurate?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm getting the nod here that that sounds about right. I think it is. I think it was either in '01-02 or '02-03 that the actual revenues exceeded expectations. I believe the numbers initially in the estimates from those years is what the member has, and I think she's correct.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm not trying to trick the minister. This is the report from '02-03, so the '01-02 number is accurate.

I think the minister knows where I'm going on this — more slots, more game tables, more revenue. The casinos are thrilled because their profits are expanding because of the changed policies of this government — increased hours.

Just tell me what definition of expanded this Solicitor General is using to say that none of this is expanded gaming?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to say that none of this is expanded gaming because some of it is. It is by virtue of the fact that we took what was structured gaming and tried to make it so that we gave the corporation the envelope within which to operate in order to actually do its business. What has worked and what hasn't worked in the past is no reflection on any government and no reflection on the previous government.

We had an experiment that took place in the nineties whereby we went through a process for ten destination casinos in B.C. They were tied to having to have convention centres and certain things tied to them, etc. Their selection was made, and what happened was that in many cases the selections were tied to what was perceived to be the economic benefit of actually putting gaming into a community by having golf courses, convention centres or hotels tied to them, etc.

That process went through, and frankly, it was probably due to the fact that during that period of time I think everybody was learning a little bit about how to manage gaming in the province, both politically and from a regulatory side.

When I looked at it as a minister and made the changes to the Gaming Control Act that said, "Okay, you're now responsible for the conduct and management to the Lottery Corporation," they needed the ability to go and do their business. We put a casino, for instance, in a small community where there was only a three-month market, and it wasn't enough of a market to sustain the casino. We put casinos in communities where the population, by any other market study, would have told us that they frankly wouldn't work there.

We had casinos in communities that would not allow slots. We had some relocation processes that had been started by the previous government for some other casinos that had been relocated from communities, which led all the other people in the casino sector to say: "Okay. Legally, we think we have the same rights as those people as far as relocating to a community that would take us and allow us to have the complement of slots you gave to somebody else." All of that package was out there, and I think that basically we successfully cleaned that up. We cleaned it up, and we've started to identify the marketplace.

That 300 that was the previous number was a false number, frankly, by casino size. It should be sized to the market. In one market you might have a successful casino with 450, and in another market you might have a successful casino with 100. Sizing the market and then actually identifying that envelope and saying to the corporation, "Go do your business," is what I think is the right thing to do for government.

Having said that, there is no question that if there is one more slot machine in British Columbia, some people will say that's an expansion of gaming. At the end of the day, if we get more activity because we size the market and relocate these things in modern, clean facilities which attract more marketplace and because they're attractive places for people to go and make an adult decision with regard to gaming, we could end up with fewer casinos in British Columbia than we had at the change of government. At the same time, we could actually end up with more revenues because of the fact that we sized them to market and made them more marketable.

I think there's more to this discussion for me and the member to have, and we're not going to get it accomplished before this division vote that we're expecting in a minute. The definition of expansion of gaming is anybody's definition who wishes to have one. I don't think there's any question that some people would judge the fact that by allowing the corporation to do its business, we've expanded gaming. Because the revenues of the corporation have gone up, people will say: "Well, there's obviously an expansion of gaming."

Something that people don't understand also is that at the same as we did the conduct and management changes, we moved bingo as an industry to the Lottery Corporation. They also have bingo now, and that was never on their line of business before.

I think we'll have the discussion, and I think the member will have some very pointed opinions with regard to this as we move through it. I'm more than happy with that, because I really think that sometimes you have to look at the ability of a Crown corporation to be allowed to go and do it's business. That sometimes will lead to criticism with regard to how somebody wants to interpret what a previous government of a province has made.

I think what we do have to remember is that in a legal environment, the lowest percentage of problem gaming takes place with an adult choice to enter a casino. The higher preponderance of gambling addiction and problems come from things like lottery tickets; VLTs, which we're not going to have in bars and hotels; illegal gambling on the Internet; and all of those aspects of gaming.

I think it probably would be best if we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. We'll continue this discussion, I'm sure, in more detail tomorrow.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY