Hansard — Monday, November 21, 2005 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		1991

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1991
	'Na aksa Gila Kyew Learning Centre
	R. Austin
	Municipal elections
	H. Bloy
	Best Babies program at Esquimalt Neighbourhood House
	M. Karagianis
	Role of coroners in B.C.
	D. MacKay
	Collingwood Neighbourhood House
	A. Dix
	Development in Dundarave Village
	J. McIntyre

Oral Questions		1993
	Public release of child death reviews
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	Handling of child death review of Brandon James Seymour
	A. Dix
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Austin
	Responsibility for outstanding child death reviews
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. J. Les
	J. Kwan
	Worker deaths and safety issues in forest industry
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Potential changes to school boards' mandate
	J. Horgan
	Hon. S. Bond
	M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents		1997
	Office of the Auditor General, financial statement, Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009, November 2005

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1998
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		1998
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)
	M. Farnworth
	C. James
	L. Mayencourt
	J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House		2001
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2001
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)

Motions without Notice		2001
	Appointment of special committee to select a Merit Commissioner
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Appointment of acting Ombudsman
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Appointment of special committee to appoint an Ombudsman
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply		2002
	Estimates: Office of the Premier
	Hon. G. Campbell
	C. James
	A. Dix
	M. Sather

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2040
	Estimates: Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
	Hon. C. Richmond
	C. Trevena

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased to introduce someone who happens to be having an anniversary today. It's actually an anniversary of a birthday. This particular individual chose to no longer have birthdays since they passed their 29th birthday, and I'm advised that it's the 20th anniversary of her 29th birthday, which means this will royally be the last birthday that the member for Prince George–Mount Robson chooses to have.

Hon. L. Reid: We are joined in the Legislature today by Sheri Marino. She is an autism advocate in the province of British Columbia. She herself has a child with autism. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

R. Austin: Last Friday I attended the grand reopening of the 'Na aksa Gila Kyew Learning Centre located in the community of Kitsumkalum, just on the outskirts of Terrace. Exciting things are taking place there. A program has been set up to enable community members to return to school. It is an adult program where the students range in age from 19 to 43.

These students have all made an incredible decision — that, of course, is to recognize the value of education and what it can do to better their lives. With this decision has come the equally important commitment to attend full-time four days a week and to be willing to work at home in the evenings and weekends to reach their goals. It is always encouraging to see people who for one reason or another did not find success in their early years in the school system making the choice to return and finish their grade 12.

Many of these students have families of their own, and we all know how difficult it is to balance the responsibility of family life with the effort needed to complete school work. My hat goes off to all of them, and I wish them every success. Within this small student body of 19, they have five students on course to graduate this summer and many more who can graduate next year.

This important program is the work of the Kitsumkalum education coordinator Charlotte Guno, a person whose passion for education and all that it brings is self-evident. She has striven to make others in her community understand the important link that education plays in the quality of life for her people and is making a difference in addressing one of the grimmest statistics of all.

We have tried for years to address the completion rate of first nation members of our northern community. Despite lots of hard work, we have failed to address the imbalance between first nations achievement rates and the general population. This is not just a statistic to be repeated ad nauseam as though it is acceptable and there is nothing we can do to address it. The fact is that a first nations child is twice as likely to not complete grade 12 as a non–first nations child in school district 82, and I believe this is often the case in other places around the province. This means that a significant group in our society will be excluded from entering the mainstream economy. What a waste of social capital, especially in a province where we are enduring a shortage of skilled workers.

My sense of this problem, having spent a few years working in the school system and speaking to first nations leaders in the area, is that for too many first nations children our curriculum and method of delivery are not culturally relevant to their everyday lives. In addition, many families lack the resources to assist their children.

H. Bloy: On Saturday hundreds of thousands of British Columbians went to the polls to cast their votes in this year's municipal elections. While municipal elections do not always receive the same amount of coverage as federal and provincial elections, they are just as important. Many services British Columbians come to rely on in local scope — such as fire and police services, garbage pickup, bylaws, zoning — are more often than not under the auspices of the municipal government. In terms of day-to-day services, no level of government has as big an impact as the local government has.

In my riding, in both the cities of Burnaby and Coquitlam, we'll see many familiar faces returning and a number of new, first-time representatives coming to council and the school boards. I hope all of these officials will be able to work together to do what is best for their communities.

To all the mayors, councillors and school trustees who were elected, I offer my sincere congratulations. The voters have placed their trust in you, and it is important never to lose sight of this fact.

To all of those who stepped up yet were not successful in their bids in seeking office, I offer my thanks. While you might not have been victorious, it takes a great deal of courage to have your name placed on the ballot, and you should be praised for your commitment to the democratic process.

The real winners, however, are those who took the time to vote on Saturday. These voters are worthy of our praise in ensuring that democracy remains alive and well in British Columbia. Always, the electorate decides what is best for them, and they should be congratulated.

M. Karagianis: I rise today to talk about a success story in my community. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House is exactly what it sounds like: a resource known for reaching out a friendly hand, for being a good neighbour in the community particularly to those most vulnerable. Nowhere is that more successful than with their Best Babies program. Best Babies is exactly what it sounds like: a program to assist in developing the very best outcomes for babies and their moms. Best Babies is a support system for moms-to-be who may have a family already, those who are young and inexperienced, and those who find themselves alone and in need.

Best Babies offers everything from education to food vouchers, from health care to breast-feeding support. It has produced such successful outcomes that there are often far more requests than there are resources. Mothers are befriended and guided through a healthy pregnancy and childbirth and then supported through the first demanding years of raising a new child. The program has produced incredible friendships among the mothers, a network that shares child-minding, communal meals and just plain companionship. It has often been pivotal in preventing unhealthy pregnancies, loneliness, depression and isolation — all environments that contribute to child neglect.

The incredible success of Best Babies has produced the next most logical step: Best Families. Those families have continued to build on the initial strengths of Best Babies, creating a community network that is nurturing and interdependent. Best Babies and Best Families do make for the best communities.

D. MacKay: Most of us in this chamber had other careers before being elected. I would like to talk about my previous careers. I spent 28 years in the RCMP and was a provincial coroner for nine years following my retirement.

Most people know what a police officer does, so I would like to explain the role of a coroner in the province of British Columbia. The role of a coroner is to independently investigate every sudden and unexpected death. This includes all deaths that result from accidents such as motor vehicle accidents; deaths resulting from violence; or sudden, unexpected deaths in the home or wherever they occur.

If the death is sudden and unexpected, the death is investigated by the police and the coroner's office. The police investigate to determine if any criminal activity caused the death, and the coroner investigates to determine the medical cause of death. If the police determine there are no criminal actions responsible for the death, the coroner determines the medical cause of death and reviews all the evidence from the police and the pathologist, including toxicology, and concludes the investigation by way of a judgment of inquiry or an inquest.

For those deaths that occur while a person is in custody of a police officer or while in jail, an open public inquest is a legislative requirement. Following a submission of a judgment of inquiry by a coroner, it is then sent to the regional coroner's office for a second review by the regional coroner. If the death involves a young person under the age of 19, it is then sent to the child death review unit. Coroners can also make recommendations on ways to prevent similar deaths from happening again.

The coroners in our province do a great job, under some very disturbing situations at times, investigating every sudden and unexpected death that occurs in our province. We owe these people a great deal of gratitude, and I would like to thank them for the job that they do.

A. Dix: This week in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, we have a number of events celebrating the tenth anniversary of Collingwood Neighbourhood House. Collingwood Neighbourhood House was built in our constituency because of an extraordinary community and public effort by numerous volunteers across Vancouver who worked hard because these services were needed in our community; by private sector partners like Concert Properties; by politicians and political leaders such as the Premier when he was mayor of Vancouver and such as my predecessor Glen Clark when he was MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway.

I think Collingwood Neighbourhood House represents, in many respects, what is best about the city of Vancouver. People speaking more than 60 languages are served there, working together. When we think about the world today and we think about all the division in the world, it seems to me it's an extraordinary thing that on the east side of Vancouver, we can bring so many people to work together in common cause.

So on behalf of this House, I want to thank all of the volunteers and staff who do so much for the citizens of my community at Collingwood Neighbourhood House and to recognize this extraordinary anniversary.

J. McIntyre: Dundarave Village is one of the hidden treasures in my riding. Located on Marine Drive in West Vancouver, not only does Dundarave feature a sea wall that promotes healthy living, but it's also home to a number of wonderful boutique-style shops, cafés, restaurants and services. It still has the feel of a small-town community, yet it has the amenities of a city. Dundarave has a relaxed and pedestrian feel to it. That contributes to it being so special. Like the rest of the areas in my Sea to Sky riding, this picturesque community is experiencing growth. While the residents of Dundarave have embraced this growth, they do not want to do it at the expense of the village feel.

This week I will have the pleasure of attending the opening of Dundarave's redeveloped MarketPlace IGA. While the opening of a new supermarket may not be too significant to some, what the developers incorporated should be, as they have a concept that incorporates the new variety of housing that West Vancouver so badly needs. It enables those who don't want to stay or wish to move to single-family homes in our area another attractive alternative. It's pedestrian-friendly. You can now live, shop and recreate all in the immediate area without the need for a car. It both enhances community spirit and revitalizes the community. Not only that, it can serve as a model for the necessary revitalization that's being discussed publicly for Ambleside, just down the road.

I hope that here in the House today, you'll help me congratulate all those involved — the property owner, the architects, the developer, H.Y. Louie Co. — in rebuilding their MarketPlace IGA. I hope this will be an example to communities throughout our province.

C. James: Last week the government admitted that it abandoned 713 child death reviews. Those 713 files were put in a warehouse and forgotten.

Last week the opposition also asked about 546 child deaths that have occurred since 2003. There has been no public reporting. These 546 cases have been neglected by this government. The Solicitor General told this House that the reviews had been done, but he wouldn't release them.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General prepared today to table those reviews so the public can finally see recommendations that they may contain?

Hon. J. Les: Let me reiterate again, one more time, that in fact in British Columbia all children's deaths are reviewed. They are reviewed — as has been outlined by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine just a few moments ago — by the coroner's office, by the police if that is appropriate or by medical professionals if that is appropriate. So all child deaths in British Columbia are reviewed on that basis.

In addition to that, we have a child death review process in British Columbia based in the coroner's office and staffed with medical professionals, who do a secondary review. That has been working well since January of 2003.

The results of those reviews will be made public when reports are compiled. One report has already been made public around the sleeping practices of children, which I think has been received well in the medical and parental community around the province.

As other reports are compiled — whether those are on individual cases, as may sometimes be appropriate, or whether those are in cases in aggregate, commenting on trends that become obvious as those are reviewed — those reports will all be released publicly.

C. James: It is appropriate to release individual child death reviews on every single case. That's what is missing here, and that's what the government doesn't seem to understand. We have real concerns about the first review process that is happening with these 546 neglected children. The reviews aren't as comprehensive as the ones done by the former Children's Commission. The chief coroner has already said that he didn't have the legislative capacity or the financial capacity to do them, and not one has been released.

So my question, again, to the Minister of Children and Families: of the 546 neglected cases, how many of those were children known to the ministry, and why haven't those reports been made public?

Hon. J. Les: I say again to the Leader of the Opposition that those 546 cases will all be reported upon by the child death review unit. The coroner's office has already made clear that they need some additional resources to do that. We have committed those resources to them. As a matter of fact, in the current fiscal year's budget there is a $1.4 million lift, as I'm sure the member opposite is aware. In fact, in four of the previous five years that budget had been underspent.

Clearly, since January 2003 some things have been learned. The coroner has also talked about the fact that there is some clarification needed with respect to legislation. As the member is also aware, Mr. Ted Hughes is reviewing the child death review process as well. From that process, too, we expect some commentary. We will put all of that together to make any improvements that are deemed to be necessary.

C. James: It's clear the Solicitor General doesn't have the information, so I'll try the question to the Minister of Children and Families, because it is important to look at whether these children and how many of these children were known to the ministry. The death of children who are known to the ministry is at the core of this issue. These are the children that the ministry interacts with. Matthew Vaudreuil was a child known to the ministry. Jamie Charlie and his sister were considered children known to the ministry. It's the tragic death of these children as well as those in care that we need to learn from in the individual reports.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How many of the 546 neglected cases involve children who were known to the ministry, and who made the decision to keep those reports hidden?

Hon. J. Les: There is no attempt by anyone to keep any reports hidden with respect to the child death re-

view process. We have said constantly, and we will continue to commit to making all of these reports public…. That is the explicit mandate. That is what we want to do. We want to learn everything possible on secondary review of these cases after, first of all, the other appropriate reviews have been done.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that in many cases, unfortunately, it takes a long time before the child death review team can actually get to these cases, as a result of the complexity of some of these files. The member opposite is quite aware that any criminal proceedings, for example, must be dealt with first — any inquest proceedings and matters of that nature. So I say again to the Leader of the Opposition that this is going to be a public process. All of those files will be commented on, as appropriate and as deemed appropriate by the child death review unit.

A. Dix: My question is to the Solicitor General. I want to raise one of these 546 tragic and sad cases today. Brandon James Seymour was a foster child in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. He was two and a half years old when he died on June 27, 2003.

Brandon had serious health issues and was required to use a wheelchair. That wheelchair was too big for him, and he occasionally slid down in it. He was waiting for a replacement. On June 27, 2003, his caregiver found him in this wheelchair with the restraint straps around his neck area. He had once again slipped in his chair, and he was not breathing. Efforts to resuscitate him failed. He died that morning. The coroner on the case classified the death as undetermined and offered no recommendations. When the Solicitor General said every case is investigated, is this what he meant?

Hon. J. Les: As we heard earlier today in members' statements, we have a very professional and well-regarded coroner's service here in British Columbia, and I think we can all be grateful for that fact. When the coroner's service makes a finding that a cause of death is undetermined, I can't stand here in this House and second-guess that decision. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do that. I have to take that decision at face value. There are other processes, such as the secondary child death review, that could perhaps look at something like that and make further recommendations, particularly of a preventative nature.

A. Dix: I'm not asking the Solicitor General to make determinations himself in this House today. I'm asking him to explain why the government got rid of the Children's Commission, which automatically did those second-stage reviews. I'm asking him why he got rid of the child advocate who assisted families who needed help with the ministry and with the government. I'm asking the minister why he eliminated all of the funding for child death reviews. This is a case where a child death review is required, and simply put, one hasn't been done.

Can the Solicitor General explain why the public has not yet seen a child death review into this tragic case? Has one been completed? Of all of the 546 cases, can he table one in this House today that has actually been completed?

Hon. J. Les: I will simply say this. The file that the member refers to will be reviewed by the child death review unit, and it will be reported upon.

R. Austin: This tragic death occurred two and a half years ago, and the government doesn't know if the proper investigation was ever done. There are some alarming facts about this case. He was a foster child. People knew his wheelchair was too big for him. He had multiple medical needs. This is the kind of case that the government needs to learn from. Where is the child death review for Brandon Seymour? How many other cases like this exist among the 713 or the 546?

Hon. J. Les: There are quite a variety of causes of death of young people and children. They range anywhere from stillbirths to disease and accidents and what have you. These are all, each one of them, very tragic cases obviously. The case that the member refers to, which I believe is the same case that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway refers to, is another one of those tragic cases. Obviously, I am not going to comment on the specifics of that case here this afternoon. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. It will be properly reported upon when the child death review unit completes its work, and I await their recommendations.

R. Austin: The Solicitor General doesn't know. Indeed, none of us know. The reason is because this government created a system that was fundamentally flawed and then ignored the problem. This government neglected 546 child deaths since 2003. They failed to release any of the reports. Brandon Seymour is only one of those cases.

Can the Solicitor General explain where the 546 reports from 2003 onwards are located? Are they also sitting in a warehouse somewhere?

Hon. J. Les: It is a fact that the Children's Commission in the years 2001 and 2002 was starting to come, itself, to the conclusion that the simple filing of individual reports on each and every case was perhaps not productive. They, too, were expressing an appetite for looking at trends, for example, in all of these occurrences to establish what we might learn from that and how we could take more preventative action. I think it is important to make that distinction.

So the member is quite wrong, in fact, to suggest that somehow 546 files have been forgotten. These are, in fact, all files that have received a second-stage investigative process. The child death review unit will be reporting out on their findings as a result of that investigation.

M. Karagianis: We know that some of those 546 neglected cases are children known to the ministry. We don't know how many, though. It's very obvious that the Solicitor General, after all this time, still doesn't know, either, and can't release those reports to us. We also know that some of those cases involve children like Brandon Seymour.

The coroner's service has not been able to get the job done and complete child death reviews. The Premier says it's as a result of transition. The coroner says it's as a result of no funding. But the sad reality is that 713 files were forgotten and another 546, like Brandon Seymour, have been neglected.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier commit today to releasing the transition and implementation plan so that we can see, once and for all, how government expected to have the coroner's service get this work done in an already overburdened office?

Hon. J. Les: A few things I would like to underline one more time for the member opposite. Since January of 2003, the child death review unit, staffed by professional people within the coroner's office, has been working well. It has reviewed and completed the review of 546 files. I have committed to the coroner's office that they will have the funding necessary to complete reports as and when they deem it necessary to issue reports — whether those are reports on individual files or on files collectively, which is often important.

The report that was recently done, for example, on sleeping practices was not a report on the sleeping practices of one child. It was a study of trends that the various professionals had observed over some time. They made some important recommendations, and that work should continue.

As I said a moment ago, the coroner's office will have (a) the personnel and (b) the funding required, as we've already indicated in this year's budget, to get that work done.

M. Karagianis: When this government decided to close down the Children's Commission, the coroner's service already had a very serious backlog. A 2002 briefing note from the B.C. Coroners Service states: "It was determined in late 2002 that the BCCS currently had in the neighbourhood of 1,000 overdue files." The note goes on to say: "Additionally, there is no process to ensure systematic, periodic review of any of the ongoing investigations."

The coroner's service already knew that they had a backlog, and they knew that they didn't have the effective process for reviewing ongoing investigations. Again, despite these circumstances, the government plunged ahead. Can the Premier please explain why hundreds of files were dumped into the coroner's service without any funding or an adequate plan for dealing with the backlog?

Hon. J. Les: As the member opposite is well aware, we have committed publicly to investigate these issues around the transition from the Children's Commission to the child death review unit within the coroner's service. When we have all of those answers as to what occurred and why and why not, we will report on that publicly as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: So far we have had no answers on how many of the 546 neglected cases were children known to the ministry. We have had no answers on why the public has not yet seen a death review in cases like Brandon Seymour. We have had no answers on how many other cases like Brandon Seymour exist, and we have had no answers on where the 546 reports from 2003 onward are located.

My question is to the Premier. Is the Premier satisfied with how the Solicitor General is handling the missing children, the neglected children, the forgotten children in this province?

Hon. J. Les: If the members want to stand up and ask repetitive questions, they can do that if they like. Let me then give a repetitive answer. The fact of the matter is that all children's deaths in British Columbia are appropriately reviewed. They are reviewed in every case. They are reviewed by medical professionals in hospitals. They are reviewed by the coroner's service. They are reviewed by the police if that is appropriate. That occurs in the case of the death of every young person in British Columbia.

There is a second-stage review process. It's called the child death review process, and 546 of those reviews have been completed since January of 2003. Yes, there are some issues around 713 files that we discussed last week. I have made a commitment to this House that those files will be reviewed on an expedited basis. We have also indicated to the coroner's service that additional funding would be made available for the production of reports, as indicated by the chief coroner who has said that additional funding may well be required to accomplish that.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry that the minister finds these questions repetitive and tedious, but the fact is that we will continue to ask these questions until we get an-

swers. British Columbians deserve the answers. The families of these children deserve the answers.

Again, to the Premier: is he satisfied with how his government has performed to date on the files of these children, these neglected children — forgotten children?

Hon. J. Les: I indicated clearly last week that the 713 files that had not been completely reviewed at the second stage were an unacceptable matter to me and that we would deal with those on an expedited basis. The reason I can say that with complete confidence is that this government takes each one of these unfortunate tragedies very, very seriously. We want to make sure that we do the right thing and deal with those files professionally, expeditiously, and learn from them what we possibly can.

C. Puchmayr: Another forest worker is dead. Another family has been devastated. Another logger has found a colleague fatally injured in the woods. That brings the total to 38 this year — 38 fatalities in the forests this year alone. This is unacceptable. One is unacceptable.

My question is to the Labour Minister. More than ten deaths ago the Minister of Labour stood in this House and said the time for action is now. What tangible actions has the minister taken to end what many are calling the carnage in the forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. First of all, I know he would, as all members would, extend our profound sense of sympathy and thoughts and prayers to the family of the individual who was killed this weekend during the course of, I believe, heli-logging activities, although I am still getting more of the details.

The member will know, from some of the discussions that have taken place between him and me, that I have already been in direct communication with WorkSafe B.C. and initiated some specific actions around the dedication of additional staff resources and inspection and enforcement resources and that there is a major review taking place of all of the policies that govern the occupational safety elements of the forest industry, with particular reference to ensuring that a changed industry is being properly regulated.

The member will also know, I think, that a summit meeting has been scheduled for December 5 involving all of the major stakeholders — none of which, sadly, changes the fact that, as the member has reminded the House, far too many workers in the forest sector have been injured and fatally injured, and that needs to change.

C. Puchmayr: The minister stood in this House and said his government would do anything it needed to do to end the carnage. In response to the government's call, the opposition has introduced a five-point strategy that we believe will curb the deaths in our forests. My question is to the Labour Minister. You said that your government would do anything. Will you implement our five recommendations and start the process to end the carnage in the forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I will do and will say — because I believe I know the spirit with which the recommendations are offered — is that I'll ensure that they, along with numerous other recommendations from the Forest Safety Council and from the steelworkers union, are on the table when all of the stakeholders meet on December 5 to ascertain and prioritize what the actions need to be.

As I have said in the past, I hope there is no one in this House who is claiming propriety over this issue. We're happy to entertain and take ideas from the opposition, from any member, and we're going to conduct those discussions. As I also said in this House, workers in the forest sector deserve to know that they can go to work in the morning and come back safely to their families at night.

B. Simpson: Our thanks to the Minister of Labour for committing to take into consideration what we put forward, and I agree with him. It is in the spirit of cooperation that we intend to do that. We don't want to have to stand in this House and give condolences to family members.

In that, I want to raise an issue that has been raised, and that is that we are heading into the heaviest logging season in the interior that we have ever experienced. We're going to put more forest workers to work. We're going to put more logging trucks on the road.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: what specific steps is the minister taking to make sure that increased activity does not result in increased fatalities?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's no doubt that increased traffic activity poses increased risks. Just as incidents relating to fallers have been on the rise on the coast, the larger concern by far, with respect to the part of the province that the member hails from, relates to traffic incidents and fatalities. The point can also be made that what we are seeing is a rise in actual incidents, and that doesn't even take into account unreported incidents.

An examination of the regulations that differentiate between traffic activity on public highways versus Forest Service roads — or Forestry roads, as they're commonly referred to — is something that the Minister of Forests and I, in concert with the various stakeholders involved, are undertaking with a mind to ensuring that a proper, reasonable, rational, commonsense set of regulations is in place to do what we can to bring down what are unacceptable levels of accident.

B. Simpson: When we first raised this issue in the House, the Minister of Labour indicated it was time for action and not review. However, we argued there was room for review, and I'm glad to see that some of that review work is being done, but there is a specific action that can be taken here.

According to senior Forests Ministry officials, for two years the ministry hasn't written a single ticket for speeding on logging roads, yet they're authorized to do so. They haven't issued one. Both companies and employees, log truck drivers, are saying that speed, lack of signage and infractions on our Forest Service roads are occurring.

Will the Minister of Forests and Range commit to do a staffing review to look at adding more staff resources to address that specific issue for this logging season? That is an action that could be taken now.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Education. Now that municipal elections are over and scores of dedicated British Columbians have been elected to represent their communities on school boards across this province, will the minister take the opportunity to end the uncertainty, to end the confusion and the speculation, and advise those trustees just what their role will look like when they're repurposed?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we want to offer our congratulations to those people who have chosen to run and have been elected as school trustees in the province.

We know that school trustees run — and there are members on both sides of this House who have chosen to do that — to find the best ways to support students in this province. We intend to have a discussion about how we can move forward and make sure that British Columbia's students have the best possible opportunities, and I look forward to having a discussion with those re-elected and newly elected trustees about that very thing.

J. Horgan: Will the Minister of Education stand in this place today and eliminate one of the opportunities that they may be considering, which is amalgamation of school districts? I've heard from dozens and dozens of residents in various communities across B.C. who are very concerned that with an absence of some sort of definition of what repurposing is, some clarity from the minister that the end result is going to be amalgamating smaller and rural districts…. Will the minister stand today and commit to not do that during the term of this school board?

Hon. S. Bond: I reiterate the commitment to look for the best possible opportunities to serve students in this province. We're going to have a discussion about that. For what we consider the first time in this province, we're actually having significant, meaningful discussion about the things that will best serve our students. That includes things like class size and composition. In fact, as I understand it, the last time amalgamation took place in the province, it was actually under the NDP government.

So we want to talk about how to best serve students. We know that at times the status quo is the most comfortable, but in fact, we want to talk about how to serve students. We want to do that with school boards, with parents and with administrators, and that's precisely what we intend to do.

M. Farnworth: To the Minister of Education: yes or no? Are you considering the amalgamation of school districts in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we actually think, as apparently the members opposite do, that listening to the public and to trustees is an important thing to do, and that's exactly what we're going to do over the next number of months. We're going to talk about how to best serve students. We're going to respond to that, and we're going find the ways to make sure that a great public education system gets even better.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The Premier has made much about the autonomy of local school education systems — school districts. Why did you not tell trustees and parents before election day that you are considering the amalgamation of school districts in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: The Premier has also made much comment about the fact that we are going to be the best educated, most literate jurisdiction on this continent. In fact, the most important thing we can do is ask: how best can we deliver to the people and the students of this province the best, most outstanding education system that they deserve? We intend to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's financial statement: Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009, November 2005.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 17, introduced and passed last Thursday, was the product of extensive discussions and unanimous agreement between the government and the opposition caucuses and leaders. The provisions of that bill were always based upon a genuine desire to proceed in a way that would respect the views of all members as reflected in their unanimous support.

On Thursday last, that objective appeared to have been met when each member of the chamber stood in support of Bill 17. However, in light of the Leader of the Opposition's sudden change of position on Friday on behalf of her caucus, clearly the conditions of bipartisan support for Bill 17 no longer exist. It, therefore, cannot and will not take effect.

Further, the unreliability of the opposition leader's positions on this matter, in the government's view, precludes any possibility of it being dealt with further in a truly non-partisan manner. Accordingly, all members of the chamber should know that the government intends to take no further steps to examine either the salary, pension or constituency office support issues and that passage of Bill 19 will end this discussion, and we will move on to other issues.

A reminder: as always, the government considers this a free vote and encourages members to exercise their will.

M. Farnworth: I recognize the importance of what we are doing here today. The opposition had concerns around the questions raised in the public on the day after. At the time we said that the bill would be….

Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago in my haste, I recognize the importance of this issue. As I said at the time, the opposition during the debate said that the public would judge. There were comments and concerns that were raised after third reading of the bill, and we believe that's important.

Today the bill has been tabled, and I believe it's important that we take this opportunity to indicate that while we are prepared to support the bill, we want to examine the bill. We believe it's important that the opposition does that. We want to make sure that we understand all….

I think it's important that we remember in this House that there was a lot of criticism about the fact of speedy passage of a piece of legislation. We are going to do something here today that we may all pass, but I do think it's important that we have an opportunity to at least look at the bill and to see exactly what the clauses say before we make that decision.

I would ask for a recess, a short one, because we'd like to see a copy of the bill.

C. James: I rise to speak in support of Bill 19, and I just want to make a few comments about the last few days and the process leading up to this.

We went into these discussions, this side of the House, in good faith with the other side of the House to talk about issues of importance to this Legislature. Those issues are important. Those issues of support for MLAs and support for the people who serve in this House on behalf of the people of British Columbia; supports for our constituency offices so that we can serve all the citizens of British Columbia well in our communities — those continue to be critical issues.

The issue of pension, again, is an important issue for all of us to have a conversation about and to address. The issue of making sure that more people can get involved in public office is critically important.

We did go into these discussions with good faith. We went through the process of referring this issue to LAMC. We felt that was the right direction to go, and clearly, we were wrong. Clearly, we did not live up to the public test of transparency. Clearly, we did not live

As you know, we made a recommendation on Friday to send this issue to a public commission of some kind. I understand why the government has brought in the bill today, and I speak in favour of it. This is not a process nor a direction that I know has been easy for anyone in this Legislature. Most importantly, this has not been an easy process for the public. I regret that. I regret that we didn't give the opportunity for the public to have a say. It's an important lesson, a very important lesson for all of us in this Legislature — and an important lesson for me specifically — about the pace of the Legislature and the pace of bringing things in and taking a second thought.

I don't regret that we acknowledge that a mistake had been made. I don't regret that we will give the opportunity for the public to have their say, and I speak in support of Bill 19.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to speak against this bill, in opposition to this bill. I do so because I believe that on Thursday of last week, when all of the members sitting here in this House today stood up to support Bill 17, they were doing the right thing. They were doing something that addressed some of the key problems that MLAs face with respect to serving their constituents.

Now, there's been a lot said in the media about a 15-to-32-percent raise, about gold-plated pensions and so on. I want to straighten something out for this House and for my constituents. Last year for my job as an MLA, I received $78,000 and change. But the province also contributed about $5,600 to my RRSP, and I did a matchup with that as well. So my true income is really about $83,000. With the passage of Bill 17, my income would rise to $86,450 for an increase of $2,639.50 — or in other words, a 3.05-percent increase.

The second portion of the bill provides for a pension, something I strongly support. I am required by law under Bill 17 to contribute 9 percent of my income, or $7,708.50, to the pension plan. This pension will provide me with up to 65 percent of my income — or an annual salary of $56,192.50 — if I am here for a minimum of 12 years.

The net effect of Bill 17 is that my gross pay will be $78,741, or an increase of $606 annually. That's about $11 a week.

The third portion of this bill…. I know it's not actually part of this bill, but the Minister of Labour spoke to the issue of constituency packages. Right now I, and every member of this House, get $84,000 to run my constituency. Now, that may seem like a lot of money to people watching on TV, but that goes to pay the salaries for two superb — and I do mean superb — constituency assistants, and I've got roughly $300 or $400 left over to spend on anything I like.

Even with the $84,000 that I receive, every year I have gone out and raised $30,000 to supplement my constituency office so that I can serve the 90,000 people that I represent — 90,000 people in my riding. Let me tell you that for all of the talk of communities around this province, I do not know of one that even comes close to the kinds of complexities of problems, issues that are festering and things that have to be fixed. I want to tell you that I come in here every day because I love this job. I love to get the job done. I love to make sure that I fix those problems, and I actually do that. I actually come in here, and I make a difference in my community. I represent….

Someone said this is self-serving. I don't serve myself; I serve 90,000 people in British Columbia. That's who I serve.

The Legislative Assembly Management Committee decided to give us $36,000 more a year for running our constituency office. Some of us will use it — I will — and some of us won't. The member for Peace River South doesn't have the same expenses that I do, but what I have to tell you is that this package allows me to serve my constituents the way they like to be served. Eleven dollars a week is a hell of a raise. I think I can get three lattes with that.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition…. I don't want to be mean, but last week all of us stood up and said it was a good idea and it was the right thing — all of us. Every last one of us stood up. And today the Leader of the Opposition is going to support Bill 19. The only difference between Thursday and Monday is maybe 150 nasty e-mails and a couple of calls from George Heyman and Jim Sinclair and Jinny Sims. For that, the Leader of the Opposition betrayed her caucus, betrayed everyone in this House.

L. Mayencourt: She decided that it was not worth the dignity, that she would not dignify it….

L. Mayencourt: She made a decision on Thursday that she should have stuck with.

The fact of the matter is that people reported we got a raise, and we didn't; we got 11 bucks a week. The fact is that people thought we were getting a gold-plated pension, and we're not. We actually have to work a long time to get it, and some of us may never get it.

I'm opposed to this. I want the Legislative Assembly Management Committee to stick to its earlier commitment to provide a $36,000 increase for ridings. This pains me, because I have only broken ranks with my caucus once, on one bill, and so I take it really seriously. I have tremendous respect for every one of the members in this House — save one. I will vote against Bill 19, and I ask members opposite and members on this side to think about it.

I ask the people of British Columbia — my computer's turned on right now; you can e-mail me — to tell me if you think I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong, well, we'll disagree, but at least you're going to make an informed decision at home today.

Eleven dollars a week. A pension after 12 years of hard work in this House. I don't complain about how hard we work, but every member in this House knows we work 12 hours a day and then go home and go to a dinner for this and a dance for that, and everything costs 150 bucks. We've got to be at those things. We've got to go and support the Cancer Agency or the AIDS organization or the Little League or whatever — you know? We've got to do those things. Otherwise, we're not really connecting with our community. We don't have the capacity to do it with this.

I regret this most of all because I have tremendous respect for my Premier. He's been good and fair to me and all the members on this side, but I have to cast my vote in opposition to his bill.

J. Kwan: First of all, let me just say that I appreciate the words of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is actually not often that I see and agree with some of his points of view. I don't dispute, and we on this side of the House do not dispute for a moment, how hard every MLA works on both sides of the House.

I've been in public office now since 1993, first as a city councillor and then subsequently as an MLA. People from all political stripes work their guts out because they believe in public service. They want to ensure the representation is there. Rightly or wrongly, we have different points of view, but I believe people's intent remains the same.

I know that when the member talks about the many events and many activities that we engage in outside of this Legislature, they are enormous. They cut into private time, cut into personal time, and that, too, causes strain on relationships. Make no mistake about that. So I don't dispute for one moment that MLAs should be compensated fairly, and that was one component of the package which LAMC reviewed.

I don't dispute for one moment that MLAs need resources to do their jobs. Lord knows, in the last four years, along with my colleague — I can now say her name — Joy MacPhail and, of course, the subsequent arrival through the by-election of my good colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, that we need resources to do our work. MLAs need that in constituency offices, and as my good colleague the House Leader from the opposition side had already said, we need resources for rural MLAs who need to travel. Boy, I sit there, and I think: "I don't even know how some MLAs from the rural communities do it, how they have to travel from one end of the constituency to another." I know one MLA has to actually get up at four o'clock in the morning, when she gets out of this House, to start driving to get to her constituency office on the other side of town to ensure that there's some presence there. That's what MLAs go through. That's just one small example, and that happens on both sides of the House.

So I know how hard MLAs work, and they need the resources there to do that job. I know that we as a caucus here on the opposition side, and I dare say on the government side as well…. MLAs need a little bit more resources, as an opposition caucus and as a government caucus, to do their jobs a little bit better outside of the constituency office. That's what the package involved as well.

I fully appreciate what the member for Vancouver-Burrard is talking about. On the question around pension, we on this side of the House — and, in fact, New Democrats — have always argued for fair pensions for working people. We're not suggesting that that should be different for different people. So that, too, on the pension question, is an important issue. I don't dispute that.

Where we fell down, though, is around the process of ensuring that the public gets a say. That's the question of accountability, isn't it? I regret very much, as a LAMC representative on behalf of our caucus, failing to see the importance of that. Our leader rightfully identified that as a critical issue, and we admitted our mistake. It was never the intent of this caucus to betray anyone, but we did that by our action — in a variety of ways. But there is a way in which we can rectify the problem, and I am glad to see that the government has now tabled a bill that would allow for the opportunity to be in place for us to actually address that question.

Part of the process here is to regain public trust. Part of the process here is to say to the public: "Yes, your voice matters." I want to thank the public for bringing forward their concerns to all of us, because they do count. Because, after all, that's why we're here: to represent them.

I will say, as well, on the question of making sure that people have an opportunity to express their view in this Legislature, it's important about Bill 19, and by nature, it's related to Bill 17. That's what the government is doing, as well, by tabling this bill — Bill 19 — to repeal the legislation.

Having said that, I am pleased to say that I will be supporting this piece of legislation. It has given me time over the weekend to reflect on the course of action since Thursday. It has, I think, given us an opportunity to look outside these walls and to hear from the public and face the music, as they say, and we've all done that. I think that the government has brought this bill forward because they, too, had heard the message.

Let me just close by saying that it was never the intent as a LAMC member to betray anybody. It was never the intent for us to not negotiate in good faith. We do see, though, that we've made a mistake, and that's why a public process around these critical issues would be essential. That offer is still there for the government to consider, and if the government chooses not to accept that, that's okay too. What is important, though, is that, I think, from this day on as we move forward on issues around this — and on any other is-

sue, for that matter, where it relates to important public issues — the government of all stripes needs to be open and accountable, and most importantly of all, we need to make sure that the public is heard.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the members that provided their commentary. I move second reading.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; S. Hawkins in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have some more motions, and after that last transaction, everyone is, I'm sure, going to listen with rapt attention, but these are more standard motions. I haven't had a chance…. To the Opposition House Leader: I believe we canvassed this — the committee of selection for the Merit Commissioner. In short, that committee would be composed of the same individuals who are on the Committee of Selection for the FOI commissioner. That is Messrs. Rustad — convener; Cantelon; Krog; Mmes. Polak and Thorne. I make that motion with respect to a Special Committee of Selection for the Merit Commissioner.

Hon. M. de Jong: The next two motions relate to the Ombudsman. The second motion that I will make is similarly for a Committee of Selection and similarly would appoint the same five individuals. However, the first motion is to bridge the time required to do that work. By leave, I move as follows:

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — in this chamber, the estimates of the Premier's office, and in Committee A, Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by introducing some of my staff who are with me today. Jessica McDonald on my immediate left is the Deputy Minister to the Premier and the cabinet secretary. Dana Hayden, to the left of Ms. McDonald, is the deputy minister of strategic policy, natural resources and the economy, and many people are big fans of hers. Philip Steenkamp is the deputy minister of strategic policy, social development.

The activities of the Premier are aimed across government at achieving the five great goals that we've set for the decade ahead of us: to make B.C. the most educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent; to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness; to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors; to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management bar none; and to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in the world.

We also through the Premier's office are pursuing a number of cross-government initiatives, including building a new relationship with first nations communities across British Columbia; taking full advantage of the Asia-Pacific gateway as Canada's Pacific province and building a strategy that, again, is cross-government; looking at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games as an opportunity for all British Columbians in all parts of this province to pursue their goals and objectives; building a more citizen-centred gov-

ernment service; and providing for reforms in British Columbia, both in the Legislature and in the electoral system.

It seems important, to me, for us all to remember that most of the goals that have been outlined are actually goals that are embraced by all British Columbians. I would hope they are embraced by the members of the opposition as well as by members of the government.

When we look at the primary goal, which is to create the best educated and most literate jurisdiction in North America, we've taken a number of initiatives to try and ensure that that takes place — not just the Learning Round Table which has recently been convened, including the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. School Trustees, the B.C. School Superintendents' Association, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals and the government, but also an investment of substantial additional dollars. In fact, the largest single increase in education investment that we've seen in a decade in British Columbia has been made.

Real progress has been made in eliminating some of the textbook challenges that parents and teachers have identified across the province, and we've taken what has been nationally recognized as a broad literacy strategy to make sure that we do build the kind of literacy in this province that's so critical to the long term for British Columbians. In fact, we've announced more than $40 million to support literacy programs through innovative literacy grants, adult literacy programs, Literacy Now, $10 million for textbooks and $3 million for Ready, Set, Learn.

We've tried to remember that the critical component of literacy is the individual citizen. For example, as we prepare young people for school, we're preparing them and providing them with their own books. We're trying to encourage them to read, and we've matched all of the dollars which are raised by both the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times Colonist Raise-a-Reader campaigns, because those are individual citizens making a contribution, putting in an effort and trying to be sure that we reach out and touch the communities across the province.

As we look to the future, one of our goals is to look at what measures we will use to see if we are making progress, what investments are required to make sure that progress is continuing and ongoing and that improvements are continually being made. I think a critical component of any long-term skills development strategy in British Columbia has got to start with the founding principle of literacy.

The second issue that we clearly have to address is the whole issue of healthy living and physical fitness. It's critical, I think, that we examine some of the options that are in front of us, and a good example of a cross-government initiative is the ActNow initiative which has been put in place and is really championed by the Health Ministry. We have set a number of goals for the government over the next decade to try and assure that we reach them. We will have to take actions. We will have to measure the results of those actions, and we will do that together as a government. We will do that in on ongoing way as the Premier's estimates or Health Ministry estimates or other estimates come forward so that not just members of the opposition but the public, as well, can see whether or not we are reaching for our goals.

Let me outline some of them. First, healthy eating. We want to have a 20-percent increase in the people who are eating recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables. Two, physical activity — a 20-percent increase in people who are physically active. Three, a reduction in tobacco use by 10 percent across the province. Four, a reduction in obesity in the province — a 20-percent reduction in the people who are classified as overweight or obese. And five, we would like to try and work to find programs to prevent fetal alcohol spectrum disorder — a 50-percent increase in women accessing prevention and information on risks of alcohol use during pregnancy.

The Action Schools program has been put in place to specifically touch all of our children in our public education system over the next few years to make sure that they, too, have happy, active and full lives. As you know, in terms of building a support for those who need our support, we have launched the Premier's council on aging and seniors issues to look at how we can take full advantage of this burgeoning opportunity that's there for us in terms of the demographics of seniors who can contribute to our economy and to the activities that take place in community after community.

We will have already, in September's budget, increased the support for seniors by $242 million over three years. We've renewed the seniors supplement, which is important. We've added to the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters in the SAFER program. We've signed an agreement with the federal government with regard to child care and early learning. We've established a plan for a provincewide 211 service, one-number access to community and social services. We, in fact, have the lowest personal income taxes for middle- and low-income earners in Canada, and that's a critically important component.

We've also launched a mayors' task force on homelessness and addictions. That has gone on. We have the largest budget we've had for socially assisted housing in the province. Again, we're trying to integrate services with mental health services and support services and addiction services as well as the homelessness activities that are taking place.

We want to be recognized for sustainable environmental management. We have established a new legislative committee for sustainable aquaculture. We have been successful in stopping the SE2 power plant from going ahead in the Fraser Valley. Each of those things will have a long-term, positive impact on British Columbians.

Finally, in terms of the economy, I think most British Columbians recognize that over the last five years we've made substantial and significant process in terms of lowering our unemployment rate, which cur-

rently in British Columbia is at the lowest level that it's been for the last 30 years.

Thank you for that overwhelming support. We've got 5.1 percent, which is the lowest level in 30 years. I think it's also important that our youth unemployment is the lowest level that it has been since, actually, the start of reporting youth unemployment.

Every region of the province has been benefiting. Three regions have set record monthly low unemployment rates since the regions started reporting — the mainland southwest, the Thompson-Okanagan and the Cariboo. For the first time, unemployment rates in all regions of the province are below the national rate of 6.6 percent. For the sixth month in a row, every region has single-digit unemployment. More women are working, more young people are working, more British Columbians are working, and there are more opportunities for all of them. We want to keep building on that successful economy as we move into the future.

We've also said quite clearly that we want to look at regional development opportunities, so whether it's the northern development initiative, whether it's the north island–coast development initiative or the southern interior development initiative…. Those are specific opportunities for regional economies to build themselves, to look at their own solutions for their own challenges or, maybe more appropriately, to reach for the opportunities that are there for them with some resources that have been made available.

We need to keep our economy competitive if we are going to be successful in reaching our goal. We have done that in a number of ways. The Asia-Pacific Trade Council, the Leading Edge Endowment Fund and the Premier's Technology Council are all part of coming up with a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to building a competitive economy that provides opportunities in each part of this province.

I'm going to close with one quick comment, and that has to do with the new relationship with first nations in British Columbia. As you know, we are about to embark on a major first ministers meeting, the first one we've had in almost two decades in Canada to look at closing the gap between first nations and non–first nations British Columbians. I want to say that I think, first of all, the true leadership from here has come from the aboriginal leadership in British Columbia. They have been very constructive, and they have been thoughtful in their approach. I believe that British Columbia is going to be seen across the country as leading in this regard. What we're really talking about is assuring that all British Columbians share the sense of optimism and hope, share the sense of excitement about this province's future.

As I have said many times before, I believe we do live in the best place on earth. I believe we live in a place that should open doors of opportunity to everybody that lives here. I believe that working together, there is nothing that we can't accomplish in British Columbia.

C. James: I would like to thank the Premier and thank his staff for the opportunity to go through estimates. As you know, this is my first opportunity to be able to canvass the budget, to canvass the Premier's office and to canvass the government agenda in a comprehensive way. So I look forward to this debate, and I thank you for the opportunity to do that.

I also, as I said in my first opening remarks to this Legislature a number of months ago, want to congratulate the Premier and his MLAs for forming government for a second term. I think this will be a good opportunity to look at the direction and the kinds of goals that the Premier has set and at the direction that he's taking government.

Just to give you an idea of the kinds of issues that I'll be pursuing over the next couple of days, I will be talking about issues that we know are of importance to British Columbians, issues that we know have been heard both through the campaign as well as over the last number of months. I'll be talking about issues such as seniors and the crisis in our forests. I'll certainly be talking about child protection and talking about areas such as the Olympics.

I will be providing an opportunity to a couple of my colleagues to be able to ask some questions. Certainly, our critic for Intergovernmental Relations will have an opportunity to raise some questions. Other than that, I think I'll get right into our questions. I know we don't have a lot of time over the next couple of days, so I want to make sure we have an opportunity for a good thorough debate.

The first area I'd like to focus on — and the Premier mentioned it in his comments as an area of importance to him and to his government — is the whole area of seniors. What we've seen in many areas of this government, including seniors, is that often we see the right words there, but the actions that follow don't necessarily meet the words and the goals and the direction. Certainly, we would support our seniors. But there are some directions in the record of this government that raise questions about the commitment to seniors. That's certainly a comment that we heard over and over and over again during the election campaign.

I want to start off by asking the Premier…. He mentioned the seniors advisory council as one of the areas that he thinks is a wonderful opportunity to receive regular advice from seniors. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he thinks having the council of the senior advisory — getting some information from the people on that seniors advisory council — might have changed the direction that he took with seniors over the last four years.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think one of the critical things about the Council on Aging and Seniors Issues is that we have to look to the future with regard to what the challenges are that seniors face, but more importantly, what are the opportunities?

Seniors have changed dramatically. I think that when you talk to Dr. Patricia Baird, who is recognized

across the country for her expertise, one of the things that she is most excited about is taking advantage of the huge human resource opportunities that are in front of us in terms of seniors. Now, will they provide us with additional initiatives or suggestions on how we can move ahead? My answer is quite simply yes, I believe they will. Will we learn from them? My answer is yes, with regard to that.

In terms of what we as a government are trying to accomplish with seniors, to the Leader of the Opposition, I think what we're trying to do is change what was a traditional and, frankly, fairly static response to seniors challenges and to provide a continuum of services to seniors so that you meet their needs in their communities, in their homes. We try and make sure that we are providing that broad range, if you want, from home to institutional care that may be required.

I think when you look at seniors, you have to recognize that there have been some significant financial commitments made by this government to seniors — whether it's the low-income seniors who have benefited from the opportunities that have been created through the new Pharmacare system, whether it's the low-income seniors who benefited from the new MSP system or whether it's the low-income seniors who've benefited from the new taxes that were brought in, in February 2005.

Even more importantly, when we look at what took place in the September budget, what I think we've clearly seen is a commitment not just to expand and improve housing opportunities for seniors — I think it's $150 million that's been provided for that — but also to provide, again, for the supports that lower-income seniors need.

Having said that, I think we have to recognize that seniors in British Columbia are an enormous resource for us. One of the things I found most encouraging at the conference centre where we brought together the seniors council was to hear them talk about what opportunities were in front of them and what they could do in terms of building, not just improving our health care system but adding to the quality of life — for example, the seniors mentorship program and literacy for kids in schools, the seniors program in terms of helping people manage some of the issues that they face in their day-to-day lives. All of those things are possibilities, and I would certainly hope that the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues will come forward with recommendations not just recognizing some of the challenges that we may face with aging, because that will create huge institutional change, but also recognizing the opportunities that seniors would like to be able to take advantage of. I think that's going to be critical as we move ahead.

C. James: I appreciate the Premier's comments. There's no question that listening to the voices of seniors is important.

Just to delve in a little more to the council that the Premier talked about, I wonder if the Premier could tell me what the difference is between the current Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors, which is put in place now by the Premier, and the previous provincial Seniors Advisory Council. What are those differences?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the primary difference is that in the past, councils tended to look at simply providing additional services — which were fine and in many cases were worthwhile. What the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues is looking at is that we're all getting older. Let me give an example. At some point in time, people decided that you were supposed to retire at 65. There are a lot of people who don't feel they want to retire. They don't need to retire at 65; they'd rather keep working and keep going on. We have to look at that and look at mandatory retirement and say: "What does that mean?"

If you were at the presentation, one of the things that was pointed out is that we have a demographic change where we have more and more people that are going to be requiring services and fewer and fewer people that can help pay for them. One of the things the council has come forward and said to us is: "We'd like to keep working if possible. We'd like to have the choice if possible."

So we've said to the council: "If that's what's on your agenda…." I want to be clear. This agenda will be set, at least in detail, by the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. Here's an example, though. Our neighbourhoods, generally across the board in British Columbia, are based on single-family residential homes. That's how our cities were built. Whether you're living in Victoria or Terrace or Cranbrook, if you go you'll see a number of homes that are single-family residential homes — large yards, different kind of housing construction, etc. But they're really there for what I would call the traditional family, meaning the family that most of us who are my age — certainly not the leader's age, but my age — will remember: a mother, a father, two or three kids at home, and generally one parent is at work. That's how we built our neighbourhoods.

They were younger. Funny, I was a lot younger in 1950 than I am in 2005. What's happened is — and I can use my own example of this — that seniors decide they can no longer deal with the single-family home. They can't put up with it. They need a different kind of accommodation. You go and look at a neighbourhood, and they say: "There's none of that accommodation available in my neighbourhood." You go to cities or towns, and they may say: "Well, we can't change that housing shape because that's not what we're used to. It's not a single-family residential home."

One of the things I'm hoping the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues will look at is how we change our neighbourhoods to accommodate aging seniors, aging British Columbians. There's no question we will have a small population that will need increased support. There's also no question that as we get new technologies and build new understandings of what we can do, we can keep people independent in their homes longer, with the higher quality of life, if we

provide for that continuum of services. I'm hopeful that the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues will examine those things.

I don't remember all the names of all the members, but they're from all over the province. They have a broad range of experience. What they're really, I think, focusing on in this particular time as they go and have their meetings over the next year is: how do we make sure that healthy seniors have an opportunity to participate fully, that we give them the support they need to pursue a healthy lifestyle, an independent lifestyle, and the highest possible quality of life? I'm sure we're going to get some additional responses on that.

We think it's also important that they identify pressing needs for seniors. What are they? Let's hear from them, not try and impose it on them, but let's hear from them.

I want to say this in the right way. I'm hopeful that members of the opposition will be able to participate with a number of these activities and events across the province. It was actually pretty energizing to be there and hear from seniors about what they think we can do. It's not necessarily investing more money. It might be changing the way that we do things. It might be looking differently at how we respond with the program. It could be something as simple as making sure that people who have more difficulty hearing know how to access services, that people who have more difficulty seeing know how to access services.

Again, let me use myself as an example as an oncoming senior. I often see government reports….

This is the fascinating Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. There's no senior that could read that — right? As you get older, you need bigger print.

As we look at how we communicate with the public, we have to think of the changing needs that we have — whether it's with seniors or others — but seniors may well be one of the areas we would do that.

C. James: I appreciate those comments around seniors and listening to the voice of seniors. I think, in fact, that's critical. It's critical, whether we're talking about seniors or about other areas, that we listen to the voices of those with experience in the area that government is making decisions about. So I couldn't agree more. I think the issue of seniors is critical, and I support having a seniors council.

What I am concerned about, though…. I ask the Premier to reflect back, perhaps, on whether the fact that he eliminated the seniors council in 2002 had any impact on the decisions that he made in his government over that time period, decisions like trying to take away the seniors bus pass or separating seniors from long-term care homes where they were, the MSP premiums — decisions that directly impacted seniors. Yet because of the decision in 2002, seniors voices weren't heard.

So my question to the Premier is: does he think that had an impact on the decisions that he made, and is that why he brought back a seniors advisory council after he got rid of it in 2002? The second part of that question is: how will the information from the current seniors council come forward to government and influence the decisions and direction of government?

Hon. G. Campbell: I guess the short answer on whether or not the seniors council would have helped us with the idea that was brought forward to eliminate the bus pass…. I don't really think we needed the seniors council; the seniors community let us know pretty quickly that that wasn't required.

What we've tried to do in terms of MSP and Pharmacare is focus down the benefits to those who are most in need. I don't think we should try and hide from this. There's no question that when you make these changes, they can be disruptive. But I know now that the Pharmacare program we have in British Columbia is one of the most expansive in Canada, if not the most expansive. It is the fairest. About a quarter- million low-income seniors actually had their Pharmacare costs reduced. With MSP, I think it was about a quarter million–plus low-income seniors who had their premiums either reduced or eliminated.

So I think the principles that we were acting on through the first term were really principles that said that low-income seniors should actually benefit from…. Whatever we could do, we should try and focus it down on the people that were the lowest-income seniors. The initiatives that we've undertaken with regard to the task force — the current one — on seniors and aging issues are to recognize that they sort of go beyond what we have traditionally called seniors issues.

One of the things I found most interesting in talking to the council was that they actually would like to find a way we can talk about something other than seniors, because they think "seniors" pushes us over and stops us thinking about what the issue actually is. For people that are older and have healthy lives, the issue is to try and be sure that they have sensible care and accommodation and a continuum of care, which is the big shift that's taking place.

I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that we are not happy with what we were able to accomplish from 2001 to 2005. We are confident that we will have not just the 5,000 units prepared by 2008, but there are additional resources that have been put in place for that — $75 million this year, I think, and $75 million next year.

We are encouraged by the activities that are taking place across the board. We hope to improve seniors' lives by healthier lifestyles, by increasing independence, by creating housing options for them and by looking at various service options that may be available

to them. I would hope that the seniors' Council on Aging will provide a framework for all of us.

To answer the second part of the leader's question, it's my understanding that the whole council is not going to travel to the whole province. To be blunt, I believe that their primary benefit to us will be to be as independent from you and me as is possible and to come forward and say to us: "This is what we heard in Prince George. This is what we heard in Cranbrook."

They are going to look at some specific areas of concern, but they will set those agendas. It may be early retirement. It may be community integration. It may be housing services. It may be volunteering. I can't be sure what they're going to do. My hope is that they will then prepare a report. They will submit it to my office. It will be a public report. I think that's important. Their report and their recommendations will be made public. Then government will have to act on where we're going and what we're doing.

C. James: I appreciate those comments, and I appreciate the direction. I think it's very important that there be an opportunity for that report to come forward, for that report to be public and for us to hear on the broadest issues. I also support the direction in making sure that we hear from the voices of seniors on all sorts of issues, not just senior-specific issues, because seniors obviously have an investment in education. They obviously have an investment in the economy. They have an investment in their communities. I think the opportunity to actually hear from seniors on a broad range of issues is a great direction to go and a wonderful opportunity for all of us on both sides of this House.

Madam Chair, I'm going to turn over my opportunity to my colleague for a few minutes, then move to intergovernmental relations for a little bit, and then come back to seniors issues.

A. Dix: I just had a few questions for the Premier. It's really more to satisfy my curiosity about things and how things work in the Premier's office than anything else. I wanted to ask the Premier about the process of government reorganization and decisions that the Premier makes with respect to the executive council, the responsibilities of the executive council and so on.

As the Premier knows, in June he made the decision to move child and youth mental health from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Ministry of Health. A couple of weeks later we raised some issues about that, and the Premier moved them back.

I wanted to ask the Premier just how that process works. Was there some sort of review that went on before that decision was made? Did the Premier give thought to it? Were there briefings for the Premier? Was there a coming-together and looking at the whole of government and at mental health issues? How did that decision get made?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, if I can just step back a moment for the member, one of the things that I was concerned about as we moved through the transition to the new government was to try and align responsibilities and accountabilities into ministries so that they were not dispersed. I'll use another example than this one for a second. For example, fetal alcohol syndrome disorder had nine different ministries, at one point, that were involved with it, and people wondered why no one seemed to really have accountability for it to drive it forward. I moved it over to the minister of state at the time and said: "Get this organized, and pull it together."

With regard to child and youth mental health, I think there are a couple of pretty straightforward answers for it. First, mental health is a Health issue. It's a mental health issue. We felt that that was a place where, if you left it in Health, they could deal with it best. Mental health is often linked with addictions. Addiction services, as the member will know, are now in the Health Ministry, and that's important. One of the challenges we had to look at was how we would manage that as well as we could for the children and youth who were involved. There was also some sense, at least from the office in discussions that we had, that there would be a better transition from youth to adult services that were made available. That's why the decision was made.

A. Dix: Of course, the Premier reversed that decision within two weeks. I understand, I guess, the Premier's comments about the importance of keeping mental health services in Health, but I guess I'm just a little confused as to the process.

This was one of the recommendations of Justice Gove: to try and bring children's services together. As the Premier knows, it's one of the great, real, profound tragedies in our province: what occurred at times in the past when children fell through the cracks because there wasn't a comprehensive menu of services. One ministry was dealing with a child, another ministry was dealing with them for another part of their life, and the two never talked. The idea of bringing together a Ministry of Children and Families and bringing those services together was to deal with precisely that point.

I guess what I find confusing about a decision in a really important area…. It's something the Premier has always considered very important, which is mental health services. He's spoken very eloquently about it. How could it happen that a mistake was made? Does he acknowledge that a mistake was made, that not enough thought was given to that? Can he explain just how that process might have worked that would have led to a decision to move child and youth mental health services one week and a decision to move it back the next?

Hon. G. Campbell: Fortunately, I'm surrounded by deputies who can remind me of this. The primary thing that they reminded me of is that there are strong views

on both sides of this issue — not one deputy's and the other's, but in terms of where we're going.

We did think it was important that we align mental health with the Health Ministry. We did work on that. The child and youth officer was not consulted — as, I think, the member would know. It wouldn't be usual for us to consult with regard to the structures of government, how we manage those and align their responsibilities.

However, when the child and youth officer talked with us, she agreed on a couple of things. First, it was a significant issue. It was a real challenge for government, and it was a challenge that we had responded to structurally, if you want. To put not too fancy a word on it, I think that her initial response to us was: "It may be better for you not to do this structurally, and to do it culturally instead." So we decided: "Okay, we'll try and learn from that." We made the shift back, and the primary drive behind that shift back is to try and ensure that we have the cultural shift, as opposed to the structural one.

I think that when Justice Gove made his first report there were a number of challenges across government with regard to children and children in care. He dealt in significant part with some structural changes, as the member has suggested. We decided in this case, after consulting with the child and youth officer, that we would try and pursue this using, instead of the structural change, the cultural change. Currently the deputies of both the Minister of Children and Family Development and of the Minister of Health are being asked to make sure that there are not gaps, that there's no place for a child or youth to fall through, that there is open communication between the two ministries on this and that we do our best to provide service.

At the end of the day, I would say this: the member is correct. Our task is to provide effective services, not to hive services off over here or there but to say, "What are we trying to accomplish?" and to try to provide them as effectively as possible, which is what we were trying to do.

We are back at what was identified by everyone as a significant issue during the transition. It was identified as a significant issue, which is why we made the structural change. When the child and youth officer talked with us, I think she was clear that it was an issue. She felt there was another way that we could approach it. We, frankly, listened to her and said, "Let's try and approach it that way, and let's try and follow it through." We are following it through now. If it's not successful and we're not being as effective as we should be with dealing with that, then we still maintain the option of making the structural shifts, if that's necessary.

A. Dix: This will be my last question. The member of our caucus responsible for intergovernmental relations will take over from here. I just want to ask one last question on this point.

I think a lot of people who work in this area feel very strongly that the responsibility should stay with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I appreciate what the Premier said about ministries working together, and that's really, really important, particularly in this area. The issues are just too serious for any other approach.

Can he give them the assurance that it's his intention to keep the line responsibilities for this in the Ministry of Children and Family Development for the foreseeable future?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think in terms of the assurances that people would need who are advocates for the children and family development model is that it will be in Children and Family Development. We are going to monitor it. We are going to see whether it's effective or not, and we maintain the option of changing it should we decide it has to be changed.

I think it's also fair to say that we will do that option openly. We will explain why we think it has got to be done. We will include the children and youth officer in that discussion, but we will reserve the right to make the change if we need to make the change.

M. Sather: It gives me pleasure to join in these debates in the estimates for the Premier's office. I wanted, in my role as Intergovernmental Relations critic, to address some of the issues that have reference to relations between our province and other jurisdictions. For example, I wanted to first talk about the sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan of the United States.

As the Premier will know, this has been a very contentious issue in British Columbia. A lot of people have expressed their concerns about it — concerns about service levels and jobs and concern about our control over our energy resources. These people have written a lot of letters to the B.C. Utilities Commission to express their concern.

As we know, they did not get the opportunity, the format, to ask their oral questions before the Utilities Commission. A great deal of these questions, I believe, also went to the Premier's office. I wanted to ask: who in the Premier's office worked on this file for the sale of Terasen Gas?

Hon. G. Campbell: There would be no one specifically allocated to this responsibility out of the Premier's office. This would be covered under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates, which are yet to come. He would be the lead voice in terms of government.

M. Sather: I want to ask, then: if the Premier is not the lead person or agency — or his office — did the Premier's office have any involvement whatsoever in the sale?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, other than being phoned and being told that there was going to be an announcement, we had no involvement whatsoever in

the sale. We did have involvement, obviously, as part of government policy, in establishing an independent utilities commission.

The member and the public should be confident that in fact, the resources of British Columbia remain the resources of British Columbia. This will have no impact whatsoever with regard to that. But the details of this particular discussion should be covered in the estimates of the Minister of Energy and Mines.

M. Sather: I'll move on, then, to another subject and canvass the Premier's involvement, or his staff's involvement, perhaps. Another issue of great importance to all British Columbians, of course, has been the softwood lumber dispute that has been broiling for many years. There have been different attempts to solve it. Most of them have proven to be short term, unfortunately, and we now find ourselves again in the situation of trying to resolve a dispute that is costing us billions of dollars in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia.

We have talked to the members opposite in the Premier's office about what could be done to bring some pressure, if you will, to bear on this issue. The Premier will recall that the member for Nelson-Creston has addressed this issue several times. One of the suggestions has been around…. I might add it's not only the suggestion of our caucus but also of the Prime Minister, when he spoke recently and said that this was a serious issue, that we needed our partners in the United States to act in good faith, that we couldn't ensure energy security and that we needed to address these issues in tandem, if need be.

My question to the Premier regarding this issue is about the issue of linking the sale of Terasen Gas with the softwood lumber dispute, which as he will know, we've canvassed. That issue has been decided insofar as the B.C. Utilities Commission has ruled on the sale. The federal government has also ruled on that sale. I would like to know if there was anyone in the Premier's office who was at any point tasked with looking at the option — whether linkage might have been an option from the Premier's perspective.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me go back for a second with regard to the softwood lumber dispute and the Prime Minister. British Columbia, since we've been government…. We were elected first in the summer of 2001. Softwood Lumber 4, as I think it was called at the time, had expired, and we were concerned that there had been a fair amount of drift over the year before. We immediately took that up. I said to the Prime Minister of the day that we expected British Columbia to be at the head of the table in terms of how the country dealt with this.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister's comments. They actually echoed the comments that I had made following the NAFTA ruling in early August of this year. The comment was really simply this: if your whole framework for trade is being undercut by the action of one party, you have to ask yourselves questions about the whole framework for trade. We have consistently said, as a province, to the United States that if they're looking for energy security, if they're looking for a reliable supplier, then the most reliable supplier they have of energy happens to be Canada.

We have a couple of specific principles that we've been pursuing throughout our discussions with regard to softwood, as frustrating as they've been for all of us not just in this chamber but across this province. One is that it has to be a good deal for British Columbia.

The second is that it has to be done within a national context, because it is the nation that's negotiating with the nation. I'm sure the member opposite understands how difficult this is. We have a dispersed forest industry in British Columbia. Now multiply that by ten. That's what the national government faces.

In the United States, I've met with the Vice-President on this. I've met with the Secretary of Commerce on this. The administration has got a position, Congress has had a second position, and the industry has had a third position. It's a multiheaded negotiation that has been taking place.

We've been very clear that we want this to be a Canadian position. So when the Prime Minister said to the United States in, I think, the second half of August or maybe early September, "Look, this is about our whole trading relationship," he was actually echoing what British Columbia had said coming out of the NAFTA ruling.

In terms of connecting one specific private sector initiative to that, that was not Canada's position. It has not been, that I am aware of.

I talked with staff about whether that made sense or not, could it be done, what would the impacts…? I'm sure I've had discussions with my staff with regard to that, but we have not launched that, because the fact is that may well be an "energy initiative" for Canada. An energy initiative for Canada does not just include British Columbia. It includes the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec. We have always been aware of that.

I actually support what the Prime Minister said. We advocated what the Prime Minister said. We also are carrying on with business in British Columbia, and we're carrying on with the protections that we provided to the public through the BCUC. The primary protection that that has provided the public is it's independent. We have not undermined the quasi-judicial nature of the BCUC, and we've not tried to interfere with that. That, frankly, is exactly what every single other government has done when they've dealt with these sorts of things. I don't believe there has been a time when there has been a government directive with regard to this kind of an initiative to the BCUC.

M. Sather: I do recall the Premier's comments at the time in support of what the Prime Minister was saying, but I wanted to clarify something about what the Premier has said. With regard to linkage, I understood the

Premier to say that it is a bigger issue than just British Columbia. That is, there are many provinces involved in softwood lumber, although British Columbia is obviously a very important one. Did I understand the Premier to say that he would not consider linkage because Terasen is a B.C. company as opposed to being a nationwide company? Was that part of the reasoning?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. We have always been part of a national initiative with regard to solving softwood, because we believe that's the way that British Columbia and the United States and Canada will get to a resolution.

M. Sather: Well, it has been a bit confusing for British Columbians, I think, on this issue, because although, as the Premier is expressing, he has supported what some characterize as the Prime Minister's tough stance, we have heard the Forests Minister say things that would indicate that this is not a direction at all that we would want to go in the province. I was just wondering; I would like to ask the Premier…. He has mentioned that he has met with…. I believe Condoleezza Rice is one he might have mentioned. I want to ask the Premier if he, with or without the Forests Minister, had met with the federal government to discuss the linkage issue.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't recall a time when we have met and said the meeting is about linkage. We have met and said the meeting's about finding a resolution.

Generally, when I'm meeting with the federal government, we are talking about what strategies we could follow. Is there a campaign we could carry out in the United States to identify for Americans the strength…? Or the policy initiatives that we might take — how do those policy initiatives affect B.C. forest workers versus Quebec's forest workers versus Alberta's? Those sorts of initiatives. The majority of those initiatives have been undertaken by the Minister of Forests on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I did undertake an initiative, because I felt it was important that Canada know that we could move forward with a united voice towards a resolution. I did ask for a meeting with both the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario, because I felt it was critical, in terms of Canada's negotiating position, that they know that if they went and negotiated, they had support of the provinces behind them, so they could act with confidence and direction in where they were going. I think that actually has proven fruitful. But we have never actually sat down and said: "Let's look at linkage."

I could tell the member, though, that when the issue of linkage came up at the Council of the Federation, there was a great disparity of positions with regard to that. I could think of linkage. Here's a linkage. Let's link the auto plan to it. Now, I don't think it's very hard for people to figure out that Ontario may not be keen on linking the auto plan to the resolution of softwood. Or you could say: "Let's link the sale of Quebec or British Columbia energy." Well, there are people in Quebec who wouldn't think that made a lot of sense. There are people in British Columbia who would say that wouldn't make a lot of sense. There are certainly people in Alberta that said specifically at the Council of the Federation: "No, that shouldn't be on the table."

What we've been trying to do is work within what I think is actually the broad Canadian context to find a resolution that will benefit British Columbians. I do think we should not underestimate that challenge.

Having said that, we should recognize we've won. The challenge isn't whether we've won with regard to NAFTA or not. The challenge is that the Americans have said they're not going to pay attention to it. Then they'll go over and say: "Well, we like the WTO ruling this week." The fact is that the primary trade framework agreement between the United States and Canada is not the WTO; it's NAFTA.

What I've said, what the Prime Minister has said and, I believe, what the Premiers have said, unanimously, is that it is imperative the Americans live up to their word. They're not doing that yet. We still say that. The Prime Minister, I think, went to New York and said the Americans should immediately return $3.5 billion, which came up to the time of the NAFTA ruling. We agree with that.

There has not been a specific meeting on linkages. There has certainly been public discussion about it, but Canada has not put that on the table yet. What Canada has said is: "Actually, everyone should understand this." This is a big issue for Canadians — that NAFTA itself is undermined by the Americans' action, not by ours.

It's a very slow dispute resolution mechanism. It's very cumbersome. It's burdened by all kinds of legal this, that and the next things, but we've gone through that for the last three and a half to four years, and we won. The Americans have said: "Well, gee, maybe we should negotiate." No, that's actually not it. The legal framework is what gives us the opportunity to negotiate and come to a mutual agreement. When that mutual agreement doesn't come forth and the negotiation doesn't bear fruit, then you've got to be able to count on a legal document. So far we've not been able to count on that with the Americans. So far the Prime Minister has been very clear that he expects the Americans to return the $3.5 billion and send a clear message that they intend to live up to the spirit of NAFTA.

One last good bit of news was that I understand that the other day the House of Representatives removed what they call the Byrd amendment. The Byrd amendment said that if any industry sector challenged someone and if there were duties that were collected, it would go to the industry sector. Well, who knows if it gets through? But at least they're starting to understand that that doesn't make any sense and doesn't move us to a productive trading relationship with the United States. It moves us further away from it.

M. Sather: The Premier certainly has outlined the frustrations that we've all felt in this dispute. We know that our allies — in this case, allies that we're having some difficulty with — have used many mechanisms, including going to the Extraordinary Challenge Committee frequently to try to, in effect…. It has had the effect, in some degree, of stymieing our wins. That's why we're in this position of suggesting anything — we as Canadians. And there's a broad range of people who are suggesting that we go so far as to link energy sales to this dispute.

One of those persons that the Premier will know has made that suggestion is Sen. Pat Carney. I was wondering if the Premier or anyone in his office has had discussions with the Senator about the linkage issue.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not aware of anyone having discussions specifically with Senator Carney with regard to this issue.

M. Sather: Well, there is a list that has been canvassed before of others that have taken this position: former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm; former director of the B.C. Liberal caucus Adam Leamy; free trade agreement architects Derek Burney, Allan Gotleib, Simon Reisman and Gordon Ritchie. I would like to know, then, if the Premier could tell this House whether he or any of his staff has met with any of these individuals regarding this issue.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think there are two things that I would mention. The first one is that in terms of those individual names, I can't tell you if someone has ever talked with them or if they've volunteered their advice with regard to it. I can tell you this. If they have those recommendations, the jurisdiction they should be providing those recommendations to is the federal government.

We have told the federal government that we are part of a Canadian strategy. We're going to work with that. We're going to continue to build on that.

I think it is important. There is a tendency for us to think: wouldn't it be great if we just acted unilaterally? Unilateral action from British Columbia will not work on behalf of British Columbians. I'm confident of that. We've seen provincial governments in the past try to do that. Former Premiers have tried to do that. In fact, it cost British Columbia $125 million — and coastal communities $125 million, up and down the coast of British Columbia — when there was an effort at unilateral action in foreign relations from British Columbia.

My goal is, certainly, to listen to all the voices but to be as constructive and positive as we can be as we move forward on a national agenda. As I mentioned to the member earlier, the initiative that has been undertaken has been to hold provinces together so that Canada can speak with one voice.

In terms of the linkage discussion, we have never been engaged by Canada in saying to what extent linkage…. I've heard the federal minister of energy hypothesize what might happen if we had linkage. I've heard others talk about that. But it has not been something that's been part of the discussion between British Columbia or the provinces and the federal government, except in the way that I mentioned to the member earlier.

M. Sather: I recognize and recall the issue the Premier is talking about with regard to what he's described as unilateral actions. At that time, though, I might suggest, the relationship with the Prime Minister was, perhaps, not as close as the relationship with this Premier and this Prime Minister. Given, also, that this Prime Minister is himself considering this option, I think there might be more of an opportunity this time than there was in the past.

I wanted to ask, additionally, just to pursue a little bit further the issue of those discussions and whether or not they'd taken place…. I understand that the Premier's special adviser, if that's the correct title for Mr. Dobell…. Did he have any discussions about linkage in his recent trips to Ottawa, with those officials or others?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am not aware that my special adviser has done that at any time. It's never been on an agenda that he has brought to me and said: "What about this, this or this?" Again, the discussions have been much higher range. There have been some public discussions in the media. There have been the sorts of discussions I mentioned at the Council of the Federation, but there has never been an initiative by the federal government to come to us and say: "What about linkage?"

Candidly, you know, there are huge economic costs to linkage when you look at a province like Alberta or Ontario, where you may have some real impact right away. The issue in terms of linkage always is: who's going to pay the price? If the price is in Canadian jobs and Canadian families, then I think the federal government is probably reticent to do that.

To the member opposite: in terms of the relationship that I have with the Prime Minister, I think it's because I'm clear about what we are able to do and what we're not able to do. I don't try and trespass on their jurisdiction. Frankly, I ask them on a regular basis not to trespass on our jurisdiction, because I think we're better at it than they are.

This is an example where we have tried to work in concert with the federal government. We have tried to work constructively with the federal government. I think it's fair to say that the federal government is very clear that this is a B.C. lead file. In other words, all the other provinces are listened to, but British Columbia is the lead on this file. I think we have to continue to pursue that. We're glad to respond to federal initiatives if they come forward with them, but at this point, they haven't done that.

M. Sather: I would then assume, perhaps, that there have been some delegations that have come forward to pursue this same question of linkage. Has the

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I have not. I'm not aware of the delegations. I haven't been asked. If I was, I would actually direct the delegations to the federal minister responsible.

M. Sather: I'd like to switch to another topic, that being the fallout from the B.C. Rail deal, with CN Rail now taking responsibility for or ownership of the business. We know that the government has — and this has been canvassed during question period — made itself harmless with regard to maintenance costs, liability or insurance. This has been a concern for landowners, certainly, that they're facing some of these kinds of costs. I would like to ask the Premier who in his office has been assigned to the CN file in this regard.

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, there is no line responsibility in the Premier's office for the B.C. Rail investment partnership. Our office offers guidance. We offer coordination. We give direction when necessary. The kinds of questions that the member is asking actually should have been canvassed during the Transportation estimates. My understanding is that there were 13 hours and 40 minutes of Transportation estimates. There wasn't one question on B.C. Rail.

The B.C. Rail investment partnership is there. It's available to pursue in terms of the Transportation estimates. I do want all the members opposite to understand that there are not two governments here. There's one government. There are line ministries with line accountabilities that should be pursued in their estimates. The Premier's office really has a coordinative and directive kind of function, as opposed to specific line responsibilities for each of the activities of government.

M. Sather: I should clarify, of course, that I was speaking about the crossings that have been a big issue with regard to these landowners having to pay some quite considerable fees that they didn't have to previously pay. We do know that the Premier will become involved in issues of the day that are considered to be of considerable importance. I know that the Transportation Minister has answered some questions with regard to this in the House during question period, so we have had a chance to canvass that with him during that time. With regard to these landowners that have been so negatively affected, has the Premier personally had any contact with these individuals?

M. Sather: Has the Premier been questioned, either directly by phone calls or by mail or e-mail, by landowners about this issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak to all the letters or e-mails I may have received. I can tell you that if something lies within the responsibility of a ministry, I would normally ask the minister to provide for that response. I'm sure that's the case with regard to this. This is something that should be, and could have been, fully canvassed during the ministry's estimates. I do get involved in a number of issues in government, but I don't get involved in the line activities of various ministries. It wouldn't be possible to run a government on that basis.

M. Sather: I wanted to also talk to the Premier about the issue that I think would have to be considered bigger than a line item. That's the serious issue of derailments that have been happening with CN.

We know that it is a federally regulated agency, as the Minister of Transportation has said, but the safety of British Columbians, and our environment, is the concern of British Columbians and of this government and of the Premier, I'm sure. I would like to ask if the Premier has been personally involved in this file with regard to the derailments we've been suffering.

Hon. G. Campbell: This Premier's office has not been directly and specifically involved with regard to the derailments. We are all clear in government that we are not just concerned about the safety of the transportation system, but we're also concerned about the environmental situation with regard to it. That's why there are two separate ministries that have been involved with this — the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Transportation — both of which would have responsibilities and both of which would carry them out.

A. Dix: Just a question with respect…. We were going through the intergovernmental relations questions. I had a question for the Premier about what I think has been a real failing of the federal government in its relationship with British Columbia. I just want to get his view on it.

The Premier will know there's been a truly extraordinary growth in French second-language and French first-language education in British Columbia — that parents across British Columbia have worked together to launch new French immersion programs and that francophone parents have built new programs across British Columbia.

Really, if you think of a community like Hazelton, which is the smallest community in western Canada to have a French immersion program, at John Field Elementary there…. In Hazelton, how they got the program was…. It's a very unusual school; 40 percent of the students in the program are aboriginal. The reason they built the group in the community to have that program was that all of the students in the program — indeed, in the school — also spend two hours a week learning Gitxsan language and culture. I think what it shows is that we in British Columbia have nothing to learn from anybody in Ottawa about the kind of coun-

try we are and the kind of country we need to be, both to stay united and to compete in this century.

I want to ask the Premier…. He'll know that in March 2003 Stéphane Dion, who was then responsible for both intergovernmental affairs and official languages, announced something called the Dion plan: $675 million, most of which was to go to the provinces. That plan, as the Premier will know, has essentially not been implemented. In fact, he made promises to parents in British Columbia, to the government of British Columbia.

I want to know whether he knows what's happened to that plan, whether he thinks a Canada-B.C. agreement is close on that plan and whether he doesn't agree with me that, sitting as we are in November 2005, too long has passed for the federal government to not have proceeded with a Canada-B.C. agreement with respect to French second-language education and French first-language education.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am not specifically aware of what's taken place with regard to this. I do note that Education has still got estimates there. It may be something you can canvass with them.

However, having said that, I would like to say this. I think one of the things we have to be very alert to is the fact that there are often big federal government announcements about big dollars, and they don't manage to find their way through to the people they're supposed to serve. It's one of the things we're most concerned about as we look at the first ministers' meeting that's coming up. It's one thing to have a federal Health Ministers' meeting and talk about $700 million for first nations people and Inuit and Métis. It's another thing to actually make the decision and get those dollars flowing to where they're going to make a difference to those folks.

There are a couple of things. We actually have an agreement we're working on with the province of Quebec and with British Columbia. I can't tell you specifically where that particular federal initiative sits, but it's certainly something that we would encourage the federal government to do and that I have been encouraging them to do: when an announcement is made, execute. Get the dollars flowing down to the regional levels where they can make a difference.

A. Dix: Can the Premier just commit? It's a very important agreement, I think, for parents in British Columbia who worked very hard on these questions. One of the reasons why, in small communities, we can proceed with the same level of programs in terms of choice, in the case of French second-language education, is because we have some of those dollars and some of those flexibilities.

Can the Premier just commit to raising that issue at upcoming federal-provincial issues to have ministers related? The agreement itself — the Dion plan itself — dealt mostly with education, but it also dealt with other issues, so it probably would have been dealt with out of the intergovernment relations shop in his office. Can he just commit to raising that issue on behalf of the many parents, both on the francophone side, French immersion side, and then in the francophone community in general, who are very concerned with those questions?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I'm glad to commit to that. I'm also glad to commit that the Minister of Education will pursue that with her colleagues as well.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the Premier a few questions about another file that's pertinent these days, and that's to do with the Ridley terminals in Prince Rupert.

As we know, the federal government established those terminals in the 1980s — some $250 million, I believe. Since that time the terminals have run into some financial problems. The sale of coal, for example: prices dropped, and we had closures of the Quintette and Bullmoose coalmines up in the Tumbler Ridge area. Then the federal government has expressed interest in putting…. They did put out a request for proposal on the sale of the terminal. As recently as last spring, I believe, not long before the election, the Premier had asked the federal government to hold off on the sale until the provincial government had a chance to look at it and see whether they, in fact, might be interested in taking it over.

Subsequently, we know that a relatively small mining firm, Fortune Minerals, and another company from the east are considered to be the frontrunners for acquiring this interest but that there is a coalition of companies, including Teck Cominco, which are quite concerned about that possibility — feeling that they won't have equal access, for one reason, and believing that through a non-profit venture they could keep costs down. The terminals themselves could be kept in public hands as well.

I wanted to ask the Premier if he — I don't suppose that he personally, as he's mentioned that it would be another minister that would take some charge of that — or anyone else in his ministry is taking responsibility for the Ridley file.

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, the issue of Ridley terminal is primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation. But my deputy minister Mr. Dobell and Dan Doyle, both of whom have been consulting to the province, have also been involved in this particular file. Ridley terminals is currently owned by the federal government. They have gone through a process with regard to that. I think it's fair to say that right now they are deciding on what direction they might take as a federal government vis-à-vis Ridley terminals.

M. Sather: Just to confirm, then, that it is the case that the Premier did approach the federal government with regard to the possibility of purchasing the terminal at one point?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, to the member: yes, the province did explore the opportunity of whether or not we should acquire Ridley terminal. We did a fairly detailed analysis of that. We talked with the federal government about that. In fact, I believe that as a special adviser, Dan Doyle, former Deputy Minister of Transportation, has had some discussions with the federal government with regard to that. We felt it was not something the province should get involved with in terms of acquisition. There were a number of challenges that were in front of it, and as the member opposite probably knows, Ridley terminal has not been a huge financial success over its life.

The federal government has continued to pursue…. My understanding is that they did pursue an open tender, an open call for support. That open call took place. There were bids that were brought in, and I think the successful bid was a smaller company from Alberta. Subsequent to that, there was a consortium that came and said: "Well, let's throw that out." The federal government, I understand, is now looking at that as an option.

We believe in fair and open tendering. I should also say that we haven't taken a position with regard to the federal government's process, and they will make their decision when they make their decision.

M. Sather: I think the phrase that the Transportation Minister used…. "We weren't the best people" was the phrase he used in determining not to proceed with that overture to the government. When was that decision made to not proceed, then?

Hon. G. Campbell: To the best of my recollection, the decision was made sometime in August. The Minister of Transportation would certainly have a more detailed recollection of that as the minister responsible.

The primary concern we had…. There were two, really, that were raised by many members of the mining industry. The first one: they wanted to have fair and open access, and they wanted to be sure it was complete. The second one was that they be competitive rates. Both of those, we believe, will be covered under the federal proposal. We've certainly communicated that as one of the issues federally. Hopefully, the federal government…. Not hopefully. I believe the federal government will respond to assure that there is open access to Ridley and that there are competitive rates.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you the exact date, but the Minister of Transportation made the decision and communicated that decision to the federal government, and he certainly had my support in that.

I want to move on to another issue of great concern to British Columbians — and to the Premier, I know — and that's the pine beetle epidemic that we're suffering. I wanted to ask who in the Premier's office has had responsibility for this file.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, before the member for Vancouver-Kingsway goes. With the member's permission, I'd just like to give him the answer on the question he asked earlier. There has been an agreement signed for the official languages education protocol.

Hon. G. Campbell: I just wanted to show you that we're there. We're serving you, man. Don't worry.

There has been an agreement signed on the official languages education protocol. British Columbia will receive $60.45 million. It's a four-year protocol that starts in 2005-2006 and carries through for the next four years, so it's an average of $15 million a year.

In terms of pine beetle, I have to tell the member again that the primary responsibility for moving forward with the pine beetle program is with the Minister of Forests, not the Premier's office. The Premier's office may be involved through my contacts with federal ministers. In other words, as the Premier I might go and say, as I have: "We have a billion-dollar ten-year program for pine beetle that we expect you to fund." The Premier's office was involved when we had the meeting with the Alberta cabinet in Cranbrook and said, "This is something that's much bigger than British Columbia," and got their support. The Premier's office would have been involved when we went to the Western Premiers Conference and I said, "This is much bigger than British Columbia," and we got their support. So we're involved in that way.

As you look at the pine beetle initiative, what we're talking about is, frankly, a cross-government initiative. There's economic development that's involved. Environmental restoration and improvements are involved. There is social development involved. Different parts of the Premier's office may be involved in coordinating that, but the comprehensive plan falls under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Minister of Forests.

M. Sather: The Premier will know, because it was discussed in question period, that the opposition received a leaked copy of an internal planning document that said, in essence, that notwithstanding what the government has been saying to us, they have no actual provincial plan for the beetle-kill situation nor any plan to request the additional moneys from the federal government. I'd like to ask the Premier: who was responsible for writing that internal document?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I want to reiterate that this is a Ministry of Forests file. I can't tell you who wrote whatever document the member is referring to. I

can tell you that in government the pine beetle challenge is one that we embrace as a government, that we have to deal with. So you may have the Deputy Minister of Forests, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the Deputy Minister to the Premier all involved in that in some way.

The plan itself is laid out. I believe that the plan right now is up on the website. It is not correct to say we have not made a request to the federal government. We have made a request to the federal government. I believe the request was a billion dollars. Initially it was for ten years. It was felt subsequently that it would be better over 15 years because of the kinds of things you'd have to do. It may indeed have to be increased. Right now what we have is a $100 million down payment from the federal government. That plan is in place, and people have seen that plan. It includes stream restoration. It includes replanting. It includes research and development. It includes market development. All of those things are part of the plan.

I think one of the biggest challenges we all face here is not to suggest that, frankly, one side of the House or the other side of the House cares about pine beetle. We all care about it. It's going to have a huge impact on British Columbia, and one of the things we've been trying to take to the table with the federal government is for them to understand that it's actually going to have a big impact on Canada. It can have an impact, for example, that many people haven't thought about. It can have an impact on the Kyoto accord. It can have an impact on our environment.

Canada talks about having a carbon sink, and how we'll take advantage of British Columbia's forests to create a carbon sink. If the forest isn't there, and if it's degenerating as quickly as it is under the pine beetle, that carbon sink isn't there. We've been trying to say to the federal government: "We need a comprehensive, long-term plan." We've tried to provide additional resources to local communities. We have tried to provide additional resources to regional communities. There's an additional $30 million that went to the northern development initiative for them to decide specifically for themselves how they may fill any gaps that are left by the federal-provincial activities. There's $100 from the federal government at this point. There's $103 million from the province at this point. There's $30 million in the northern development initiative. Our job at this point is to ensure those dollars are invested as responsibly as possible and to continue to pursue the federal government for additional resources, and we'll continue to do that.

I'm sure the member opposite knows this: the answer is usually no, until it's yes. We hope that a maybe is yes, but we don't get the dollars until we get the commitments from the federal government — and where are we going to put those dollars? Well, I think it's pretty clear in the short term that the framework for putting the dollars is to try and restore and provide for long-term stability for those resource communities that depend on the pine…. You may put some of those dollars in transferring the current pine that's been affected to jurisdictions where there are healthier forests, and there may be some dollars that are there. I don't know all of the answers that the working group may come up with.

We're working with first nations. The first nations themselves have come forward with a proposal. I don't remember their three names, and I apologize to the member. There are three specific first nations leaders who are looking at crafting a first nations' response to the pine beetle because of the impact it has on them. We have local communities that are doing it. So we will continue to pursue that. We will continue to pursue additional resources. We will focus them on research and development. We'll focus them on market development. We'll focus them on expanding economic opportunity in communities. We'll focus them on environmental restoration, improvement and stabilization. All of those will be part of what the long-term plan will be, but it will not be a plan that finishes this year or within three years. It's going to be ongoing for some time.

M. Sather: I'll make my question more specific, then. Did the Premier's special adviser, Mr. Ken Dobell, have any role in preparing that report that he referred to?

Hon. G. Campbell: In his previous role as Deputy Minister to the Premier, he did have a role in putting that together. I think the first initiative we undertook was probably about a year ago, when we went forward and started talking about the comprehensive response and the national response that we needed. So he did have responsibilities at that point.

At this point those responsibilities would be more in a coordinative function through the Premier's office, through the Deputy Minister of Forests, who will coordinate those things with the Deputy Minister of Environment, with my Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. They are the ones that are responsible for continuing to push this through the federal jurisdiction.

I do think it's important. We can set out a goal for ourselves. It's a lot of work to get the federal government to say: "Oh yes, that's something we're going to do for British Columbia." So we were pleased particularly with this characterization of the down payment of $100 million towards what had been a billion-dollar ask over ten to fifteen years. We're pleased with that. We've made some progress. We've got a long way to go, and we'll continue to pursue that in the hopes that we will get some benefits.

It's important to note, for example, that the leader of the Conservative Party…. After we had tried to push this, not just locally — locally meaning British Columbia — but also with the province of Alberta and the western Premiers, there was an announcement — I don't remember how many months ago, not that many — from the leader of the Conservative Party saying

We're continuing to push this on the national stage as a national agenda item. It's something that's important to Canada. Hopefully, we will all benefit as British Columbians when they come to the table with more resources, and we will focus them as will be best for the people that live here.

M. Sather: Just a couple more questions, then. The Premier mentioned that it was a billion-dollar ask and that $100 million did arrive on the doorstep. But given that the federal government said the request was not comprehensive enough, what actions has the government taken since that time to address that concern of the federal government?

Hon. G. Campbell: To the member: I'm not aware that the federal government has ever said that we haven't had a comprehensive ask. I am aware that the federal government has been very exact in wanting to be sure that the areas that we are "asking for" are within federal jurisdiction. There may be times when they say, "Can you have sort of a more finely defined program so that we can be sure we're not just giving British Columbia money" — right? It's one of those jurisdictional issues.

So when we talk about the environment, it may well be that we are focusing on the environment around environmental protection. It may well be that we're focusing on the Kyoto accord and the opportunities that they're trying to establish through that — those sorts of things. We may end up in terms of…. Specifically, what would be the strategy to expand the market for pine beetle?

The province went to China in November of 2004 — I think it was that I was there — and we actually pushed the use of what they call "naturally damaged wood." We had to get an approval from the Chinese Academy of Forestry that they would look at that and how it could be used and how it could be adapted, etc. So we did that, and about six months later, that was approved.

There may well be things that we can do with the federal government in terms of trade expansion. There may well be things that we can do in terms of investment opportunities that are created in British Columbia. They're really saying: "Can you try and make sure, as we go through this, that you're thinking in terms of, if you want the federal head…. We can't pay for the forest industry in British Columbia anymore than we can pay for it in Quebec. We can deal with the natural disaster that's pine beetle. Could you please make sure that you're refined enough in your request that we are protected with regard to that request?" So we're clearly working on that.

I do want the member opposite to know that whether it's social development, trying to create better health in our forests, research and development, life sciences initiatives or community initiatives, that we are continuing to pursue the federal government. I think that it's critical for the member to know that at no time am I aware the federal government has said: "Your request is not specific enough." They may well say, "Let's try and improve it. What about this?" and: "I can't do that because of this. Could we do it this way?"

That's part of what the negotiation is, and it is a negotiation that I think we're going to continue to work closely on. We're going to continue to try and encourage other provinces to be part of this. We have first nations that have clearly suggested ways that we can deal with this, and all of that is going to be part of where we go.

When you look at economic development, as an example to the member opposite, there may be things we can do with economic development that think of using the pine-infected wood in a totally different way that actually maintains jobs and provides for longer-term jobs. It may actually extend the life cycle of some of that wood. That's all part of what we're trying to do.

We're getting, frankly, support from the federal government to pursue that, and my hope is that as we continue, we will get substantial additional resources available to communities and to the industry itself as we go through the next number of years.

M. Sather: Well, one thing we do all know is that there's going to be a big falldown in the forest industry after this pine beetle has had its way with us. We know that the long-term well-being of forest-dependent communities is very, very important. Can the minister describe any meetings that have been held with regard to this long-range planning with regard to those forest-dependent communities that are eventually going to be very hard hit?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not trying to avoid these questions, but these questions are really more appropriately asked of the minister who is responsible. I can tell you that I was involved in a meeting, a symposium on pine beetle, about two weeks after this government was first elected in 2001, where we went and worked directly with local communities. We had a follow-up meeting that I was involved in. We had a number of activities taking place across the province. Prior to that we had a follow-up meeting — I believe it was in the fall of 2004; I don't remember the exact dates — where we brought people together in the city of Quesnel and talked about what was working and what wasn't working and what more we needed to do. But really, the file is the Minister of Forests' file. It should be fully canvassed, and I'm sure it will be fully canvassed, on a regular basis in the years ahead during forestry estimates.

C. James: Thank you to the Premier for the comments made around intergovernmental relations.

Just to take us back to seniors again. If we can focus back to the discussion we were having about an hour ago on the importance of listening to seniors' voices and the importance of providing support for seniors, I

just want to touch on another area related to seniors. If I take a look at the five great goals of the Premier and of the government, he talks about the importance of building the best system of support for people at risk, etc., and seniors. That's an area that I've heard the Premier speak on and one of the goals.

So I want to talk a little bit about long-term care and beds for long-term care. When we look at supports for seniors, that's a critical piece of a support network that's needed. The Premier talked earlier about the importance of seniors having a range of opportunities and a range of supports and services, and I couldn't agree more. One of those pieces is the whole issue of support for long-term care and support for seniors when they need it in their lives.

I remember the commitment made in 2001 by the government, which was to build 5,000 long-term care beds — new intermediate and long-term care beds — by 2006. That was the commitment made by government, and certainly something that I think the seniors of this province have been incredibly hurt by not being fulfilled. Not only has it impacted seniors; as we all know, it also impacts our health care system, where we now have seniors in acute care beds in hospitals who are not able to move into a long-term care bed, which then means that you have longer wait-lists for surgeries and are not providing good, quality care for seniors as well.

We saw a new promise made in the 2005 election platform which was over 4,000 new, replaced or upgraded residential care and assisted-living beds; and 5,000 new residential care and assisted-living beds by 2008, including 1,700 new units already under construction. If I could ask the Premier some questions around his 2001 promise, around 5,000 beds, his 2005 campaign promise and the budget announcement in September and how all those relate to the long-term care beds and the support that is needed in communities.

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand Health estimates are still underway, so I would encourage the opposition to ask some specific questions around some of these issues to the Minister of Health. But let me…. I guess if I understand the question properly, you're saying: "There was a commitment made in 2001 — what happened? There's a commitment made in 2005. What are you going to do?" Is that a fair summation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think what's important to note is that there's no question we need to have additional seniors long-term care beds, assisted-living beds. We need to provide for that continuum of care.

I think as we canvassed a few months ago when we were elected, there was a substantial, frankly, inventory problem. The first inventory of seniors facility beds was carried out and completed in 2005. We launched a major initiative, and at this point by completion of all of our programs, we've built over 8,700 total units of public housing plus 700 public housing conversions, of which nearly 5,500 are assisted-living or supportive units for seniors.

In this budget we pointed out and we did commit to complete the 5,000 by 2008. In this budget we added an additional $150 million — $75 million a year for the next two years to assure that that could take place. I think it is important to note that as we continue to do that, there will be increasing understanding in the communities across the province that as we make these changes, we're actually improving the quality of living and the standards of living that seniors have in communities all over British Columbia.

I am the first to admit that there were some real difficulties for some seniors. I think that we have got better at that, but we've watched…. There will be over 2,700 additional units by December of 2006. I think one of the things that we all want to do is make sure that we provide that continuum of care from home right through to the most supportive kind of facilities we need for seniors.

The Leader of the Opposition is correct. The reason we launched this was to try and provide more independence, better quality outside of traditional institutional care, because institutional care was actually one of the problems, not one of the solutions. So that's where we're going. We're investing significantly in it. Each of the health authorities is working on it. We're going to continue to pursue that, and we're going to get it done by 2008.

C. James: Thank you for that response. I just wondered if the Premier could talk a little bit about the budget related to those numbers. The Premier mentioned the large budget numbers that went in, in September and the numbers that went in February's budget related to building beds.

Back in 2001, in the briefing book for the Liberals, the number that was used was $125,000 per bed. That was the cost that was in there for building those beds with the not-for-profit sector. That was the number that was used in the candidates book itself. I just wondered how that number — $125,000 related to building those new beds — related to the budget numbers that were put in for both the September update as well as the February budget and building long-term care beds.

Hon. G. Campbell: Sitting here, I can't reconcile all those numbers without seeing all the different budgets that are there. I can reconcile this, though, which I think is what's important. We're going to build the beds. Not only are we going to build the beds, we are going to build a continuum of services across communities so that people have the services and the care they need.

And $194 million is a significant contribution that will actually…. I believe it's the highest budget we've had for housing. We did make a decision in the last term — not in this term but in the last term — that we were going to focus our housing resources on improving seniors housing and housing for the most vulnerable. We're going to continue with that.

We have made a decision that we want to ensure that we complete this by 2008. We wanted to be sure the resources were there, and that's why the Minister of Finance, in September, applied $75 million this year and $75 million the year after that — to make sure that can be done. My understanding is it will be able to be done, both in terms of the capital plan and the ongoing operating costs which will be associated with it.

Just so I'm clear about that — I realize I might not have been — the ongoing operating costs will be covered under the Health Ministry's budget, but it is there to make sure that can carry on.

Perhaps I could ask the Premier and his staff to get back to us with those numbers around the breakdown. I think the Premier has said that part of the budget was used for building new beds or doing new capital and that the other portion was used for renovating or fixing up existing facilities. I understand you wouldn't have those numbers now, but if I could ask if that information could be sent to us around a breakdown of those budget numbers, both from the February budget as well as the September budget update, to let us know which portion of those dollars were used for upgrades in existing facilities and which portion of the dollars were used for building new beds, including the commitment that was made in September that has the promises that go forward.

Just one other question on the issue of seniors and seniors beds. I talked a little bit about the impact that we heard over the last while from seniors about not building those 5,000 long-term care beds and not keeping that promise and commitment in the first term. I'd like to give the Premier an opportunity to just talk a little bit about what he believes is the impact of not keeping that promise and not building those beds.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to undertake to do that, but I would suggest that actually we can follow this through in the Health estimates, which are still open, so a lot of that information would be available to you.

In terms of what took place, I think, as I said as we went through some of these challenges, that some of the changes that took place are always difficult for seniors. Change is difficult. I've been most encouraged by going to some of the new units and having seniors say that they certainly didn't like the change, but they're sure glad that they're where they are now.

I recognize the challenges that took place in terms of that. Clearly, in retrospect, there was a resource challenge. To be candid about it, the real challenge that I think we had is one we had for a long time. We weren't keeping seniors units in the way they should be. We didn't have seniors living in accommodation that they should have been.

As a personal aside, I'm going through a situation right now where, because of some damage to where I live, I've had to move. It's disruptive. I'm not complaining about it; I can handle it. But change is a big thing for a senior. We recognize that. I think we didn't do it as well as we should have when we started. As I said at the time, I think our goal should be to try and deal with seniors the way we deal with our parents.

I think there are also some very difficult interpersonal issues that you have to deal with when you're dealing with seniors. As we build our inventory of choice for seniors, where they can make different selections, and as we get better at making sure that seniors understand what's available to them in terms of choices, I think that we will see a significant improvement.

There's been a significant improvement in one way for certain. That is that wait times for facilities are down significantly from what was inherited before, and that's good. But there's more work to do. We recognize that there's work to do, and we intend to do it.

C. James: Thank you to the Premier for those comments about acknowledging that it wasn't done as well as it could have been done, because I think we've all experienced those stories. Certainly, the members on this side of the House, and I'm sure the members on the other side of the House, have experienced those heartbreaking stories of seniors being separated in homes or being moved. Having had grandparents in long-term care, I know that the challenge of having people in situations in flux in those facilities really does cause a great deal of difficulty.

I think part of the difficulty that occurred when the government didn't keep their promise around the 5,000 long-term care beds was the planning that occurred in closing long-term care beds without making sure that the other facilities were in place. I think that's a great deal of the problem that occurred in that time period, where a number of beds were closed without looking at where the facilities were for the seniors to go to. So you had people backlogged in hospitals, and you had situations where seniors were separated. It was a very difficult time.

I'd like to ask the Premier whether there's been any direction from government and from your leadership, based on your great goal, or discussion with the health authorities who make these decisions, to make sure that a long-term plan is in place so that before seniors facilities are shut down or before you look at beds being closed, there's actually a plan in place for the number of elderly in that community, the number of people who may come into beds and the time period it's going to take before the government's second promise then gets fulfilled.

Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition. I think it's fair to say there's very little

doubt that planning is a critical component of looking at our health system and deciding where it should go. The leader may not be aware of this, but when we were elected government, there was one — one — member in the Ministry of Health that was responsible for planning the entire provincial health system. So one of the challenges that we had….

Clearly, we did make a commitment that there would be 5,000 new beds built. As I said, when we were elected we went in and we started doing the inventory. By 2002 we found that a huge number of those existing beds were substandard and were not places that the leader would want to have either her grandparents or my grandparents in. So we did start to refurbish and rejuvenate.

Planning now is in place. There's significant planning that's in place. I'm glad to cover a couple more of these questions, but I do think it's something that should be pursued with the Minister of Health and the Deputy Minister of Health, who will be far more cognizant of the details of how those plans are working with the health authorities and how they're fitting together to accomplish the goals.

C. James: Thank you to the Premier. We will be and we have been canvassing those issues in health estimates, but I think it's also important to make sure that we take a look at the promises and commitments made by the government, and therefore by the Premier, and the relationship between those and the Premier's five great goals and how those two pieces relate.

Just to move on to another issue of importance, there's the whole issue of homelessness and the importance of that issue. One of the things that we've seen over the last while is that homelessness numbers are increasing — and not simply increasing, as many people believe, in the lower mainland or in large urban settings but, in fact, increasing around the province. Communities that people don't often think of as communities that may have homeless people are facing continuing pressures.

It's very clear through statistics that homelessness has increased under the term of this government over the last four years. I also believe that the direction that this government has taken has had an impact on homelessness, and I'll get into those as we go through these questions and through this area.

One of the things that's very important in the area of homelessness is to look at long-term action — not short-term, stopgap measures. I'd like to start with the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness and talk a little bit about that task force and ask the Premier first to talk about how he decided who was going to be put together on the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think it is very important for all of us to recognize that homelessness is a multi-faceted challenge that we face. I don't believe there is one answer. I don't believe there is one headline we can do and get on with it. In fact, when I established the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions, I was trying to be clear that homelessness may be about mental illness. It may be about addictions. There may be things outside of that that have normally been done because it was not unusual for people to deal with homelessness as simply a matter of housing. Actually, I think, there's pretty strong evidence today that it's a matter of more than simply housing and simply shelter. It's a matter of looking broad-based across the spectrum and saying: what can we do to take care of the health needs of an individual?

Let me go back just for a second. It's really to recognize that there is a group that we call homeless, but it's made up of individuals. It's made up of people, citizens, in different parts of the province. What I wanted to try and do was say, you know, clearly it's not that one government or another government cares about homelessness. It's that no government has been able to deal with this issue in a way that is actually effective and where we see ongoing improvements. So what do we need to do?

I then said that one of the challenges we have in British Columbia, to be candid, is that there's a tendency for people to say: "That's a problem in the downtown east side of Vancouver. That's where that problem is." The problem is far greater than simply the downtown east side of Vancouver. There's a different homeless problem in Prince George or Fort St. John than there is in Cranbrook or Victoria or Vancouver. I want to try and reflect on that.

I decided it was important for us to bring together not just our housing initiatives but also to bring together a sampling, I guess is the best way to call it, of municipalities, to say: "Are there ways that we could develop some different approaches, some pilot programs, some things where we may be able to measure whether we've been successful or not and work together and learn by dealing with this comprehensively?"

To be candid, one of the things that I found most encouraging as a previous mayor of Vancouver, where we have dealt with housing issues for 25 years, was to hear a number of mayors saying it was the first time that they had actually sat down and talked with their social service agencies, their community health workers, their non-profit agencies and said: "What is happening here? How do we deal with this?"

I'm doing this…. I won't do it from memory. I'll try and tell you specifically, if I can. I guess I'm going to do it from memory.

Prince George is a northern city that clearly has an aboriginal population that comes in to deal with it. It clearly has much, much colder winters than Vancouver or Victoria do. Victoria, because of its climate, we felt it was important to have…. You could have picked, I guess, the city of Saanich as well, but we picked Victoria because it tends to be the centre core of it. There

tends to be, I think, if you asked the council in Victoria, an increasing problem there.

Vancouver, because it actually has some real experience in dealing with that in a direct way and in finding some solutions for that…. New Westminster. I felt it was important that we dealt with New Westminster because it is a small, urban community. It's kind of a hub of that kind of activity.

Surrey was included because it was one of the fastest-growing communities in the province. Actually, it was reflective of something that I think is important for us to recognize, and that is that although Surrey is still a city, it is growing to a city from being a suburb. Suburbs also have the challenge of homelessness.

Nanaimo, because, again, if you look at the social makeup of Nanaimo, they have some of the lower determinants in terms of social makeup: higher unemployment rates, a larger number of single parents and those sorts of things, a fairly significant incidence of drug abuse that's found there, mental illnesses. We wanted to try and make sure that we covered those communities. We've tried to keep the UBCM included because we want them to think of this. Maybe I'll stop there, Madam Chair.

So the idea was to try and touch different parts of the province, different regions with different circumstances to look for hopefully different responses, reflecting the principle that we believe one-size-fits-all doesn't work, and then take those lessons from that and see if we can transfer them to other jurisdictions throughout the province.

C. James: Thank you for the response. I'd certainly agree that I think it's critical for municipalities to be involved in this discussion. When we take a look at where the best work has occurred, it's occurred when you have a partnership between all three levels of government. When you have the municipalities, the federal government and the provincial government working together on the issue of homelessness, that's where you have real success, and then the community support is in place.

Just to touch on a couple of things that the Premier pointed out. He talked about the fact that there isn't one solution to homelessness. I couldn't agree more. If you speak to people who work in this field, they describe it well when they talk about the fact that we need to find homes for people, not housing. We need to find homes so that they have a support, they have a community, they have a network, and we aren't dealing with the challenges that we're seeing currently.

I certainly agree that the issue of homelessness and the Premier's task force is a step in the right direction. But I also think it's important to acknowledge and take a look at the directions that government has made that may impact on housing, that may impact on the homelessness and the people on the streets. We'll get into those questions as we go through this.

Just to continue on with the task force then. The task force has resources from the federal and provincial governments to be able to work with. I'd like to ask the Premier how decisions are made around applications for those resources from communities or community organizations or not-for-profit organizations. Who makes the decision, and who determines where the dollars go that are sitting with the Premier's task force?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just so the leader understands this…. I can't tell you exactly the process it goes through. I can tell you that there are a number of applications that come into the Ministry of Housing. Then, the ministry applications are reviewed, and they're reviewed for a whole range of criteria. I can't tell you exactly what they are.

I do want to correct one thing. I understand the spirit. I'm not correcting it in any spirit except to make sure that the member understands this. We received, I think last year, about 84 million additional dollars in November of '04-ish, after the task force had been there, of additional federal dollars matched with the province. We had a number of initiatives that had been brought forward. This was done on the basis of try and make sure these are some innovative approaches, and they may well be emulated in different places. For example, Kelowna came forward with their 76 beds operated by the Kelowna Gospel Mission. Some of those resources are from the province, some are from the federal government and some are from others.

One of the things about homelessness that we felt, at least, and the task force felt was…. Our goal is to get everyone in a home and to feel healthy and confident with their lives, but you've got to start by at least providing them with shelter and with an opportunity to meet with a medical professional. You can't force them to meet with a medical professional, but you have to try and put them in touch with that. So we immediately started with our cold-wet weather strategy. We expanded that in the province through '04-05, and that continues on now.

I think there have been some significant initiatives that have been undertaken. For example, just with regard to the 30 new transitional housing units that are being created — I think it's in Kelowna — there's about $2.25 million that's coming from the province and $2.25 million that's coming from the federal government.

One of the challenges that we faced — and I wanted to be clear that this wasn't what we were going to do — is that it's not just the seven cities that sit on the task force that have that homelessness challenge. We wanted to make sure we could expand the reach, if we could. I think we've been somewhat successful in that. I think that the really critical part of this is that when we sit on this task force — the Deputy Minister of Health is on the task force, as well as the Minister of Health; the Minister of Housing sits on the task force; the Minister of Community Services sits on the task force — we tend to look and say: "What are the dollars that the federal government or the provincial government are providing to build capital?"

There are also some ongoing operations that are normally from the province or from the non-profits. There are other things that can happen locally. We actually put some barriers up against dealing with mental illness and addiction services in some communities. I'm proud to say that there are some communities in British Columbia where that doesn't take place. One of the things we were hoping the task force would do is come up with some ideas of how you can actually reduce operating costs. They may decide they want to do something like a special assessment category around health services or something like that so that we can try and zero in on that for a non-profit when they're providing opportunities for homelessness.

In different cities there are different kinds of opportunities. The Phoenix Centre in Surrey that was established included 28 addiction recovery beds, 36 transitional housing units and an education and training centre. It was a comprehensive approach that said: "If we can provide people with the shelter, will we then be able to connect them with the addiction services and the health services that they need?" If we could do the second part, would we be able to provide them with the training that they needed — sort of the human resource development that they might need — to get out and overcome their addictions?

That's an example. That was an example where the provincial capital funding was $2.037 million. The Canada–B.C. assisted housing was $1.5 million. Other capital funding that they received from the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. was $125,000. They got $2.1 million from Surrey themselves, I guess it was. The effort is to try and pull all of that together and use that as an example that we can then go with to other places. I'm hopeful that it will work.

There is one last challenge I'll mention — sorry for going on — and that is safe housing. Oftentimes when you have someone who may have a mental illness or addiction, you have to build a different kind of housing unit than if they don't. That's a challenge, and it adds significant operating costs. That's one of the things that we've been trying to do as well, to meet as well, as we've gone through this exercise.

C. James: Just so I'm clear…. I think there's certainly confusion out there from the public's perspective, and some of the people that we've met with have expressed concern. From what I heard the Premier say — and I just want to check to make sure I heard this clearly — the proposals for building additional housing or for supports in communities don't actually go to the mayors task force. They go to the Ministry of Housing, and then the task force provides what kind of support to making decisions?

The reason I want to just follow through on this is that I think it's very important for groups and organizations out there to understand whether they should be putting in applications to the mayors task force — whether that's a place where dollars come from. I think we need some clarity around where those proposals go. Is the mayors task force actually a decision-making body or a funding body in any way, shape or form?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's a clear question. I'm going to try and give a clear answer. The Premier's task force is not a funding body. So a proposal doesn't come to the task force and we go through it. The proposal should come to the Ministry of Housing.

What the task force does is try to share best practices. It may be that the mayor of Victoria may well have a project he'd like to go ahead with. Again, to go back, and hopefully not to be too repetitive, but what the task force did is it got all the mayors talking to one another about what they were doing and what might work and whatnot. Frankly, they are a far more credible voice in a senior government when they go and they talk with other mayors about what they're doing.

That's really what we're trying to accomplish there. The question is a good one because it's an important part for other mayors to know that membership in the task force does not create an additional opportunity for resources.

C. James: I appreciate that response because that is the concern out there, not only around funding and if the people who sit on the task force make decisions around funding but the whole issue around accountability as well. What's the criteria? How are those decisions made? So I appreciate that response.

The Premier talked about consultation. I'd like to ask the Premier: does he know who the group has consulted with, and do they have a mandate to actually go out and consult more broadly than just the people sitting on the task force?

Hon. G. Campbell: In terms of the consultation, the members of the task force started it by trying to reach out and talk with their respective communities — right? It could be non-profits there, it could be community health people there, or it could be housing or social advocates — whatever. My recollection is that virtually all of them said that this sort of stimulated them to do just that.

Then, one of the things that happened is we went through the process from about September of '04 to September of '05. In September of '05 we had a meeting at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We had a fairly significant turnout at that meeting, where we again said to various…. It could be local officials. It could be regional officials, locally or regionally elected people. So we continued on with that. I actually don't know beyond that what the Ministry of Housing is doing at this point. I'm not sure if their estimates are through or not yet, but I'm sure we could let the leader know what they are doing in terms of their plan to reach out and bring people in.

We are trying to get ideas from health professionals, health authorities, community groups and local leaders in trying to respond to the challenges of homelessness, mental health and addiction services. We're

trying to do it in a way that's comprehensive and integrative. I guess that's the best way to describe it.

Madam Chair, if it's all right with you, in view of the hour, I would move that the committee recess until 6:45 this afternoon.

C. James: We were talking before the break about the whole issue of homelessness and the importance of the issue of homelessness. We've talked a little bit about the Premier's task force and the direction that the Premier's task force is taking. I wondered what the Premier's commitment was to the task force time-wise. For the entire three years he made a commitment, both resources-wise as well as for the people sitting around that table — municipal elections aside — for who might be sitting on that task force and what its responsibilities would be over the term of your mandate.

Hon. G. Campbell: Just to be clear, is the leader asking about my personal time or asking about what the…? Let me give you a quick rundown, and you can go to the next one.

We looked after one year, and I asked the existing members, the current members, whether they felt it was worthwhile for us to carry it on as a task force. They agreed, particularly after the UBCM convention, that it was worth doing. They reported to the UBCM convention that we would be doing it for one more year. So we'll go around one more cycle until the UBCM, and if they decide that it's still worth doing, then we'll do it.

In terms of membership, I will remain on it, the Minister of Health will remain on it, and the Minister Responsible for Housing will remain on it. Obviously, there will be some changes in membership as a result of the changes in the municipal elections. I think I will consult with the president of the UBCM and discuss potential members.

I do think it's important — to be candid about it — that we maintain Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria, because Vancouver and Surrey are the two largest communities in British Columbia. Maybe Vernon would like to do it or maybe someone else. I'll do a little survey of that, and then we'll appoint. The idea of the appointment will be that it will last until September. I would expect to report from the task force to the UBCM at the UBCM meeting. At that time we'll have a discussion about whether we want the task force to carry on in its current iteration.

C. James: Just to move on, then, to the issue of measurement and goals and direction set. I talked earlier today about the issue of homelessness and the numbers increasing. We've got another homeless count coming up in the GVRD in the next short while. But if you take a look at the last count, it was very clear — if you looked at the numbers from 2002 to 2005 — that the number had almost doubled. The numbers we were looking at had almost doubled.

I wonder if the Premier can tell me: what specific goals has the Premier set around homelessness?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition. I distinguish between the goals that may be set for the task force and the goals that may be set for the Minister Responsible for Housing. I have charged the Minister Responsible for Housing with coming forward with a service plan in '06-07 that will lay out some specific goals and objectives that they will meet over the next three years.

I haven't challenged the task force to do that. I guess the major goal I have for the task force is to develop new collaborative relationships between Health, Employment and Income Assistance, communities and non-profits with looking at integrative responses to the homelessness challenge. Health is one that we want to make particularly sure is included, because they have both addiction services and mental health services. So that's the accountability for them. In terms of the Ministry of Housing, though, there will be a comprehensive housing plan laid out in 2006-2007, which will highlight some of the goals that are established by them.

C. James: I'm just wondering: in asking the Minister for Housing to take a look at the issue of homelessness and set some goals, targets and direction for the ministry, does the Premier believe that there should be a goal and target around numbers — so reducing the number of homeless — and did he give any direction to the Minister for Housing to look at those kinds of targets? What kinds of performance measures is he looking at? I'd be interested in the kind of direction that the Premier gave the minister.

Hon. G. Campbell: Our broad goal is obviously to provide the resource that people can use. So did we set a goal that we wanted? I guess in general we want fewer people on the street. Did we say how many fewer? That's not part of what the challenge is. The reason is that we don't necessarily have control over that. As you know, there are a number of people that come to British Columbia. There are more people coming into British Columbia now than there were before. That creates challenges.

I think the types of goals that I'd expect to see from the Minister for Housing are the number of units to be built; the number of low-income people that are served; and in terms of the Ministry of Health, the number of mental health facilities that are available. Certainly, shelter is an important part of this. Our goals in terms of cold-wet weather strategy — I think we

expanded that by about 40 percent last year. I don't recall off the top of my head, but about 40 percent.

We want to provide for additional resources to allow people to come off the street. We want to provide for a different quality of service when they do come off the street, but there has not been a distinction that says we will somehow reduce, for certain, the number of people that are on the street, although that's clearly what we'd like to do.

I think it's also important to note that in terms of homelessness, homelessness is not just people that you can see on the street. There may be people right on the edge of homelessness that we want to try and make sure we stabilize, and they can have long-term and secure housing and productive lives. One of the things we're trying to do is individualize a lot of these services more directly. We know, and we know this from the discussions that we've had with various people as we've tried to develop this plan — and that's ongoing; I don't want to pretend the plan is finished; it is an ongoing discussion — that when we go out to deal directly with an individual and try to find out what his or her problems or challenges are, in many cases they haven't even accessed services that are currently available to them. We're looking at how we can try and provide that in a more individualized way so that we can provide the training, the development and the security they need to become healthier.

There is not a goal, per se, on the number of people that are identified as homeless. Actually, to be candid, there are not any standards that we use for that particularly, although there's no question for any of us, I think, that the challenge is increasing. It's not getting smaller; it's increasing.

C. James: Thank you to the Premier. While I understand that you don't control everything that has to do with homelessness, and that's it's an ongoing problem and an ongoing issue for any government to address, there are directions that government takes that impact the numbers of homeless we see on the streets.

I think the stats that I talked about earlier, where you're seeing a doubling of the number of homeless people on the streets from 2002 to 2005, point very clearly to the problem and to the fact that there are conditions in place that are causing more people to be on the streets.

It isn't all to do with people moving into British Columbia; it has a lot to do with people in our own communities. Certainly, if you talk to communities, they'll tell you as they go out to do their homeless counts that they're finding these are people from their own community. These are not people who have moved in from somewhere else or who have left a small community and come to the city. There's certainly a portion of those people, but they're finding these are people who are homeless from their own communities — working poor, families who live in their own communities, who are there in their own communities.

We may agree to disagree on this one, but I certainly would encourage the Premier, when looking at the performance measures and the issues related to homeless, to look at actually including and considering some of the homeless counts that are going on. Some very good work, as we know, is done. It started off in the Vancouver area — around the homeless count — and has now expanded to many other communities which are doing a regular homeless count.

That gives a baseline to be able to look at. I think it would be incredibly important for the Ministry of Housing to take account of those numbers and the good work that's being done by community people so that there is a benchmark for government to look at. I agree that the other measures and the other pieces are important, but I would suggest that the homeless count and the numbers themselves are something that would be a good target to be able to include.

I heard the Premier talk about long-term solutions. That is an area, and I want to move into a couple of specifics on that. But I just want to touch for a moment on a specific example that's been raised in this House, which I think points to the challenge of the stopgap measure. Here in this community there is an organization that, thankfully, received some of the cold weather funding dollars — the out-of-the-rain shelter, which is a very important shelter for youth, an area that is sorely underserved. It has very little supports around this province — shelters for youth. It's a very unique population who need additional supports to be able to address their issues.

In this House we raised the concerns and the concerns from the member for Victoria-Hillside and the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, and talked to the Housing Minister about getting support for the out-of-the-rain shelter. It was an issue that was raised, and under that kind of questioning, we heard the Minister for Housing state that he would give six months' funding to the shelter, to out-of-the-rain. But again, what we're seeing now is that the group has yet to see the long-term funding; it has yet to see, in fact, the full six-month funding. It's stuck again with saying: "We may be able to open for one month, or we may not."

So I'd just ask the Premier on the issue of the funding for cold weather shelters or the one-time funding: does the Premier or his task force look at moving that to long-term sustainable funding, so these and other shelters aren't dealing with things on a one-off basis or wondering year to year whether they're going to be able to provide a shelter for people in their community that winter?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to say that I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition making recommendations on how we actually can measure these out.

I want to go back again. We inherited a government with no service plans. We're now moving into what I would think of as kind of a second generation. I want to say that I did ask the leader to come forward and make some recommendations on how we might do

this. I'm hopeful that as we move toward the next iteration of estimates, and we have a new quality of service plan, the leader and opposition critics will feel comfortable saying: "We maybe should look at this, look at this and look at this." I think that the targets are very important for all of us — right? I don't think anyone in the House doesn't want to try and deal with this and do it effectively. So I appreciate the suggestions that you have.

I think it is important in terms of the cold-wet weather strategy. We have had generally a six-month strategy, which — I can't remember the exact months — I think is from October through to March depending on where you are, and it's longer in the north, etc. We've added about 40 percent in that shelter capacity. I recognize the importance of sustainability. Even if you know year after year that you're going to get it for the six months and you're going to get it for the next six months, I think that makes a difference.

I think that as we develop this strategy, one of the things that's going to be important for us…. It won't come through the Premier's…. I wouldn't think it would come from the homelessness, mental illness and addictions task force. I think it's going to come from the consultation process that's taking place right now with health officials and housing officials. As we've increased that by 40 percent, we increased the emergency shelter by $5.1 million to $18.3 million. That's a 28-percent increase. We're looking to increase the number of emergency beds for youth, 19, and the problem…. And I'm the first to admit this is the problem. When you think of 19 emergency shelter beds for youth, you think to yourself: "Well, we could use all those in Victoria; we could use all those in Prince George or whatever."

So we are trying to get a more refined response to this, but we're trying to take the first steps. One of the things that I would like to try and be aware of…. I recognize that the leader has already mentioned this, but let's try and be aware of not just what we measure, but let's try and have things that we're measuring that we do have some control over. I recognize there might be policy differences or whatever. But if we can do that and use that as we move forward with the Housing Ministry or any other ministry, I think we'll start to build the kind of service plan where opposition will know what we're trying to do, we'll know what we're trying to do, the public service will know what we're trying to do, and the public will know what we're trying to do. Hopefully, we'll be able to engage people in doing it even better.

C. James: Thank you for those comments. I think the comment the Premier made around the year-to-year funding and the importance of making sure that those shelters that are only there for the winter months actually know that they're getting funding is of critical importance. Just using the example of the out-of-the-rain shelter, where all the staff were laid off, no one knew that they were going to be there, and the facilities that came forward to provide the space didn't know whether they were going to be able to provide the space. It's a good example of community working together to be able to provide those spaces. Churches are opening up to be able to provide some of those spots. It makes it very difficult when they're scrambling and not knowing whether the funding is going to come through unless there are questions from the opposition or someone else to actually raise the awareness.

So I think it's a very important piece for the government to look at, an important piece for the ministries to look at, to provide that kind of support and stability. As we know, when you're dealing with youth shelters in particular, it's important to have the right staff in place. It's important to make sure that you've got the right people to be able to work with those youth. And when they're not sure that they're ever going to receive the funding, I think that causes all sorts of difficulties.

I'm just going to move on — continue in the area of homelessness but talk about a couple of those impacts I mentioned earlier that I think government does influence, which have an impact on homelessness. I want to talk a little bit about income assistance and the direction that income assistance has gone under this government, the government's record on income assistance and the impact that's had on homelessness. So my question to the Premier is: does he believe that his government's decisions on income assistance have had an impact on homelessness in B.C.?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, just to cover off the out-of-the-rain program. The leader, I'm sure, knows that it's a program for youth 15 to 25. It is run in the winter months, and it does provide shelter for about 400 youth as you go through the year. The challenge that we face, as we often face in programs which are intergovernmental, is that the federal dollars were eliminated. So the out-of-the-rain program went to the city and asked for resources. The city provided them with $20,000 in resources. The province provided them with $47,000, but they came after the application period. It's tough for us to respond before the application period if they come afterwards. So we provided that.

The program is fully allocated at this point for the next three years, but I'm sure the minister will be looking at this. I know that the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance provided $20,000 and the Housing Ministry funded $27,000, but it's something we're going to have to look at for the long term, and we will do that.

With regard to the government's policies on income assistance, I think there's a whole series of societal issues that have impact on homelessness, and I think one of the major ones that has generally been recognized is mental illness. What we've tried to do with income assistance is create a sense of independence for people, try and provide assistance to them in terms of job training so they can get out into the workforce. We now know that the number of individuals that are dependent on income assistance is down significantly, and we

know from surveys that have been done that the people who are no longer on income assistance — well over the majority of them; I don't remember the exact number — are in fact making between two and three times the incomes that they had with income assistance.

We've increased by 31 percent the persons with disabilities. That increase was $7,000 that came up. What we're doing right now is investing $80 million a year in training. We're investing in trying to connect people with the challenges they face. We've recognized the challenges that people with disabilities have. We've increased the resources for people in terms of disabilities for their employment funds. All of those things we think are actually ways that you create a sense of independence and control for people so that they don't return to the street or they don't have to be on the street.

I think we've made some real progress with income assistance and employment. I am sure that every government program has some impact somewhere with regard to these issues, but I think employment in a job is the best way of making sure that people are not homeless.

C. James: Thank you to the Premier for his responses. I think that a lot of the numbers and a lot of the changes that we've seen on income assistance very clearly have happened because of the change in the rules. These aren't issues where we've seen a lot of people drop off income assistance. Certainly, some people have gone to work, and that's a positive thing, and we support that. Helping people to be able to have regular employment and a decent wage helps them, and that is a great success.

But what we're seeing and what is documented since the changes that have occurred in 2002 are people who have been cut off the system, who have no other options, who don't have the opportunity to get income assistance because of the changes — whether it's the time frame, whether it's the wait-list or whether it's the independence rule. There are a number of rules that were introduced by the government, which have made it very, very difficult.

We have some very good community organizations and some very good baselines out there who've been measuring these kinds of things that give us some long-term numbers to be able to take a look at. I think those are the kinds of stats that we should be including and utilizing as we look at decisions and impact of decisions.

If we take a look at the Vancouver homeless action plan, which I think is a wonderful plan and in fact is being looked at by the Premier's task force and is something that is being looked at by other communities as a wonderful example of how you put together a homeless plan, how you actually look at all of the impacts…. The number-one recommendation of the Vancouver action plan is: "Changing access to welfare would have a significant effect on reducing the homelessness that we see on the streets every single day."

I'd like the Premier to talk a little bit about why we've seen the percentage of homeless people in the GVRD not receiving income assistance increasing from 15 percent in 2002 to 75 percent today.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the leader commented on this. These are not imaginary jobs that people have gone to. There are 42,000 clients that have been placed through job placement. They're not included as successful job placements unless they've been working for a year, so we have 42,000 people now at work that were not at work prior to this.

Exit surveys are showing that actually 90 percent of the clients are going for these different reasons: employment, education, new income sources and a change in their own personal status. Those are all positive things, and we want to keep building on those positive things. As I mentioned earlier, former clients are doing much better out of income assistance than they were before.

I think it's important to note, too, that one of the things we have done in terms of income assistance is that we have for the first time made mental illness eligible for disability benefits. As well as that, we've said to ourselves: "Okay, how do we take that corps of people and make sure we're treating them fairly?"

I think there are 25 exemption categories that we currently have in place, and this is for me one of the most important exemption categories. People who have an employment plan and are working toward it are actually in a position where they still receive income assistance. So there are responsibilities that are connected with income assistance, and those responsibilities are focused on the individual clients. We try to provide them with the tools they need.

A good example of this is a sort of cross-goal example. If a client is not literate, it's very difficult for them to get jobs, so part of their employment plan may well be to build their literacy skills. It will require them to go and do what is probably, for some older people who have not been as literate as they might be…. It's very, very difficult to decide, yourself, if you're going to move through and do that. But people are doing that. We are providing them with support, and we will continue to do that.

Our income assistance rates are comparable with other provinces. We provided the largest single increase for disability benefits in over a year. We increased them by $70 a month, and that was significant for people with disabilities. We do want to create the best level of support. That's the goal we're focusing on right now. We do want to provide that.

The level of support is not just necessarily income. It may well be support services. It may well be education services. It may well be health services, but we want people to know we want them to do well. Particularly, we want single employable people to know we want them to do well. There's a number of single parents who are trying to move into the workforce. They need support in terms of their own training, and we try and provide supports for them.

We do have a broad range of supports. I think they are starting to make a difference, and we'll continue to

pursue those as well as the physical supports that are necessary in terms of housing and other activities, as well as the mental health programs and initiatives that are so critical to the long-term success of this program.

C. James: Just to look at those numbers again. We've heard the comments, and we've heard the statistics, but we also heard from people, including many of the service providers who are providing the supports for people on income assistance, that there isn't very good tracking for people who leave the system and that there needs to be improvements in the tracking process. They don't have clear numbers of what happens to people when they leave income assistance.

Sadly, the statistics we see every day on the street are, in fact, many of those challenges that people are facing who have been removed from income assistance or who have not been able to meet the criteria and have the three-week waiting period and have nothing — absolutely nothing — to go to. I think the stats speak for themselves. If we take a look at food banks alone, the number of people accessing B.C.'s food banks grew from 72,500 to 84,317 in one year, which is a huge increase in food banks.

Temporary assistance cases in income assistance have dropped, which again is a huge concern about what's happening to these people. Does the Premier have any plans, or does the Income Assistance Minister have any plans, to introduce a reliable system to be able to track individuals as they leave the system to make sure we really have an accurate look at what is happening to these individuals and make sure that supports are in place for them?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not in a position where I can be specific about how the ministry intends to follow through on all of the plans it put in place. The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance is actually going through its estimates right now, I think. That's the appropriate place to get to the detail.

I can tell the leader that one of the goals we have is that we establish not just the great goal. Also, the ministry goal is to look at the long-term measurements we're going to use to see whether we're being successful or not. Clearly, tracking is something that makes sense to all of us. I think we want to try and make sure we have measurements in place to see that the resources we're putting towards a particular initiative are working.

For example, when we started this program, I think it was about $300 million that we'd put aside for training programs and human resource development. It may be, as we get more and more successful, that those dollars should be focused in another area. I think that's one of the things the proper service-planning techniques actually give us an opportunity to do.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we want to have measurables. We want to have results. I think we want to have, as part of the estimates process, a discussion about what the best measurables are. We may agree on some; we may disagree on others. But I really think that the most appropriate place to have the detailed discussion would be with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance.

C. James: I appreciate the comments, and we will be asking those questions of the minister when we go through estimates, as we're doing right now, on income assistance. I think it is important to get those specifics, but I also think it's important to raise the issue with the Premier so that the Premier can take a look at the direction he gives the ministries and the ministers as they set their service plans. So I think it is important that we raise the issue.

Certainly, if you take a look at the Premier's goals and at the issue of providing the best system possible for people, the whole area of income assistance and supports for people on income assistance has to be a critical place for that discussion. I think it's important that the Premier does provide clear direction, because there is a clear link, based on the statistics, of people on the streets and homelessness and some of the impacts of income assistance.

I think, again, that it is the importance of government taking a look at the impact of its decisions. It's an area in income assistance that I have a great deal of concern about. Some of the decisions were made without doing proper tracking — long-term tracking of individuals to look at what impacts those decisions really had.

The three-week wait period. We saw the government pull back on the two-year-wait rule, but there are still independence rules for youth. I think it's very important for the government and for the Premier to pay attention to those issues as we look at setting goals and directions for government over the next while.

Another area that has an impact on the whole area of homelessness, as I mentioned earlier, is the issue of addictions and support for people with addictions. Again, there's a desperate need across this province for beds for people suffering from addictions. Has the government set any specific targets for increasing the number of treatment beds for people suffering from addictions?

Hon. G. Campbell: Fortunately, I have the Minister of Health sitting down with me tonight, so I can ask him questions as I get up.

First of all, we currently have 1,006 addiction treatment beds scheduled for British Columbia. They include 75 youth treatment and recovery beds and 28 dedicated youth detox beds. British Columbia is the only province in western Canada that has those youth detox beds.

This year the government provided an additional annualized funding of $6 million to develop new addiction treatment services for youth. There's $7 million available for the crystal meth addiction programs, including grants to community-based initiatives, local addictions programs and public education.

Wait times are down for detox. In the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority they're down from six weeks

to a few days. We do have, as far as I'm aware, the country's only comprehensive child and youth mental health plan.

Having said that, addictions services are part of the Health Ministry. Both mental illness and addiction services are part of the accountability plans, I believe, for the health authorities in the province.

C. James: Again, just to ask a specific question around targets and goals…. I appreciate the comments, and yes, I appreciate the comments, as well, from the Minister of Health that we had in estimates, but my question is to the Premier about direction from the leader of government to the health authorities around specific targets in the area of addiction services. Is there any direction given by the Premier or by government to the health authorities to ensure that there are lower wait times for addiction supports, more beds for addiction supports, specific targets in regions for addiction supports? Is that direction given to the health authorities?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak specifically to the directions to specific health authorities. We have said that there is $6 million in additional funding for new addiction treatment services across the province. We have provided additional funding for treatment services under the crystal meth program — $2 million across the province.

As we look at the billion dollars that are annually going to mental health and addiction services, there's no question that we want to see how those services are meeting the needs of the public. That will be an ongoing program. The $6 million will be invested where it can be invested most cost-effectively and where it can be invested closest to where the need is. It's not going to be $6 million in one community.

We have, as the leader will know, invested significantly in capital plant for mental health facilities across the province. We're going to continue to do that. The $6 million will help us do that in terms of addiction services as well.

Every health authority has mental health targets. They are publicly available on the website. I don't know specifically what they are, but they will have those for mental health, and addiction services are part of that.

C. James: Thank you to the Premier. He mentioned the additional money for crystal meth, the $2 million, so just a few questions around those specific dollars that the Premier announced at UBCM. How are those funds going to be dispersed across the province?

Hon. G. Campbell: The government has allocated $7 million for the crystal meth strategy; $2 million will go to communities for local governments. The Solicitor General is currently developing that.

The issue with regard to that is: what are the seed resources that are necessary? One of the things that has been found is that you need to have the whole local community involved in this, in raising it up. I know that when we made the announcement, there was one particular community on southern Vancouver Island that felt it wasn't enough, but I can tell you that we had a lot of takeup in other communities, saying they thought that it would be appropriate for startup. The Solicitor General is carrying out that review with the UBCM and others.

There's $3 million that will be made available for public awareness. The public awareness is so parents, teachers, etc., know what to look for and so people across the province understand how to target this. There's $2 million for treatment programs. There are various community treatment programs which are available. Those dollars will be looked at and allocated through a cross-government strategy. I think this is another important example of where we have community services working with Health and working with the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety. We will try and maximize the benefits of those resources. The program has not yet, as I understand it, been finalized, but that's part of what that $7 million program is.

There's another program which the Solicitor General is undertaking which includes extensions of Meth Watch, includes working with pharmaceutical companies and includes looking at other legislative practices in other jurisdictions to see if there are ways that we can deal with the precursors. We've already been successful with regard to encouraging the federal government to add additional penalties for the activities involved in crystal meth.

Finally, the government has allocated $122 million over '05-06 and on for two years for community policing, which will also be a help. Enforcement, legislation and health programs are all part of that strategy, and it is cross-government. The Solicitor General will be coming forward with that plan, I would think, relatively soon.

C. James: Again just around accountability. It's a similar kind of line of questioning that I used around the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, which is the accountability around the funds, how those funds are distributed and how people in communities get to know that those funds are available to be able to access them. Again, around the public education dollars — who's distributing that, and how do people know where they're able to access those dollars?

The $2 million the Premier mentioned were there for beds — how many beds does the Premier imagine that that $2 million will fund? How do people access those resources, and how will communities access those resources with this fund?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just to try to keep track here, I think that in terms of looking at the overall…. For example, if you look at the $2 million targeted for treatment programs, that will not necessarily be targeted for beds. It might be targeted for people to use beds. There are different approaches that have been discussed and

different policy options which are currently up before the Solicitor General. There's a very broad range of community groups that are saying: "Provide a resource to someone who's addicted who wants to get service, then give them the service, and watch the results of that."

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there has to be accountability for this, and I think it should be clear in terms of application for resources. They should come into the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, because he can certainly forward that on. Alternatively, they can go directly to the UBCM in terms of the community programs. That $2 million for community programs will be…. The distribution criteria will be established between the Solicitor General and the UBCM , and it may well just be managed directly through the UBCM as a community-based program. We did sign an MOU with them that they would distribute that, and that actually will be at arm's length from government.

In terms of public awareness, I think, again, that there's a number of groups we have to talk to, we have to be clear about. First, what are the target markets you're after? First, I think you're after parents so that they get the information. I know the question is: how do you properly distribute that information to parents? How do you maximize the benefits and the reach of that? That's one of the questions we'll ask. It is $3 million.

We expect some of it to be through schools, because I know of a tragedy in Victoria, for example. I'm sure the parent never could have even guessed this was happening. It was the first time any of this kind of thing happened. The young girl, unfortunately, died. I think we have to try and make sure, as we look at that public awareness….

We're looking right now at about a million dollars for school-based awareness. That may be someone going to schools and talking with schools all over the province. It may be a group of people going to schools. That's yet to be decided. There will be $2 million for public information. The question is: how do we use that public information most effectively? You know, I think that is a challenge. You can write an advertisement in the newspaper, and you might get some attention out of that. You can do it through different community groups. You can do it through service clubs, and those are things that the Solicitor General is looking at right now. But if there were a program, for example, where we might say to Rotarians, "Become involved in a crystal meth strategy," there might be an established program there where they could apply to the Solicitor General. We haven't decided that yet.

There's no more point in us as a government announcing $7 million for crystal meth and not doing anything than in the federal government announcing $700 million for first nations and not doing anything.

That brings me to my last point. A major group we're working with, with regard to our strategy, is first nations. One of the real problems with crystal meth is that it's very cheap to produce. It's very destructive, and you can't repair the damage. At least, the evidence right now is that you can't repair the damage. We are working with first nations, also, to find out how we can move that strategy into first nations communities around the province.

C. James: I appreciate the numbers, and I appreciate that the Solicitor General has not determined yet how that program's going to be set up, how that program's going to be allocated and how the resources are going to be allocated. We look forward to hearing that information when the Solicitor General has that program in place.

I think it is critical that the information be as transparent as possible. I think there are concerns about a number of different funds going to a number of different places, how people access those dollars and whether that provides a good opportunity for communities to be able to access resources when they're writing proposals to six and eight and ten different places to be able to access a small portion of funds instead of looking at it from a holistic point of view.

Just so I'm clear: if I understand the Premier correctly, there's a portion of dollars that were allocated to UBCM, and UBCM will be determining a process for how to use those dollars?

Hon. G. Campbell: To the specific question, let me answer this. If anyone has any questions about any of the program for crystal meth, those should go to the Solicitor General. There's a crystal meth secretariat in the Solicitor General Ministry that you can use. There will be, I think, in the next few days, a signed memorandum of understanding between the UBCM and the Solicitor General so they can manage that with their local governments, etc., and that criteria will be established in that memorandum of understanding.

We'll make sure the Leader of the Opposition gets to know it. This was the brilliant thought I had forgotten: the Solicitor General, actually, believes that one of the things we should do is come together as all 79 MLAs and have the opportunity to hear from some of the people that have been working with the secretariat on some of the issues we've got — what are the distribution channels we might use, and how are we going to do this? — to get some feedback on it. I don't think anyone here doesn't care about this.

That is one of the initiatives we'll try and undertake. We'll have to sort out when we can do that, but I think it's critical for any opposition MLA to know. If a parent calls the opposition MLA and wants to know what the information is, it should be there and available to them just as if they called any MLA. This program will be for everyone in the Legislature. It will be for all of our communities.

The contacts — we want to be sure they're there, and frankly, if there's confusion, if there are questions or anything, then we should try and deal with that comprehensively. That's one of the things the Solicitor General is working on doing with the secretariat.

C. James: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the direction to make sure it's clear and transparent for everyone. I think that's certainly part of the concern I'm hearing out there — the worry that with funds in a number of places, it makes it very difficult, so I appreciate those comments.

Just to talk a little bit around addiction services and supports outside the lower mainland and outside urban settings, I think we know clearly that there are some real challenges in communities. The Premier mentioned first nations communities. It's a growing area and a growing concern, so I wonder if the Premier knows whether a particular strategy is being worked on in the area of addiction services for communities outside the lower mainland, particularly rural and resource-based communities.

Hon. G. Campbell: The $6 million for additional addiction services is on top of the billion. Every health authority has to have a plan for mental health, regardless of whether it's the Northern Health Authority or the Interior. The $6 million will be additional to them, and they will be asked to come forward with recommendations on how those resources can be invested.

I think it is fair to say that we examine the proposals that are brought forward to maximize the number of addiction services that are available. There is a specific endeavour to try and make sure that there are both mental health and addiction service facilities in all five of the health authorities. If we need to do additional, we'll look at that in the future.

C. James: The Premier moved into the area that I just wanted to close on in the area of homelessness — that is, the issue of people who are struggling with addictions and mental illness. As we know, again, if we take a look at the challenges we're facing with people on the street and with homelessness, one of the critical components is people who are struggling with both mental illness and addiction and the lack of supports that are available for those individuals.

There are some wonderful examples across the world and across North America of places where they've been able to provide supports for people who have both mental illnesses and addictions. Sadly, in British Columbia we haven't moved very far in that particular area. I wonder if the Premier could talk about that particular area — the area of supports for people with both mental illness and addictions — and what kind of supports are being put in place.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think this is an area where, frankly, for a long time governments failed. I think they failed for a number of reasons. One was societal. Society would rather have left mental health behind in the back closet or in the basement — somewhere where we hopefully didn't have to see it. I am proud to say that this government hasn't tried to do that. We, in fact, have tried to put it in the centre of the room and said that there are big challenges with mental illness.

I understand that about 70 percent of those with addictions are dual-diagnosed as having a mental illness and an addiction. Frankly, I'm not convinced that if you're addicted long enough, you don't develop the mental illness in trying to remove yourself from the addiction. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is when someone has to try and do that.

That's why, when we launched our mental health initiative, we didn't just provide for a capital plan for mental health facilities. Also, we said, "Let's bring addiction services together with mental health services under the Health Ministry," because for too long addictions moved over here and over there and whatever. We're saying that it's a health issue. It's not something that's separated from that.

As we've done that, it's clear that there's got to be, as I think the leader said, a comprehensive approach. The reason — as we're still dealing with homelessness, mental illness and addictions — is that, I believe, we actually have to be far more integrative. My goal is to have, if you want, someone who might be seen as a homeless person on the street. If we can make a connection with them and they understand that when we make that connection we're trying to deal with…. We're not being judgmental about it. We're just trying to make the connection and bring them in and provide them with a clean and safe place to stay and, hopefully, with the counselling or the diagnostics they need to say: "This is the challenge that you're facing. Can we work on that?" My goal is to try and provide an integrative level of care and services as we go through that.

One of the things that I think certainly should be enticing to all of us who care about that is the community court idea now being studied by the Attorney General, which says: "Let's look at this. Let's see where mental illness is involved in this challenge. Let's see if we can connect that person, through the courts, to a health professional. Let's see if we can diagnose. Let's see if we can support so that person can become healthy." Having said that, it was way easier for me to say that in three minutes than it's ever going to be to do it. But I think we have to set that as a goal for ourselves.

As we look at expanding our mental health services, our mental illness services, our addiction services, I think the expansion's got to be beyond physical capacity. It's got to look at how we integrate that. It's one of the things I was mentioning earlier to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I think it was — that when we looked at youth and mental health services, one of the reasons we tried to bring them into Health was because we thought that would be more integrative. But as we look at that, you know, we're willing to try and do it culturally first through the ministries

Will there be expansion of mental health services? Yes, there will. Will there be additional reviews done — whether it's for capital plant or whatever? Yes, there will. I think one of the hidden challenges of the health care system is that we often identify seniors as what they glibly call "bed-blockers." They're in the wrong kinds of beds for acute care. The same thing happens with people with mental illness.

That is a big shift for us. I don't want to pretend it can happen overnight. I do think it's something that, frankly, if we work on it together as the opposition and the government — if we work on it in terms of examining that in terms of our long-term strategies — there are probably few things that will have a greater long-term impact than how we provide those integrative services. That's our objective, and hopefully, we can make progress on it. I don't expect it's going to be solved in a year and a half or two years. We do have to build capacity over time, capacity not just in terms of the caregivers that we have but capacity in terms of the facilities and the kinds of facilities that we create.

C. James: Just to close off on the whole area of mental illness and addictions. One of the critical pieces that we all know about is making sure that supports are there in the community for people. Great — we have the treatment beds. Great — we have the opportunity for people to get that treatment or perhaps get some support when they're struggling with mental illness. But when they go back in the communities, it's critical, again, that the supports be there for them in their communities.

I wonder if the Premier could talk a little bit about the whole area of deinstitutionalization, supports in communities and how we can make sure that people who are transitioned into the communities, either from institutions, which is the right direction to go with community supports, or people who are coming out of treatment for mental illness or addiction services…. What kinds of supports has the government looked at as part of their strategy in providing supports to people in communities?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is a five-year, $138-million capital plan that was put in place to try and provide for community supports. I'd like to just stop for a second and say that this is what is so critical about the Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Health and Addiction Services being local. One of the challenges that often has come up with community supports is that you'll say, as we saw in Vancouver last year, "Here's a facility for people with mental illnesses that provides them with the supports they need in the communities where they live," and the more local community comes and says: "We don't want that."

I think one of the things we're learning as we go through this is that the software, if you want, of community support is almost as difficult and as challenging as the hardware. The software of community support is to develop effective community liaison committees — so that when there's a challenge, you deal with it immediately — and openness of the facility to people from the immediate community to come around and to explain when they're worried or frightened about something. I think a lot of times we're talking about fear that's based on prejudice and bias, as opposed to the facts.

For example, one of the things we're looking at doing in the task force is taking the examples of all of what in Vancouver we used to call special-needs residential facilities and saying: "Here are all of these locations." You can show them. You can show them on a map. They're in virtually every community in Vancouver, and not one has created a challenge. I think there was one that was closed in the last 20 years. It's a pretty good record when you do it properly. So that's taking place.

Previously, when they started deinstitutionalizing, Riverview often, unfortunately, deinstitutionalized people into communities where there were no supports. At this point, we do not move someone from Riverview to a community that does not have those supports. Today we have new facilities at Seven Oaks, a 38-bed facility in Saanich, Iris House in Prince George, South Hills in Kamloops, Seven Sisters in Terrace, and Royal Inland's 44-bed tertiary care facility in Kamloops as well. We're going to continue to try and do that and provide community opportunities for appropriate facilities within regional health authorities under their auspices so that we can move people out from the larger institution. The Minister of Health was just telling me that he thinks right now it's about 300 that we've moved from Riverview. We'll do more as we build additional facilities.

The critical component, though, which was identified earlier, is: we have to make sure that when we devolve these things, we do this with the patients in mind. We're trying to devolve, also, so that there's a patient plan in place, and I think that's going to be helpful. We want to make sure that when we move someone from Riverview, we move them directly to a facility that meets their specific needs, that reflects the specific plan that's been put together by their health professional.

C. James: Thank you for those comments around homelessness, addiction services and mental illness. I think there is a clear link there, and we need to make sure that the supports are across the board, and certainly we'll be watching the commitments through the task force, as well as the measurements that come out, to see if they truly will acknowledge the challenges that are there and make sure that we work towards reducing that. I appreciate that.

I want to move on to education, if I may, and talk a little bit about both post-secondary education and kindergarten-to-grade-12 education. Perhaps I'll start off with kindergarten-to-grade-12, and just talk to the Premier a little bit about some of the changes that have

occurred since the election and changes in direction that the Premier has taken.

My first question to the Premier is: why was the decision made to move early childhood development, child care and libraries over to the Ministry of Education? What were the decisions, why were those decisions taken, and what kind of impacts does the Premier expect from taking those kinds of decisions?

Hon. G. Campbell: I hope this will be okay with the Leader of the Opposition. I'd like to sort of give you the framework that we were trying to work from when we made the changes in June. First of all, I don't think there are very many people today that don't understand that early childhood development is actually a critical component of having a child ready to move into school. We tend to think about it as the years zero to two. We should actually, probably, think of the year minus three-quarters to zero, and zero to two. There's a lot of work that we have to do in shifting that.

What we said with regard to this is: "Let's look at government and try and make sure that we're meeting the needs of our children in preparing them for school." Today I think about 25 percent of kids are not ready for school when they get into kindergarten. We want to have early learning and education and literacy as part of the lead ministry on education.

Literacy. You'll know we do the Ready, Set, Learn program, which is three-year-olds and providing them with a book and trying to get them…. Every young child in British Columbia has the opportunity to take advantage of that if the school is taking advantage of that. Their parents can take advantage of that. We try and provide connections directly to parents through Achieve B.C. so they can see the various options that are available for them on the website. We're looking at other opportunities for that.

But the really critical component of this is early childhood development and early learning. We want to move up the number of children we have that are ready to enter school. We would like to be able to give you a specific right now. It's about 75 percent. In the next five years we'd like to increase that to 85 percent. If we can go beyond that, that's great, for me. But that's one of the goals we've set.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development has an overarching mandate for programs to care for children and to support families. It is also responsible for child care. The Minister of State for Childcare has the lead responsibility for partnerships and promoting innovation in child care. It goes back to the education. We were talking a little bit about this earlier in terms of…. I can't remember which member was asking — it was in question period — about school boards. What we're trying to say to everybody is that we're all involved in a child's learning. Let's take the physical plant we have, let's take the expertise we have, and let's try and integrate it all so that we can make sure we're maximizing the benefits for our kids.

Another part of the early childhood learning, early childhood development strategy, is the diagnostics, which are carried out by the Health Ministry — not just the diagnostics but the therapeutics. So every child in British Columbia will now be tested for hearing, for sight and for dental challenges. We know as we test them and we provide the supports for them that it's a significant additional financial investment, but the long-term human opportunities are enormous when we look at those. So that's the approach we've taken.

In terms of literacy and libraries, the reason we put libraries in the Ministry of Education is, again, because literacy has got to have…. There's a lead ministry with regard to that. You know that libraries are part of literacy. They're the front lines of literacy in many, many parts of the province, and I'm not saying there is, but there may well be, an opportunity to expand not just school-based libraries but community libraries — thinking of the school as the centre of the community.

Really, the direction has been integrative. The direction has been to be comprehensive and to think of education as lifelong education. Candidly, when most adults hear "lifelong education," they typically think of education from when they graduate from grade 12 and what happens when they're 47 or 63. What we're trying to do is focus not just resources but our energy, effort and imaginations on what we can do to improve young children's opportunities to maximize their potential as they enter school.

C. James: I am pleased the minister is keen on her portfolio, as we are. Early childhood education and child care are critical, and I'm going to come back to the libraries piece and the literacy piece in a moment.

To the Premier: why was the decision made to separate child care from early childhood development? You mentioned the two different ministries — the fact that one piece is in the Ministry of Children and Families and one piece is in the Ministry of Education. Knowing how important child care is to early childhood development, I'd like the Premier to comment on why he separated the two.

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand the question, and I think the answer actually is pretty critical to what we've been trying to do across government, and that is to say that the well-being of a child is not locked into one ministry or another. So in education…. I think, actually, in my last answer I said early childhood development. I meant early learning is critical, and early learning is with the Ministry of Education. Early childhood development and child care remain with the Ministry of Children and Families.

I can tell you that when the federal-provincial agreement, the $633 million agreement, was made, there was quite a bit of discussion about whether all of those dollars should be for child care or whether any of those dollars were going to childhood learning. What we're trying to do is respond to this holistically and make sure that we're maximizing the benefits in terms

of the services we're providing by bringing together all of the talents of all the ministries to meet the needs of our children.

C. James: I think what the Premier described, in fact, contradicts coordination. It contradicts the whole point of having a coordinated approach to early childhood, in which case things should be in one place as much as possible. That's not always possible — as you mentioned, the Ministry of Health in some areas.

Certainly, when you look at child care and early childhood development or early learning, all of those things take place through child care. So in fact, there are some links between them. I think there's certainly a concern there around what direction the government has taken on the area of early learning, early childhood and child care which creates some barriers that don't need to be there. You can, in fact, through child care provide the opportunities for early learning and early childhood education. That's why the people who teach in child care centres are called early childhood educators: because their job is to educate.

So in fact, child care is not a separate piece; it is an integral piece. I'd certainly think that it's an issue that needs to be looked at if the Premier's looking at that whole area of early childhood and early learning. Child care is how you can better coordinate those supports.

Just to touch on the libraries piece for a moment, the Premier mentioned the rationale around moving public libraries to the Ministry of Education around literacy. I don't disagree with that. It makes sense to coordinate the issues around literacy. But I have to raise attention to the concern around teacher-librarians and the lack of support in school libraries right now. If the Premier and the government want to focus on literacy, one of the best ways to do that is to make sure we have teacher-librarians who can provide that support. Children spend a large portion of their lives in schools. Children spend a large portion of their lives in the classroom in a building where you could have an opportunity with a qualified teacher-librarian to provide those supports.

So I'd like the Premier to just make a comment or to provide us with his comments on the decision the government took to eliminate supports for teacher-librarians and the impact that that's had, then, on the literacy direction and whether the Premier has any thoughts or comments around the impact of that.

Hon. G. Campbell: If I could just go back to the early learning part. You know, there's no question in my mind that there are different choices you can make. I think the first place early learning takes place is in the home. It takes place in communities. It takes place all around. It takes place in child care. It may well take place in schools, depending on what we decide to do with our schools and excess space there.

First, I want to say this. I think a traditional response is to say this is a ministry, and this is it — right? One of the things that I am trying to do in the government as a whole is create, for want of a better term, an open-border government. Frankly, I want every ministry to think about what we're doing better for kids. I want the ministries that are specifically involved to have specific targets and specific plans that can be integrated.

When we look at the social development part of the province and we look at bringing together the deputy minister's council on social development…. They're all at one point or another striving to see: how do we do this in the most effective way? It is difficult. I don't want to shy away from that. It is not unusual for any ministry to say: "This is mine — right?"

What I'm trying to say is this is the government's objective. These are the government's goals, and now how do we accomplish them in the best way possible? We'll see how we do. I don't think there's one final plan. I think that you've got to keep evolving it, and we'll see how that works. But I do want to try and move to — for want of a better term, the one that we use in the government — open-border government, where there's integrated work, where ministries are working together, where deputy ministers and their staff are working together.

The second question that the Leader of the Opposition raises is a much more fundamental and, in some ways, a much more difficult question to answer in terms of at least what we were trying to accomplish as a government. When we were elected, we said because of exceptional leaders that we'd seen from school boards, and we were asked…. It was advocated to government that we reduce and cut back on all the strings that governments traditionally had provided for funding for school boards. The Leader of the Opposition may know this number better than me. I believe the number was something like 62 separate, stringed commitments of funding resources that we gave to school boards. School trustees said, to me at least: "If you'll cut those strings, we'll be able to do much better with the dollars that we get."

I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition knows that I could say: "Out of the $150 million increase in education budgets, X dollars are going to school librarians, Y dollars are going to this, and Z dollars are going to something else." We actually tried to stay away from that. I think one of the things that we will discuss — I don't think this; I know — at the education round table is: how do you create accountability alignments for what's going on? How do you assure that if you're putting resources there that they are available for school librarians, if that, in fact, is what the province wants to have happen with them?

I think when we say that, though, we have to recognize that that's the province saying, "We're going to start doing more of running the education system," as opposed to saying to the locally elected school boards that it's up to them. So that is an issue that we will deal with, with the school boards.

Last year we provided an additional $10 million for textbooks, and it was a matching program. We still

want to, as a province, eliminate whatever learning resource gaps or shortages there are. That may well require us to say to all school boards that these are dedicated funds, but I would like to do that in talking with the round table. At the round table, as I mentioned today, there are the trustees, the principals and vice-principals, the teachers, the parents and the province.

Our goal was to create more autonomy for school boards, and that's why we followed the path we did. It may well be that that's the wrong goal. Maybe we have to have "limited autonomy" for school boards. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know I want to talk with other school boards and other participants of the round table before we decide.

C. James: Thank you for those comments. Just to add to the discussion around early childhood development, child care and early learning, I understand the Premier's point. I think it's encouraging to see that the issue of children would be looked at across the ministries or that the issue of health would be looked at across the ministries — that it wouldn't just be in one particular ministry. I think that's an admirable goal to try and work towards.

But I would say again to the Premier that in the area of child care right now, my concern is that we see the government putting a great deal of funding — as we talked about in other areas — into individual programs, whether it's the literacy program or whether it's other programs, rather than looking at a holistic approach, which you could do through child care and provide early childhood and family supports and parent supports. There's an opportunity through the one-stop to be able to provide all of those programs and services, all of those supports, which is a much more effective way. It's cost-effective for government, program-effective and, most importantly, effective for families, who then aren't stuck running from place to place to place. In fact, through a child care facility, whether it's at school or otherwise….

I think it does make sense, in fact, to look at the education area for child care. The buildings are there. I think it's a good use of facilities to have early childhood educators within the education system providing child care. That opportunity would save a lot of piecemeal work that is going on with a number of good-quality programs across the province, which are critical but could be provided under one umbrella in child care. I think it's an area where the government has missed an opportunity. I hope that as they go through looking at early childhood and child care, they take a look at how they could look at both a cost-effective approach and a quality approach for families.

The Premier mentioned the education round table, so I'd like to talk a little bit about that, because I know the Premier is taking a role at that round table. He's chairing that round table and taking a direct role there. I'd like the Premier just to give us a little bit of information around how that's going — you've had a couple of meetings now — and how those discussions are going and what the Premier has set as a time line for decisions coming out of the round table.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, by time line…. What I'm interpreting time line to mean is: what do we think is going to happen over time? It's sort of segmented out.

We agreed at our first meeting that we would maintain the size of the round table. We agreed there would be four representatives of the BCTF; two from the trustees; two from the principals and vice-principals; two from the parents; the Deputy Minister of Education, the Minister of Education and myself from the government as well as a recorder and — I'm sorry; I don't remember Rick's last name — Rick, Assistant Deputy Minister of Education, as well.

In terms of that, in the first round table meeting we agreed that all the organizations could appoint two people or four, depending on what it was, and they would appoint them from now until June 30, 2006.

There are discussions that should be taking place right now — and, I'm sure, are at some point, some phase or another — between the Minister of Education and the BCTF on the $20 million for class size and composition that Mr. Ready recommended. The round table itself will make discussions on the balance of those resources. I'm confused; I don't remember whether it's $60 million or $70 million. We will discuss all of that at the round table.

There's $20 million that was clearly part of the Ready recommendations, which will be discussed with the BCTF. We explained that we were going to do that at the last meeting, and that information will be brought to the round table, just so they know. In fact, that will be public at any rate, so people will see that.

The process we're going through at the round table is that an agenda is set. There's a request that for the next time we meet, which is I think in the first week of December, that we will look at how we may allocate those additional resources this year. There might be some one-time costs, etc. The government is particularly concerned about eliminating — if there is a textbook shortage — the current textbook shortage with those resources. There may be other one-time things that they can come forward with. The BCTF has come forward with some recommendations themselves. We've encouraged the other participants to come forward with theirs. We'll spend most of that day — and I don't remember the date but the next time we're gathered together — talking about that, debating it, etc.

Having said that, let me say that I think the round table is an opportunity for all of us. I think all of the participants of the round table have come with an open mind. I think all of them have come with a certain amount of trust that we're all trying to accomplish the same goals. I don't have any illusions, and one of the primary ways that we intend to operate is this. I said at the very first meeting — I know it's minuted; I'm not sure if it's been made public yet — that there was no requirement for unanimity at the round table. There is no requirement that everyone agrees. What I hope

people will do is feel comfortable coming and saying what they think and why they think it. If we make a decision everyone agrees with, we'll say that's the decision. If we make a decision and some people don't agree with it, we'll say both why the decision was made and who doesn't agree with it. But I think, to date, it's been constructive. It will be useful. We've got work to do specifically leading up to year-end this year, March 31.

Then we will start the work on an ongoing basis, and we'll talk about a whole range of issues. You could talk about professional development. You could talk about safety in schools. You could have students come and talk with us. We've had a number of people that have asked to either sit on the round table or come and talk with us. We've agreed we will have them come and talk with us. We've agreed that there will be occasional round table meetings in other parts of the province, where we may encourage people to come and talk to us.

The idea is that on the 30th of June, if there's going to be a change — because most of the organizations we're dealing with have annual meetings — the change will be made at the 30th of June. The turnover, then, will go from July 1 to the next 30th of June in the same makeup. So the agenda will be developed by the table.

I think it is important to note — and the round table participants were all keen that we noted this — that the educational advisory committee, I think it's called, is not being disbanded because there's a round table there. The round table is another way of trying to deal with this and, hopefully, a comprehensive way. I think I'll stop there.

C. James: Continuing on with discussion on the round table and just, again, some questions around time lines for things like changing the School Act and putting class size into the School Act in four to 12. If I could have some comment from the Premier around those time lines and any consideration that's being made around that table for those time lines. Having been in a school district, I know the challenges of teachers and the number of teachers, layoff procedures, hiring procedures and the challenge that that creates. Let's hope we're in a hiring capacity this coming year, but that does create some challenges time line–wise. So I'd just like the Premier to make some comments around the issue of class size and the School Act.

Then, if the Premier could just talk a little bit about the specifics of the agenda at the round table. We've heard some discussion around supports for students as part of the mandate, and you talked a little bit about the Education Advisory Council and its work continuing. Where does the Premier see the agenda focusing on the round table that may be different than the bigger discussions in education?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me go back. In terms of the round table, in terms of the agenda, there's no question that the primary item on the agenda right now is the question of class size and class composition. We have had one meeting with sort of a first cut of the class-size information put in front of us. I think it's 1,200 pages. It's the first time it's been done. We gave that information to each of the round table participants and said: "We actually do need you to look at this and tell us where it's not correct, where it's falling short, where we should add something else."

This is a very layman's response. I think the biggest challenge is class composition. I think class size, we're going to find, is pretty close to where things are. We're asking for anomalies. I've asked specifically that wherever there's a class of 39, I want to know why there's a class of 39. I want the school district and the school to justify why that's there, etc., because school districts have been making lots of choices.

With the 150 million additional dollars brought in last year, which is now $170 million, so far there have been 630 teachers added. There have been 507 educational assistants, 365 support staff, 95 professionals and administrators.

As we move ahead, there'll be, obviously, another three-year budget that will be coming forward. To be candid about it, I think that the major area we're going to be focusing our attention on as a round table between now and probably January or February will be class size. There's not one answer on class size; there's a series.

The BCTF has come forward with some recommendations. I'll give them the courtesy of telling them how I feel about their recommendations as opposed to announcing it here in the House, but I can tell you that my goal is to provide for flexibility and to try and make sure that children are given the kind of support they need. I think that there's going to be a pretty good discussion around the recommendations they've made. I haven't heard from the others. I haven't heard from the parents or the vice-principals or anything yet. That's where I'm coming from on it.

Our undertaking with regard to the School Act is that we'll hear from the various partners what they think amendments to the School Act may be. If we can get those amendments and establish them early, then we'll try and move them into the spring of next year so that they're in place. There's been no commitment to any changes, but there's been a commitment to look at them and to consult with them. That's what we'll do.

I think there has been a problem in terms of class size. I think that it would not be a bad idea to put into the School Act how class size will be reported and how it will be monitored and what happens when it isn't met, etc. I really think that the critical part of the round table that is going to be very effective for everybody is to listen to what the participants who are actively involved in that School Act on a regular basis actually think about it.

That's what we intend to do. If we can get the recommendations from the round table early enough, we'll bring them in for the spring session in 2006. If we can't, maybe it will be a little later. Our goal is certainly not to slow down, but it is to be comprehensive.

I do want to say this. I think it would be fair to say that there was some trepidation from the BCTF in terms of coming to the round table. I'm sure they still have some trepidation as to what the purpose is. The purpose is actually to try and get it right by working with people and putting in place the tools we need, whether they're financial tools or legislative framework tools. Some of the issues we talked about earlier are actually pretty critical issues in terms of creating alignment and accountability throughout the system so we know where we're going.

C. James: Thank you for those comments. Certainly, I would encourage the Premier. We don't want to take away from the discussion at the round table. I wasn't asking for you to provide information that hadn't been discussed at the round table. I think it's important for that table to have the discussion and to go through that discussion.

I am concerned about the time lines. I am concerned about School Act changes, if they were to occur — to make sure that there's enough time. I'm reassured that the discussion will take place at the round table around those time lines so people know that if they have a discussion around issues, they have a time line to meet to be able to get that information into the School Act. I think it's important for all the participants around the table to know that so that they're not carrying their discussion on presuming that they'll be able to get things into the School Act without knowing that there are tight time lines around that process happening.

I appreciate that conversation. Again, I think it's important for everyone to have input into that process and into how that occurs, so I appreciate those comments.

Just to touch on…. One other piece that I neglected to raise, on the issue of libraries and school libraries — which I think is important for the Premier to comment on or, if he's not aware of it, to make sure he takes a look at, because I think it does impact on the whole literacy area — is the fact that there's no longer a curriculum for school libraries. That doesn't exist anymore within the Ministry of Education. I think that when we take a look at the fact that teacher-librarians are gone in many libraries or are covering off classrooms and providing a very small portion of support, to also see a curriculum gone for school libraries raises all sorts of concerns from people — everything from getting rid of school libraries and having public libraries take over or any of those kinds of concerns.

Understandably, people who see those kinds of issues are worried. They're worried about a lack of commitment for school libraries. I'd like to stress again that if the Premier is looking at literacy, school libraries are one of the critical places to be able to provide that literacy support to our students. Teacher-librarians and a curriculum for school libraries have a critical place there. I just wondered if the Premier had any comments on that issue.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, with regard to the school library curriculum, I did not know that. Fortunately, Education estimates are still up. It might be worthwhile to pursue that with the Education Minister.

I don't want to underestimate the issue that we're dealing with, with regard to school libraries. We do want them to be properly resourced. I guess it goes back to my primary comment to the Leader of the Opposition that for me, at least, if we're saying that we're going to allow school boards to decide where they can best allocate the resources to meet the needs of their kids, then it's hard for me now to jump in and say: "But there's something I think you should do ahead of that."

In terms of not just the literacy agenda but the learning resource agenda, I do think it's worth our having a look at that, and I would encourage that to be pursued at the Minister of Education's estimates. We will certainly have a chance to pursue it at the education round table because one of the participants, on behalf of the BCTF, is a school librarian. I'm sure she won't forget that particular part of the initiative.

C. James: I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased to hear that that issue will continue to be canvassed, because I think it is critical. Certainly, as I said, with the Premier's goals around literacy, school libraries are a critical place to be able to put a portion of that time and a portion of those resources and energy to make sure that occurs.

Just to close off on kindergarten-to-grade-12 education and to touch on, obviously, one of the more challenging times that we've gone through this fall: the issue of the teachers' dispute. Again, I think it's important for all of us to look back over experiences and to learn from those experiences, so I'd ask the Premier what he learned through the teachers' dispute, and would he do anything differently?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the teachers' dispute was unfortunate for everybody. In terms of what we would do differently, I think the critical thing for us goes back to one of the discussions we had earlier. We're going to have to look pretty carefully at how we do things in education, and how we do things as government — that's fine — but also how we do things in education. I think you can't say on the one hand that you've got a group of trustees who are negotiating and on the other hand that the government's going to negotiate. I think we have to find a more robust and wholesome negotiating model for education. I think that any time you've seen…. In public education, K-to-12 education, there hasn't been an agreement since we did the provincewide bargaining that was put in place in 1993, and I don't think that works for anybody.

In terms of that, I think it is important to be clear with the public on what the issues are. There's far more information we can provide to the public. I want to do more of that. I want to do that in concert with the round table. I think it's important for us to work together with all of the players in education, and we will do that. The round table is actually a response, which is

doing things differently than we've done in the past, and I think we'll have to try and build on that.

There are a number of lessons I guess everyone can learn from an experience like that. The primary lesson I think we have to get straight is: how, in fact, do we come to resolutions when we're not involved? And if we should be involved more, how should we be involved, and who should be involved? In terms of where we are right now, I'm hopeful that Mr. Ready will come back with a comprehensive recommendation. I mean, it's ironic to me that when we set up Mr. Ready, one of the reasons we set up Mr. Ready instead of going with the previous report was because the BCTF had decided they didn't like Mr. Ready's report.

At least, right now, we're in a position where we can move forward, and I think we have to look at what comprehensive, provincewide bargaining means. We have to look at who should be negotiating. I think we have to look at educational alignments and accountabilities. As we do that together, I think the Learning Round Table will be a critical part of informing us on where we should go, as well as Mr. Ready.

C. James: Thank you for the comments. Certainly, the learning around looking at a negotiation system that works and looking at when government steps in and when it doesn't, I think, is important. I think it's very important for the government to examine that issue and to have those discussions with teachers, with school boards, with the employers and the employees, to make sure we've got a better process so that we don't get to this place again and so that we actually can get to a resolution.

That's something all of us would feel positive about and that would be a good experience, but the important lesson here that I think the public has seen and that the outside has seen is that this issue didn't need to come to the situation it did if the government had looked at the opportunity to do exactly as the Premier just outlined — to talk about how we resolve issues, talk about how we get information to the public, talk about how we come to resolution, instead of using confrontation to be able to solve it. That's the important lesson I think the government needs to consider: to do what the Premier just outlined, which is to look at how we come to resolution.

I think that was a missing piece in this entire dispute and, in fact, a missing piece in many disputes in the area of education. That's an area I certainly hope the Premier will take some time on.

Just to touch on the Ready process for a second, if we may. I wonder if the Premier can give us some time lines on the Ready process. We know negotiations are coming up. We know that the time line will be here soon, and I wonder what time lines he's looking at for the Ready process.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Ready is scheduled to report out on December 31 of this year. I am hopeful he will be able to do that. He is right now participating in carrying out his consultations with all of the parties prior to his report.

It's my anticipation that the report will be made available to us, and if it's made available to us and we go through the process, we may well have changes that are required for the spring of this year. I can't guarantee that, but that may well be what happens. If, in fact, that did take place, then that would be done in time for the next round of negotiations.

C. James: Thank you for those time lines. I think it is important that as we go into negotiations as one contract expires, we make sure that we don't get into the situation which was there before and that a process is in place which has been discussed with both the employers and the employees, so it's something that can be agreed upon as much as possible by all parties. I think that's very important.

Just another piece around the dispute and coming out of this dispute is the whole issue of the dollars that were saved during the dispute. We heard a number of different kinds of comments made on those dollars saved during the dispute. We heard the minister make some comments, we heard the Premier make some comments, and we heard the deputy minister make some comments about what was going to happen with those dollars that were saved during the teachers' dispute.

I'd like to ask the Premier what his plans are and what direction he's given to the Minister of Education for those dollars. Will those dollars go back to school boards to be used now to address the issue of, as the Premier himself described, challenging class compositions, the difficulties that we're seeing right now, or for additional supports to school districts for this school year, recognizing there will be additional dollars needed for next school year?

Hon. G. Campbell: Out of the dollars which weren't invested in education, it's approximately $130 million which is available: $40 million is going to the long-term disability fund, as per Mr. Ready's recommendation; $20 million will be discussed with the BCTF in terms of class size and compensation, as per Mr. Ready's recommendation; and the balance, which is $70 million, will be discussed at the Learning Round Table. There will be a major discussion with regard to that in probably December and January.

C. James: Just to make sure that we're clear on the numbers from the Premier, my understanding was that the $20 million in the Ready recommendation was new money. So, again, just to be clear about the dollars that were saved from this dispute: those dollars, the Premier is saying, are going to be used for the Ready settlement, and some of the money is going to go to the round table and be discussed at the round table. Those discussions — do they have a time line? Is it likely those dollars will be rolled into the following school year and not the current school year?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's $20 million, according to Mr. Ready, that was planned for next year and which is coming into this year and will carry on next year. I notice your Education critic's next door to you there. We had planned for $170 million next year. We're doing $170 million this year, and that will carry on next year. That's $20 million that moves up to this year that wasn't initially allocated and that will carry on.

The $40 million is long-term disability. It's one-time funding; it's done. The $70 million will have to be expended this year. One of the issues that we're dealing with, with the participants in the round table, is how that $70 million will be best spent or best invested. That's the question, but it will go into the education system.

One of the things I can tell you the province is very interested in doing is investing to assure that there aren't any textbook shortages in any school districts. Parents shouldn't have to deal with that. We think there are resources available for that. Let's get a comprehensive look at that and try and respond to that.

Under the generally accepted accounting principles, we can't roll that forward, so we have to say: what could it do? We've had no agenda item where the different parties have come and said: "Do this. Do that. Do the next thing." We've heard that maybe we could do it by providing additional computers in some schools where they need them for their computer labs, maybe new lab equipment for some schools where they need more lab equipment. We're actually asking for the partners to come forward and say: "Here's where we think you can get the best benefit in terms of our students across the province in that $70 million."

C. James: We heard through this entire dispute how critical the issues of class composition and class size were. If anything positive came out of this dispute — and I think there would be people who would wonder about that — it was the fact that awareness was raised around the province for everyone, not just parents and teachers but everyone, around the supports that are needed for our schools to support smaller class sizes, to support students with special needs, to support teacher-librarians, to support other specialized areas in our schools that don't have the supports. To hear the Premier make mention near the end of this dispute that there were some challenges in class size was, I think, an acknowledgment that there are issues that need to be addressed in the schools.

While I understand the Premier saying that the money is going to the round table and that there will be discussions from all the partners to be able to say what's important and what isn't, I would again ask the Premier to consider taking those dollars and giving them, as was committed in the first place ,to school districts to spend them right now on support for students this school year. We still have from December until June where we have the opportunity to make sure those dollars are in place to support the class sizes that are large, to support students with special needs and to make sure that our libraries have teacher-librarians in them. I'd like a comment from the Premier around actually utilizing those resources now.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not trying to avoid something. Those dollars will be spent between now and March 31, but they will be invested after consultation with the round table. I haven't got any specific areas they should go to. It may well be that someone says: "Let's invest more in special needs kids." It may well be that someone says: "Let's do something else."

I don't know what the various options are, but we have told the round table that we will talk with them, and they will come forward. Just so there are no illusions or misapprehensions about this, the dollars will be invested now. They'll be invested between now and March 31. The really critical thing is to make sure that we invest them so that we're investing them in something that will make a difference to the students in the various districts across the province.

C. James: Thank you for those comments, but again, I would stress the fact that there are opportunities to increase support for students right now. We heard, loud and clear through this dispute, from the public and others, that those supports are necessary. They could be in place now, and we know what they are. The commitment was made to school districts that they could have those resources, and I certainly would use them for things like smaller class sizes and supports for students with special needs.

I think there may be a missed opportunity here. I'd encourage the Premier to get that money to school districts as quickly as possible and to focus it on supports for those very areas that, during this dispute, people raised concern about. I think that there was a very clear direction during that dispute.

Just to move on, then, to post-secondary education and the whole area of universities and colleges. When we take a look at the challenges facing our students who want to access post-secondary education — whether it's in small communities at a community college or in a university setting — we know that one of the largest challenges that our students are facing is financial. It is a huge barrier for many of our students. They're really struggling to be able to access post-secondary education.

When we take a look at the Premier's goals and the direction that he has set, at a time when post-secondary education is critical, not only for the students and the families but to our economy, critical to growing our economy…. The new economy is investing in people. I think that's an important, missed opportunity for this government. We heard the Premier, during the election campaign, talk about the fact that he would bring in a tuition cap, that it was important and that it would be

addressed. I'd like to ask the Premier: what are his time lines, and where is the legislation?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. We felt that we did have to have a cap on tuitions. I'm pleased to say that all universities and colleges have managed to achieve that cap at 2 percent this year. Some institutions have decided not to increase their tuitions at all. Are we planning for legislation at this point? I'm not planning for legislation unless it's required.

The institutions have worked with the government to make sure that there are opportunities for young people in terms of tuitions. Right now undergraduate students in B.C.'s public universities pay an average of $4,574 for tuition, which is the fourth-lowest in the country. I think that is significant. I think they're getting a good quality of education. The province right now is subsidizing educations for people in advanced education to the tune of about 70 percent to 80 percent, depending on the particular program.

We're going to continue to expand the program. We're going to continue to expand opportunities. We're going to continue to work with colleges and universities across the province to try and make sure that education is affordable to young people and older people in British Columbia.

C. James: I guess I'll ask the Premier again, then. In February the commitment was a pledge to bring in legislation to cap tuition. I'd ask the Premier: where is that pledge?

Hon. G. Campbell: We did pledge to cap tuition, and in fact, we thought we might need legislation. But if you don't need legislation, there's no reason to bring it in. The colleges and universities are working with us. We're pleased with the work they've done, and I think students are getting very good service from the colleges and universities. When we've got the fourth-lowest level of tuitions in the country, I think British Columbia students are getting good value.

C. James: I'd ask this question to the Premier, then: is the process for bringing in this legislation to wait until a university or college increases more than the rate of inflation and then decide that the legislation will come in? I hear the Premier saying that.

The Chair: Members, I've been listening, and it really is out of order to be discussing legislation in Committee of Supply. Premier, if you wish to answer….

C. James: Well, Madam Chair, I'd just like to raise the fact that this is a commitment that I'm talking about here — a commitment that the Premier made in the February budget. So I'd ask the Premier, then: is he going to bring in his commitment when universities and colleges increase the rate of tuition? Is that the plan, to wait until the…?

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, please have a seat. That is still out of order. It is still out of order to bring into Committee of Supply debate about legislation that isn't being considered.

C. James: Then I'd ask the Premier: what will he do when universities and colleges increase tuition over the rate of inflation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe our platform document said that we were going to cap tuition — assure there was a cap in tuition. There is a cap on tuition right now. It's 2 percent. Some colleges are lower than 2 percent. I don't think there's a requirement for the legislation as long as colleges and universities are working with us on this.

I think we'll be able to tell in plenty of time should there be any problems with it. There haven't been, and therefore, I don't think we need the legislation. I do think we need colleges and universities to be aware of the fact that their tuitions are not going up more than the rate of inflation. They have been. We've established that as our objective, and they're working with us.

Sometimes it's good when people work with you. I'm pleased to see that that's happened, and we'll continue to work with colleges and universities to make sure not just that they get the financial support they need but that tuition rates are kept at a reasonable level.

I do think it's important to note that we have seen a significant increase in the participation of young people in advanced education across the province, substantially greater than the previous government had in its last four years. We're going to continue to provide additional opportunities for people, and that's what's critical as we move ahead.

C. James: I have heard the Premier talk about working with colleges and universities, that there's now good cooperation and that they're working hard to make sure they keep the rate of tuition under inflation so that we don't see those kinds of increases. I'd like to ask the Premier, then: where has that good work and cooperation been for the last four years when tuitions have more than doubled in some cases in universities and colleges?

Hon. G. Campbell: To go back, after six years of freeze in tuition where there's no question that there needed to be catch-up…. There's also no question that students in British Columbia were suffering under that six-year freeze. We heard from students with regard to that. They were losing programs, they were taking longer to graduate, and it was costing them substantially more than simply tuition. Tuition is one component of a student's cost. Transportation is another com-

ponent. Room and board is another component. Lost opportunities and jobs is another component.

We clearly removed the tuition freeze that was in place after consultation — actually, after a 5-percent reduction in tuitions in 2001-2002. This year we have said to colleges and universities that we want to be sure that we cap that. That goal has been met by the colleges and universities. I believe, frankly, that one of the reasons they can meet it is that today we're at about the average. We're a little below the national average.

The government is providing substantially more commitments to advanced education in universities and colleges across the province than we have before. You watch the expansion for things like the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, and the new Thompson Rivers University. Those were great celebrations, with students from all over the province getting additional opportunities.

According to Statistics Canada, for the first two years after the tuition freeze was lifted, enrolment increased at twice the rate it did in the last four years of the previous administration. Today in British Columbia over 50 percent of all students actually graduate debt-free. Those with degrees actually do substantially better than those without.

I think we've got a balance. I think the balance is in place. It did take some time to get there, but I think we've got it in place. We've got universities and colleges working with the government, listening to the policy directions we've given, and I am confident that they will continue to do that.

C. James: I think it's important and positive to have a good working relationship with the universities and colleges. I think that's very important. I think we need to look at how we make sure that they have the funds to do the work they do, but I think there was a consultation piece missing here from the Premier's and government's end, and that was students.

When we take a look at the impact on students — whether it was the student grant programs that were cut or the post-secondary increases — it was students and their families who were struggling. I think that was brought home to me in discussions with grandparents who were expressing their concern around those increases in tuition.

Just continuing on with the post-secondary education, we know that there, hopefully, will be dollars coming from the federal government around the area of post-secondary education, that those dollars will be coming to the provinces. I wonder what kind of discussions the Premier's been involved in on dollars for post-secondary education for the provinces. Is there a commitment to make sure that all of those dollars go directly into opportunities for students in post-secondary education?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Council of the Federation has launched an initiative across the country to, hopefully, raise people's awareness of post-secondary education and the federal funding commitment. The federal government has been pretty clear that its funding commitments will not likely be directly to provinces. They are far more likely going to go directly to institutions or to students.

I'm not anticipating that the province will get a great deal more in terms of assistance for post-secondary education outside of programs. You may have a program that's established, like a research-and-development program, where we'll be able to apply and get it, but it will, by definition, go to that targeted program. So I'm not expecting it at this point.

I was talking earlier today to the minister for intergovernmental relations. The federal government's not going to say yes until they finally get there. We've got work to do as provinces. British Columbia is working. Ontario and Quebec are the leads with regard to this.

My understanding is that there's going to be a national conference on post-secondary education and skills development and a national training strategy, probably early in January. Actually, I forgot; there's a little bit of disruption federally now, so I'm not sure if it'll be early in January or when it will be. But we want to start moving that, like we tried to move the health agenda starting in 2001. We finally got results in 2004. We're looking to do the same thing.

Having said that, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that should the federal government make a commitment of whatever millions of dollars for post-secondary education and training development in British Columbia, we would have no reticence whatsoever in tagging that commitment and assuring them that we were investing in that and reporting back to them on where those investments were. We do not want to get to a position where they have any question about dollars that they have dedicated, whether it's for education or health or child care and early learning, going to something else. We will definitely make sure that they go directly to post-secondary education and training.

Madam Chair, in light of the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Richmond: I do have some opening remarks that I wish to make, so I'll get through them as quickly as I can. Good afternoon, everybody. Before I begin, I just want to take a moment to introduce some members of my ministry's executive who are here with me today: Cairine MacDonald, deputy minister; Andrew Wharton, behind me, assistant deputy minister of the policy and research division; Sharon Moysey, assistant deputy minister of management services division and executive financial officer; David Curtis, acting director of planning, performance and data services.

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance have truly shown me their commitment to excellence as I've become reacquainted with the ministry since my appointment. For that dedication to public service, I thank them.

There is an overriding principle that guides the work we do at the Ministry of Employment and Assistance. It is supporting the government's goal to build the best system of support for British Columbians most in need, while helping people who are able to work to find and keep jobs. Because of this commitment, the ministry has had great success in reforming British Columbia's income assistance system.

We have moved welfare from a culture of entitlement and dependency to a culture of employment and self-reliance. Since we came to office, there are 108,000 fewer British Columbians dependent on income assistance, and that includes more than 46,000 children. Many of the people have gone back to school or training, and thousands have found work on their own. I'm proud to announce that, to date, more than 42,000 of our clients have been placed into jobs — good jobs like painters, security officers, hotel desk clerks, etc. — by our ministry's own service providers.

Our new system works, and it works well. This success is due, in large part, to the efforts and commitments of British Columbians who want to get back into the workforce and to our investments over the past four years in a full range of employment programs. These programs — like job placement, bridging employment and the community assistance program — benefit 90,000 people each year by offering the life skills, the supports and the jobs our clients need to break the cycle of welfare dependency.

Our timing couldn't be better in providing these services. In today's economic climate the opportunities for people to prosper and realize their goals are greater than anywhere else in Canada. B.C. is leading the country in job creation. More than a quarter of a million new jobs have been created throughout the province since December 2001. We know that our focus on employment is good for British Columbians, and it's great for B.C. communities.

But we do have challenges brought about by the success of our programs. As we've helped so many employable people leave income assistance for work, we're finding that many of the men and women who remain on income assistance today face even greater barriers to employment and that they require a different set of supports.

In the fall and winter ahead we will be redesigning our employment program so that more of our clients can benefit from B.C.'s strong economy and succeed. While our first priority at the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance is getting people who can work into good jobs, we certainly know that not everybody is able to work. The fact is that today a full 70 percent of our clients are people with disabilities or serious barriers to employment. The good news is that these clients are receiving more supports and the highest rates of assistance in the province — $856 for persons with disabilities, after a $70 increase in January, and close to $610 for people with persistent multiple barriers, compared to $510 for people on temporary assistance.

Enhanced supports for our clients most in need include nutritional supplements; Pharmacare; medical, dental and optical coverage; medical supplies; and transportation. As part of our goal to build the best system of support in Canada, B.C. is also leading the country in our commitment to employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. We want the British Columbians most in need to have the assurance of stable support they can depend on, while enjoying opportunities in the workforce, as they are able to fulfil their dreams and become contributing members of their communities. This year we're investing $21 million in specialized employment programs for them. To support the employment opportunities that we are creating, we have doubled the monthly earnings exemption for clients with disabilities to $400, and we have committed that the earnings exemption will be further increased next year.

These new initiatives build on our successes of the past. Two years ago we established a $20 million Disability Supports for Employment Fund that is generating $1 billion a year to support community organizations that are removing workplace barriers to people

with disabilities, as we created the Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities to encourage B.C. businesses to consider the province's entire labour force when hiring, including people with disabilities.

Now, in planning for the coming year, our projections indicate that the caseload of clients who are expected to work will stabilize. In effect, the system will reach a balance. The number of new employable clients each month will equal the number of employable clients who are leaving. Projections also indicate that the number of clients on the caseload receiving continuous assistance will rise by 5 percent or 6 percent per year, consistent with our increasing and aging provincial population.

In response to this changing caseload, ministry plans for 2005-2006 ensure that British Columbians who are able to work can move from income assistance back into the workforce as quickly as possible, while individuals most in need have access to the best levels of support. In fact, our budget for 2005-2006 — 6.5 percent higher than last year's budget — ensures that we will be able to provide those supports and make changes that will make a real difference in people's lives.

This year the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance will receive $1.35 billion to support the ministry's 104 offices in communities across the province. More than 1,970 staff provide support to 144,000 individuals through our income assistance program and to another 180,000 low-income British Columbians through universal programs such as the seniors supplement and Healthy Kids. To meet their needs, we're increasing our program spending this year, as I said, by 6.5 percent, or more than $83 million over last year.

This budget increase provides $22 million to accommodate growth in the disability assistance caseload and $37 million to support the $70 increase in rates for persons with disabilities, the greatest increase in the history of the province. It also provides an additional $12 million to improve dental coverage for persons with persistent multiple barriers and for kids on income assistance and in the Healthy Kids program.

With that increase we've also raised prescription eyeglasses coverage by $35 for income assistance to clients and children through the Healthy Kids program. We're also spending an additional $2 million to increase the monthly natal supplement for pregnant women and families with infants and to increase the comforts allowance to people in continuing-care facilities, treatment programs or emergency shelters. And we've raised our medical transportation rate so that it is now higher than in other provinces. We've made these improvements so that children, women and people with disabilities have the best system of support available to them if and when they need it here in British Columbia.

For seniors, our budget includes initiatives that will make a positive difference in their lives — initiatives that include an expenditure of $10 million this year to immediately reinstate the seniors supplement, which alone benefits close to 40,000 low-income seniors across the province, and a doubling of government's investment in the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters rental subsidies program, or SAFER, to benefit an additional 7,200 seniors. This means low-income single seniors earning $12,000 a year and renting accommodation for $700 per month in high-cost areas will receive total annual seniors supplement and SAFER benefits of more than $2,500 per year.

These program enhancements and additional supports are made possible because of this government's sound fiscal management and the excellent strength of our province's economy. They are also made possible because of the new spirit of cooperation within our government that sees ministries working more closely with each other and with communities to find better-integrated solutions to our more complex problems. Nowhere is this approach more evident and necessary than in the downtown east side, an area that has engaged me and also my colleagues in Health, Housing and Community Services. As you may know, challenges confronting residents of the downtown east side include homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, and high rates of crime.

I'd like to talk to you for just a minute about what we're doing to address these problems. The last city-run homeless count in Vancouver identified more than 1,200 people without shelter. While an estimated 70 percent of these people may be eligible for income assistance, many of them are not applying, and that is a problem. So if they're not coming to us, we're looking at bringing our services to them. We already have successful outreach services operating for youth and at-risk pregnant women, and we've recently started a pilot project to bring street people into our offices to access income supports.

We're also maintaining regular contact with social workers at Vancouver area hospitals and local safe houses. We're working closely with our Vancouver agreement partners, including all levels of government, to find creative approaches to encouraging landlords to improve their premises. To help address crime and exploitation of clients, particularly on cheque-issue day, the ministry has built a partnership with Pigeon Park Savings to sign clients up for bank accounts and direct deposit.

Our programs are making a difference, but I recognize that we cannot succeed on our own. We need the ongoing commitment of other ministries, agencies, local governments and everyone who cares to make the difference that counts. For our part, as finances permit, in the downtown east side and throughout the province, we will continue to make enhancements to our low-income programs and supports that make a real difference in people's lives.

C. Trevena: I'd like to thank the minister for his introduction, and also his staff. It seems some time ago

that we had our briefing, but it was helpful. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the advocates and front-line workers I've been talking to for the last many months and continue to talk to, who are dealing every day with issues relating to the department.

I just wanted to make clear at this stage that I will, through my questions…. I see this very much as a chance to find out information — not to be provocative but, as much as possible, to find out information. I do have some information I got through freedom-of-information, which was given to your predecessor at the last supplementary estimates. I will be referring to that through this, and I will mention it, obviously, when I am.

Due to the limited time — I reckon we have about five or so hours, which for a ministry with a budget so large is a very limited time — I will try and keep focused. I'm going to be looking at employment plans, temporary assistance generally, and also, hopefully, will work towards PPMB, PWD access and eligibility. If we have time, I would like to talk about the supplements issue. If we don't have time in this process, if we can arrange a briefing separately, it would be most helpful. In fact, I don't know if this would be possible, but for the areas that we can't cover here in estimates, if we can sit down with staff and talk through some of them, I think it would be most helpful.

I will be taking the lead on this, although I do know that some of my colleagues will have specific questions through the course of the afternoon and evening about certain areas in their constituency and in their critic areas.

I just wanted to start on the service plan, on page 10. There's a mention right at the beginning about one of the strengths of the department — enhanced client capacity. This talks about transition of clients to sustainable employment through results-based partnerships with job placement and training services providers. I just wondered: what are these results measured by?

Hon. C. Richmond: Job placement contracts are performance-based, as you have said. Service providers receive milestone payments based on accumulated months of client independence. The success of the JP program is measured by the ability of clients placed in employment to become and remain independent of B.C. employment and assistance.

Service providers support clients to achieve independence through employment and then remain independent for a period of up to 24 months. Over time approximately 90 percent to 95 percent of clients who are placed in employment achieve at least one month of independence from income assistance.

The contracts with service providers are performance-based, as we said. Once the client becomes independent from income assistance, service providers then assist clients to keep their jobs over an 18-month period. Payment to the service provider is based on continued independence from income assistance.

I know that on some of the contracts we have — and I can't speak for all of them — they are paid in increments along the line as they put the client into employment, and they don't receive their final payment till the client has been employed for 19 months. So it's a long time from the time the service provider receives their first payment until they receive their final payment.

C. Trevena: This obviously means there is some monitoring of where people are going and that they are staying in work. I wondered whether this is done through the contractors or whether it's done through the ministry to assess where people are if they have to be independent for that long.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's pretty complicated. The service provider, to start with, has 18 days to assess the client, and they either accept the client, or they return the client to the ministry. I would think if that client has too many barriers to employment, then they will refer him back to the ministry.

The service provider reports on job placement information electronically to the ministry. Placement triggers client record on a billing advisory report. The worker monitors the client's file for earnings reported. If no placement within 90 or 120 days — it depends on the contract — the file closes. At 12 months from the placement date to work with the client to achieve the first month of independence, the worker continues to monitor the client's BCEA file for earnings reported. Once independence is achieved, a 24-month period begins. If independence is not achieved within 12 months, the job placement file closes.

At 24 months the service provider continues to provide services for up to 24 months, even if the client remains independent from assistance. The file closes when 19 months of independence has been reached or 24 months from the first month of independence, the program length exceeded — whichever occurs first. So there is a monitoring process — I guess is what all this tells us — back through the service provider to the ministry and to the worker who monitors the earnings reported by the individual.

C. Trevena: Just a bit on the service providers — very basic questions. I wondered how many service providers the ministry is working with and what criteria are used to contract them.

Hon. C. Richmond: On the job placement providers, there are four. These went to an RFP, a request for proposal, in 2002. On the Training for Jobs side there were 17 contractors who earned their contracts the same way, through an RFP in 2002. At present on the Training for Jobs side there are 14. Does that answer everything?

C. Trevena: There was a report for the ministry written last year and released earlier this summer

which found, as the minister himself has just said, that those who are more likely to find work are more readily accepted. The report said that many of the people who found jobs through the job placement program could have found work even without any help from the contractors. The contractors have a financial incentive to accept the most employable people, even if they need very little assistance. I wonder what criteria the ministry uses to measure the work of the contractors once they have the contract.

Hon. C. Richmond: In 2002 we commissioned an extensive independent evaluation of our two major employment programs. This is the one you're referring to, I believe: job placement and training for jobs. The final report, published and posted on our website, made a number of recommendations, including highlighting the need for a range of services more aligned to the many needs of the more barriered people remaining on our caseload.

I think we should stop here for a second and say that when we introduced the program, naturally, this had not been done before. So we were looking at a lot of people. You say, and the Adams report said, that a lot of them might have found jobs even without the program. But the fact is that they didn't.

A lot of them just needed that little boost to say: "You are able to work and expected to work, so you are going to join one of these programs and, hopefully, be put into work." And they were. I think the final number that we placed in work was over 40,000 — about 42,000 to 44,000. Another 60,000 found work on their own. They, I think, fall into the category that the report mentioned — that a lot of people could have found work, but maybe they needed that prod to say: "You can only stay on welfare, if you're expected to work, for two years out of five." A lot of them took it upon themselves to say: "Well, I better go and find work." There were about 60,000 or more that did that, and 42,000 or 44,000 — I forget the exact number — were assisted into the workforce by our job placement and job-training programs.

We have consulted extensively with our service providers, clients and staff to determine just how successful the program has been. In August of 2005 we posted a request for information on the B.C. Bid website asking for feedback from existing service providers and other interested parties on the draft design for the new B.C. employment program. I'm sure we will get into that as we get further into the estimates.

We find that after the first four years the caseload has changed dramatically. I could show you a graph, except I'm not permitted to use props in the committee, unless the Chairman looks the other way. But I can show you a graph where the expected-to-work used to make up 74 percent of our caseload. Now it's down to about 30 percent.

The whole makeup of the caseload is changing as those expected to work — and let's put it this way, the easier ones to employ — have been put back into the workforce. Therefore, the whole makeup of our client base has changed so that we have had to come out 74 percent and 38 percent. So I was pretty close — 74 percent of expected-to-work used to make up our caseload; now it's down to 38 percent.

We have to come up with a new program to place these more difficult people to place into the workforce. It means it's just going to be a whole new contract, too, for the service providers, because let's face it: the easy ones are gone. As one of our providers put it, the easy fruit has all been picked. Now we're into the more difficult to place, so we will have to change our programs, and that is an ongoing process now. We can talk more about that later if you want.

C. Trevena: The ministry is spending $79 million on the programs this year. I just wanted to clarify: is this the job placement program for people who are able to work, or is this part of the new program that is being developed?

Hon. C. Richmond: The employment initiatives budget for those expected to work was $52.6 million. When you add in the employment strategies for persons with disabilities…. That was $18.84 million, for a total of $79.37 million. I knew it was close to $80 million. Is that the answer you were looking for?

C. Trevena: This sparks a couple of questions for me. The larger proportion of this money is directed at programs for people on temporary assistance who are supposed to be able to find work in the sort of work-focused welfare that the ministry has — is that correct?

My second question, then, is…. The ministry is changing its focus to ensure that people who have disabilities can get into the workforce and have assistance to get into the workforce. The $18.84 million that is assigned for that this year — is this part of that new program to help people get in, or is this just there for the present providers?

Hon. C. Richmond: What we've got to not do right off the bat is mix the two together. The employment initiatives that we were talking about for people expected to work — I just gave you those figures.

But you're talking about…. As we shift the focus to the new type of client, we're still talking about those expected to work. They might have more barriers to work, but we don't think it's anything that can't be overcome by a training program. That is still the expected-to-work category. Then we have a whole new strategy for persons with disabilities. We shouldn't mix the two together.

When I say the profile is changing, the one that's changing the most is the profile of those expected to work. They're the more difficult ones to place. That is

where we're going out for requests for proposals, probably in the spring, with a whole new focus because it's a different clientele.

On a separate item, we have employment strategies for persons with disabilities and those with persistent multiple barriers to employment.

C. Trevena: I will pick up on the strategy for PPMB and PWD later on. I'll make sure I edit down my questions so we can get there.

On the employment programs generally. I've talked to advocates who are frustrated that their clients can't follow their own workplan. For instance, I talked to one person who was working with an aboriginal woman who wanted to go through a first nations work program but was directed through the ministry that she had to follow a certain job program. I wondered…. We're talking about empowerment of people and giving people the opportunity to get back in the workforce. So if an individual has his or her own idea of what they want to do and it is, in their perception, achievable, how is this factored into the job placement program?

Hon. C. Richmond: We, of course, refer the client to the contractor. The contractor then has the principal say in the course that these people will go on. It has to be something that the contractor thinks is workable. But in the new programs that we are introducing, we intend to be more flexible, and the contractors will listen to, let's call it a custom-made program that the person has, to see if it is doable and to see if it is not just some fantasy that someone has dreamt up. If it's workable, they will have the flexibility in the new program. We have determined that the program will be more client-centred and more community-based — "community" referring to that person's community if it happened to be a first nations person.

If there was a program that the contractor, who still has…. You know, they have to assess the person and decide what their capabilities are, then just how difficult they are going to be to be placed. But they will have the flexibility to say: "Yes, we think this is a good program, and we think that we will put you into that." Now, it will have to be closely monitored. We know that, especially if it is something outside the mainstream. But they have the flexibility to do it.

They will also be doing this, I should add, through a competitive process. There may be more than one person out there offering this type of program. There are subcontractors working in the communities, and we are insisting that the prime contractor use community-based providers in subcontracts. This way, of course, they will be able to assess the program more thoroughly, but I think the key is that they're going to be more flexible, more client-based and, we insist, more community-based.

With the community base and the community focus, at the moment the main contractors, Grant Thornton and WCG International, seem to use…. Their organizations, Job Wave and so on, use private colleges a lot of the time — Discovery or Sprott-Shaw. I wonder, in this community focus, if there is any encouragement or any move to use the already established community colleges that we have, the public colleges in B.C., as the providers for training.

Hon. C. Richmond: The simple answer to your question is yes, but the more complex answer is that we do have providers now who use public institutions such as — I'm reading some of the names — the College of New Caledonia, Okanagan University College, Sprott-Shaw Community College. There are, you know, public institutions involved in our contracting now.

When we revamped the contracts…. I guess I can't give away too much information on it, because it's not in legislation yet, but it will be. As I said, we'll be insisting that the prime contractors — the ones you mentioned, Job Wave, etc…. When they go out for tender for subcontractors, it would be open for everyone to bid on — the universities, the colleges, BCIT, the private providers. It'll be open to everyone. So it will be on an assessed basis when they reply to the RFPs, and all that will be made public some time in the spring.

C. Trevena: Would it be possible, not necessarily now, to get me the proportion or the figures of those that are going for private institutions compared to public institutions at this stage and the next stage?

Hon. C. Richmond: Sure, we can get you that information. It'll take some time to extract it from all of these contracts, but we will do that.

C. Trevena: A point of clarification. This means that Job Wave and Destinations would then go to, for instance, Malaspina or Camosun and see if they're able to provide the training. Is that what you are talking about for the new proposal, or that Malaspina or Camosun would actually take the role of Job Wave? How's that going to work?

Hon. C. Richmond: I think the simplest way to explain it is that the contracts will be open to everyone to bid on. They will be on an RFP basis and will be evaluated accordingly. That would include places like Malaspina College but would also include the private provider down the street. It will include everyone.

I want to reiterate that we are going to be insisting that these programs be community-based as much as possible. Wherever possible, we want the provider to be in the community.

C. Trevena: We are talking largely about job training, but often people don't actually need to be trained in jobs. They need to get to grade 12, educational up-

grading, assistance with basic life skills and some, just assistance to get to post-secondary education. They all tend to lead to better job opportunities if you've got your Dogwood or whatever. This last chute isn't available to people on income assistance anymore, and I wondered what the rationale is for this.

Hon. C. Richmond: I think, if I understand it correctly, that the question is: why don't we fund people to go back and get their grade 12? The explanation for that is that we fund and train people to get employment and start earning a living, and then if they want to go and take their grade 12, we'll leave that up to them.

They are eligible for grants and loans once they have their grade 12 and want to go on to advanced education, but if we have someone, our job, as we look at it, or our purpose here is to get this person into the workforce, off of income assistance. Then if they choose to pick up, through night school, their credits they need to complete their grade 12, they can do so.

C. Trevena: So the thinking is, for instance, that if somebody drops out of school at the age of 14 and is not doing anything — is not able to work because they haven't got their grade 12 — it's better to train them as whatever, a security guard or something, so they can get into the workforce, get off income assistance, and then, if they so choose, to get back to finish off their education so they could get something else, if that were their choice.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, that's basically correct. A lot of people fall into this category. They're now 19 or 20, and they realize they should have gotten grade 12 and didn't. Some of them only have a few credits to pick up; some have quite a few to pick up. That's really their prerogative, if they choose. I think a lot of them do choose that, when they realize that. "You know, I'm stuck in this kind of a dead-end job. If I stay here with my grade 10," or whatever it is, "I'm not going to go much further, so I'd better go back and get my high school credits and then think about a post-secondary education."

I should correct a statement I made earlier. I was looking on the sheet, and it said Sprott-Shaw Community College, and I called it a public institution, but it's not.

C. Trevena: I just wonder if there has been any breakdown of the costs of — it's quite a large question, and I'm just working it through as I talk — employing private institutions to get people off income assistance and placing them into the workforce, compared to allowing people to stay on income assistance until they can finish their basic education or get upgrading or get the life skills and then find a job themselves without going through a private institution that has been paid for by the government. Is there any breakdown of these figures — the costs of both?

Let me back up just a moment to the question before this, because again we must separate out those people who are expected to work and those people who have persistent multiple barriers or persons with disabilities. The latter categories, PPMB or PWD, may attend school and be on income assistance as we give them basic adult education — not necessarily a high school diploma, but basic education. The employable clients are expected to seek work, and we give them short-term training to get them employed. As I said before, the onus is then on them to complete their high school.

Now, I wonder if you would go over that last question for me. You lost me somewhere in the middle of it.

C. Trevena: I was working it out as I was asking the question, but I think I've worked it out now. As far as I see, it is quite a straightforward question.

We now have the government contracting private organizations, accounting firms, who then go to other organizations who are paid to train people to get back in the workforce, which costs X amount of dollars. That's compared to the costs of allowing people to remain on assistance and go to get their own training at a community college, or whatever it is, to finish off their grade 12 and get their own training through that way, then find work themselves. I wonder if there has been a balance, a breakdown of the costs and benefits, of those two approaches.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have a little more information on it now, and some statistics for you. We know that most people are leaving income assistance for jobs. In fact, studies show an average of 90 percent of people leave the caseload for employment, education or a better financial situation. Ministry surveys show us that people who have left welfare for jobs are paid two to three times the income assistance rate, at an average wage of more than $11 an hour. These are jobs like landscapers, truck drivers, home support workers, painters, cooks, etc.

A recent 2003 Statistics Canada report called Life After Welfare shows that incomes for one-third of people who left welfare in B.C. increased by more than 200 percent. That's the highest rate among Canadian provinces.

Then we come back to the basic philosophy that our research shows that a work-first emphasis benefits the client more than a human-capital approach. We get more benefits out of putting the person into the work-

force first and then letting them decide if they wish to finish their high school education.

C. Trevena: I won't belabour the point, but effectively, what you're saying is you don't have figures for how much the programs you have cost compared to…. Assuming those people had not gone through those programs that you were paying income assistance, they would have left otherwise.

Hon. C. Richmond: To put it very bluntly and succinctly after all this researching through our books, no, we don't have an actual comparison of the two, but we do know — our statistics tell us — that if you just take someone and put them into a high school course, they tend to stay there a long time.

C. Trevena: Coming back to the service plan, on page 13, goal one, it says that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance supports income assistance clients in their efforts to achieve self-reliance and greater community participation. To fulfil this mandate, this ministry will continue to assist those clients able to find and maintain employment. This begs, for me, the same question. What happens to those who can't find work?

Hon. C. Richmond: I assume that you're asking about those who are expected to work and who you just can't seem to find work for. I guess the only answer there is that we just continue to work with them until we find something they can do. Otherwise, they have to be a person with disabilities, and that would require a doctor's certificate to say this person is either multiple-barriered or is disabled and cannot work. Then if you got to that point in the program where you could not find something for this person to do and couldn't train them to do it, I imagine that at some point you would just have to say: "This person is never going to enter the workforce." So far we haven't done that. We don't like to give up on people.

We will continue, as I say, to fund employment programs specifically to support persons with disabilities or barriers to employment and to enhance their participation in the community. Again, there is that line between those expected to work and those who have disabilities and, for the main part, want to work. We find that most people that have disabilities really would like to work. I've had a lot of meetings with advocacy groups and with these people, and it's surprising that the vast majority of them really want to do something in the workforce, even though they're not required to. Again, we draw that fine line on the person. Do we ever give up on somebody? The answer is no — not yet, anyway.

C. Trevena: I'll come back to some of the questions that it raises for me a little later when we talk about people with disabilities and people with barriers. One of the questions I have for you is that…. We have seen a huge drop in the number of people on assistance. It was 195,000 in 2001, and now it's roughly 70,000 this last summer. This is a massive drop — 120-odd thousand. I just want to know: is there any record of where all these people have gone?

Hon. C. Richmond: As I said a little earlier, we know that most people leaving income assistance…. I say most. In fact, studies show that an average of 90 percent of people leave the caseload for employment, education or a better financial situation. We also know that they earn two to three times the income assistance rate, at an average wage of more than $11 an hour. These are good jobs, like landscapers, truck drivers, painters, cooks, etc. Just to repeat what I said earlier, the Stats Canada report of 2003, Life After Welfare, shows that incomes for one-third of people who left welfare in B.C. increased by more than 200 percent.

We recognize the importance of evaluating BCEA to ensure that clients who leave for employment are better off than they were while in receipt of assistance. The ministry is currently negotiating with Stats Canada to link BCEA with tax records for 2002-2003. Matching BCEA data with tax data will provide the ministry with an unbiased estimate of the effectiveness of BCEA in terms of helping move clients to employment. The data match will appeal to critics of the exit surveys conducted in 2002-2003, since a non-response bias will not be an issue. So we are working with Stats Canada, based on tax records, to more accurately track people.

C. Trevena: That is what I wanted to know, not the 90 percent. I was wondering whether, through the job placement programs — what we were talking about right at the beginning of this, about job placement programs keeping track of people — there was any data on where people had gone. Obviously, there isn't yet, but there will soon be. Am I correct in that?

Hon. C. Richmond: The big problem is that other than tracking them through tax data, we have no way of tracing where they go. When they leave the file, they're in employment, possibly for 19 months, but then they move on. They move to other provinces. They get better jobs — maybe in the oil patch making a ton of money up in Peace River country. But they do, and then we lose track of them. The only way, then, to track them is through their income tax.

C. Trevena: I just wondered. Again, I quote from the service plan, because it does give an idea of what the thinking is for the coming year. It says that the drop in numbers, wherever people have gone, shows that "fewer people are in need of assistance, and more are contributing to a strong and vibrant provincial economy." I just wondered if there is any record of those who come to an office or call the 1-800 number wanting to submit a claim but then don't proceed with it. Are there statistics on that?

Hon. C. Richmond: I have a rather lengthy answer to a relatively short question. On November 1, 2005, the ministry implemented an application process with two stages which allows staff to proactively work with clients before they are scheduled to attend their application interview. Staff will now be able to collect client information during the first stage. They will be able to communicate with applicants sooner and assist them with their three-week work search. This change will increase efficiency by removing the need to collect pertinent eligibility information twice: first, to determine eligibility to submit an application and, second, to determine eligibility for assistance.

These changes improve service to potential clients and allow staff more quality time to focus on eligible clients. Clients benefit because, upon first contact with the ministry, they will receive general information about programs and eligibility and will have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The time frame for receiving assistance remains unchanged. In some cases it may even be reduced.

C. Trevena: It didn't actually answer my question. I was looking for statistics. If you do have those statistics, if this is something that is kept, if there is any record of those, I would very much like them — not necessarily right now, but if your staff could let me know.

You have actually moved me on to the next stage of my questioning, which was the three-week work search. There are a number of new exemptions to the work search as well as this new procedure that's come into effect. I wondered why these exemptions weren't there in the first place.

Hon. C. Richmond: As you know, all applicants are informed that they must conduct a reasonable work search for a minimum of three weeks before their B.C. employment assistance stage-two application interview. The eligibility criteria have changed in the following way: the three-week work search is not required for people fleeing from an abusive spouse or relative; over the age of 65 years; participating in the Child in the Home of a Relative program; legally not able to work in Canada; with a physical or mental condition that precludes the person from completing a search for employment; and who have had an immediate need for food, shelter or urgent medical attention for themselves or their families.

I think I'm correct in saying that most of these were in practice before they were etched in stone, as it were. This just formalizes those who are not required to conduct the three-week work search.

C. Trevena: Well, I have talked to many advocates and many individuals, and if there is a manual, a system of procedure, this is generally what clients of the department are faced with. You know, they have certain procedures that have to be followed, and if they don't fit the criteria, they aren't allowed to proceed.

I just really did want to know why — for instance, for a person over the age of 65 — this wasn't automatically in the procedures. It's all very well saying, "Well, you know, we would hope that they wouldn't be barred because of that" — but even less than the procedures…. I just wondered: why this oversight?

Hon. C. Richmond: You are right in saying that they would have been excluded in any case. Because they're over 65, they're not required to work. In fact, in a lot of places they're not even allowed to work. So I guess, over time, it was just decided that this should be put in the manual, and it says: "People over 65 — not allowed to work."

Like I said in my earlier answer, most of these things were practised in any case. They are now just delineated and put into the manual.

C. Trevena: That is encouraging, because I know from talking to people who work in transition houses that we had to push to make sure these staff remembered, even though it wasn't in a manual, that there was a direction that people fleeing an abusive relationship were exempt. Now that it is in a manual, I hope this will mean staff will realize this.

The new process on collecting client information. Will this mean that there is no longer the Web orientation? Will it preclude that?

Hon. C. Richmond: The orientation provides applicants with information on the following: the reasonable work search requirement and on-line resources to assist applicants with their work search; other sources of income that may be available to applicants; the intake interview, including a list of documents applicants are required to bring to the interview; reasons why an applicant may not qualify for assistance; an applicant's legal responsibilities; the ministry's authority to collect and verify information.

Orientation is provided using the ministry's MHR Internet website. The Web orientation is offered in 12 languages, in both text and audio, and when necessary, orientation may be provided by ministry office staff or by a contracted service provider. It provides them with all of this information right up front. So they will still be required.

C. Trevena: The Web orientation is ten pages of quite close type. It includes three little mini-quizzes to check to see whether people are actually paying attention as they complete it. So I wanted to know whether you have numbers of how many people actually do complete this orientation.

Hon. C. Richmond: I think I can answer your question. In accordance with B.C. employment and assis-

tance legislation, all enquirers who wish to apply for income assistance must complete a mandatory orientation session. The orientation sessions formerly provided by contracted service providers ended, as scheduled, in September 30, 2004, and were replaced by an enhanced electronic version.

The enhanced Web orientation session now also assists enquirers who have language and literacy difficulties as it is presented in 12 languages including audio format. I've got a page of those statistics on the hits on the website. Of course, English is out in front with 55,000. Then there are Spanish, Chinese, Persian, French, Chinese traditional, Vietnamese, Russian, Punjabi, Polish, Filipino and Hindi. There have been hits in all languages on the website, for a total of 57,000. The total, minus English, is only 1,822.

I should add that the Web orientation is accessible through any public Internet access point, including ministry offices, government agent offices and public libraries, as well as home computers.

C. Trevena: What assistance is given to people to access this orientation? As I say, I've gone through it. There is an awful lot of reading there, and there are an awful lot of words that people may not understand, so I wonder what sort of help is given to claimants.

Hon. C. Richmond: Web orientation is accessible through any public Internet point, as I've said — ministry offices, government agencies, libraries and home computers. Ministry staff are available to assist clients to use a computer in ministry offices and go through the orientation on line. So they're available to assist the client.

I wondered how ministry staff can help. If I just give a hypothetical example or a real example of somebody who lives in my constituency. Let's say they live in Alert Bay. They want to apply for income assistance. There is only one person working for the ministry now, and they're in Port Hardy. The person in Alert Bay is in poverty and doesn't have access to a computer. There isn't a public computer in the village. They don't have access to a vehicle. That's why they need income assistance: because they're poor. They're broke. They have to get on the ferry across to Port McNeill and then up to Port Hardy and then have the possibility of meeting the one member of the ministry staff who is still in employment there.

I wondered how the ministry expects people to complete this process in those sorts of circumstances. This is not an isolated circumstance. This is happening across the province.

Hon. C. Richmond: We ensure that clients in rural areas without a ministry office can access the full range of ministry services by toll-free phone and Internet, if they can borrow or find a computer. We ensure that all clients, too, including clients in rural areas needing services after hours, have access to a toll-free line in crisis situations. This way the ministry will make arrangements with local service providers for emergency needs like groceries or shelter.

The Port Hardy EAC provides direct and remote services to the communities of Alert Bay, Coal Harbour, Port Alice, Port McNeill, Sointula and Woss. As of October 23 to August 23, 2005, the toll-free phone service for the North Island will be expanded from preapplication services to include full application uptake. This will allow the EAC staff to focus greater attention on employment planning with expected-to-work clients. This will also be beneficial to the applicants in remote centres, as there will be a reduced need to travel to apply for B.C. employment assistance. All offices will still help clients through the application process if they require such assistance.

C. Trevena: I do have many questions about the use of the toll-free service, but at this moment I want to stick to the three-week work search, so I'll come back to that in a little while.

Assuming people can get to an employment office and can access a member of the staff who can make sure they can fill out the form, there is still a time lag between applying for assistance and actually getting it. There is that three-week work search which people are supposed to do. I wanted to know what people are supposed to live on in the meantime — between applying for assistance when they reach that crisis and the three weeks when assistance might finally come through.

Hon. C. Richmond: The three-week reasonable work search may be waived in cases where it is determined through an emergency needs assessment that applicants have an urgent need for food, shelter or medical attention and that they have no other resources to meet these needs. So the worker will assess whether it is an emergency.

The circumstances which an applicant may be considered to have an emergency need include homelessness, staying at a hostel or emergency shelter, separating from an abusive spouse or relative, staying in a transition house, is a pre-release prisoner, has receipt of an eviction notice or of a hydro disconnection notice, and a requirement for a medical prescription.

When a homeless person comes into an employment and assistance office, ministry staff may provide special emergency assistance to ensure they can eat and find shelter during the application process. Ministry staff will refer a homeless person to an emergency shelter and to appropriate community resources to find longer-term accommodations.

C. Trevena: What sort of assistance will the staff give to make sure that someone can eat and obtain shelter?

Hon. C. Richmond: The worker has the discretion to assess the emergency needs of the person applying. If they determine that it is a genuine emergency, then they will get them to a shelter and get them on income assistance immediately at the regular rate that they're entitled to. The worker has that discretion to waive that three-week waiting period if they deem it necessary.

Just an interesting statistic. From July 2004 to June 2005, 35 percent of applicants, on average, had their applications processed as a result of an emergency needs assessment — higher than I thought it would have been.

C. Trevena: Yeah, I actually find that quite frightening, that 35 percent of claimants are in such dire need that they need emergency assistance. Do we have this as a figure? Can one of your staff provide the numbers — 35 percent of the figure — of how many people in the last year have claimed emergency assistance?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yeah, to put it on the record, we can get that number for you, but we don't have it right here. The number of 35 percent was a little astounding to me, too, but I think those are people a lot of whom have obviously just been thrust into an emergency situation without their knowledge — maybe they are out on the street like that, and they have to go somewhere — so this is where the worker has the discretion to say this person needs help right now.

C. Trevena: I've also heard, talking with people in various places, of those clients who've appealed the three-week work search, asking for an exemption, believing they're exempt. But the appeal has taken longer than three weeks, so it sort of seems to be counterproductive. I just wondered what the purpose of this appeal process is, when it runs longer than three weeks.

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, the first thing is that we don't have any statistics on that. Secondly, it does seem a little futile — doesn't it? — when the three-week work search is over before the appeal is heard. Those are, I guess, the wheels of justice, and they turn a little slowly. It's probably something we should look at, because we can't set up an appeal that quickly and have it heard before the three weeks are up. I agree with you. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that the minister is willing to look at that system, because it really doesn't make much sense.

I just wanted to ask a little bit more about the structure of the system and the way people are encouraged to get into the workforce. Again from talking with people, I've got a couple of areas of concern, and one is the two-year independence test. For many people I've talked with, this is a real barrier for getting assistance, particularly for young people who may not have had two years' work and may not able to meet that criteria — people who, as we were mentioning earlier, have maybe dropped out of school, left home, gone on the street. They don't have that sort of income. Seeing as income assistance is really supposed to be there for people who have no income, I wondered what justification there is for this two-year independence test.

Hon. C. Richmond: The requirements for financial independence are not very onerous. "Financially independent" is defined as having worked for 840 hours per year — that's less than 17 hours a week — or having earned $7,000 per year — less than $135 per week. Exemptions apply to persons who cannot reasonably be expected to achieve financial independence or employment and have no other resources. The period of financial independence may be any two consecutive years. It does not have to be the two consecutive years immediately preceding the application for B.C. employment assistance.

C. Trevena: I would disagree. I think that accumulating that sort of money — if you're a kid who has dropped out and you're out there trying to accumulate either those sorts of hours or that sort of money — is extremely difficult. I think that it does contribute to the increasing level of poverty that we see on the streets of our cities and our communities. People are being excluded from income assistance because of this. I'd like to know how many people are found ineligible through the two-year financial independence test.

Hon. C. Richmond: We do have some statistics on it. This year, to date, those ineligible for two-year independence are 343. The number of ineligible youth — these are over 19 — is 161. Those are the numbers for 2005-2006 to date.

Hon. C. Richmond: I would suggest that in an economy such as we have today, they surely should be able to find some work out there that would give them at least — what was the number? — 17 hours a week, even part-time work. If they are in the category expected to work, right now it's pretty easy to find something to do for 17 hours a week.

Where I come from in Kamloops, we have people looking for people just to do unskilled work, and we can't find them. I would admit that it would be a lot more difficult in tough economic times, but right now our unemployment rate in Kamloops is about 4.8 percent, and it's similar around the province. In fact, it's the lowest in decades. I would venture that if someone over 19 — 20, 21, 22 — wanted to find employment, there is employment there.

C. Trevena: This raises two questions for me. One is that in many areas there isn't actually employment there. Again citing my own constituency, we have a

whole community which is dying — Port Alice. There is huge unemployment in Port Hardy and in other areas of my constituency. It is not easy for people to magic up 17 hours of work there continuously for two years. So I have the question: how are people in communities which are suffering economically, suffering financially and suffering from unemployment — who aren't feeling the boons of the great, vibrant economy — supposed to survive? I'll let you answer that before I go on to the second one.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, Port Alice is a company town that is going through some tough times right now because of the threat of their pulp mill closing, which has been going on for a while. In those cases, we do have a plan to assist communities like that through the Ministry of Community Services and ourselves and Housing. We do put together a plan for those communities. Most of the people there would be eligible for our services because they've been working.

I still come back to…. I would suggest that if a young person, 21 or 22, that we're talking about wanted to find employment, there's lots of employment around. Maybe not in Port Alice. I know when I was growing up, you went where the jobs were, and when you were 21 or 22, you could go where the jobs were.

For the people in Port Alice…. I know the Minister of Economic Development is working very hard to bring a deal together in Port Alice. It's not dead yet. The government is working very, very hard to bring that about. I want to assure the people in those towns that we do have a plan to help them over a rough patch.

We must always remember, too, that income assistance is not designed as a lifestyle. It's designed to help people over a rough spot in their life. It's a safety net, not a driftnet. Too many people in the past have got caught in it, and it held them. I think we've gone a long way to change that culture, as I said in my opening remarks. We have moved welfare from a culture of entitlement and dependency to a culture of employment and self-reliance.

I would say to the young people that you're talking about: "There is work there; all you have to do is go and look for it." Recently we had in Kamloops — and other interior cities, but I went to this one — a job fair put on by the oil patch, the oil companies in the Peace River. They came to Kamloops trying to recruit people, and the turnout was unbelievable. They had several hundred people there, and when they got a look at the wages they were paying up there, even people a lot older than 20 or 21 were saying: "That's where I'm going, because that's where the work is, and I can make good money out there."

C. Trevena: I was going to ask, I guess, a rhetorical question about seeing as there are all these jobs there and there are all these opportunities there, why we actually have the job placement programs in the first place, but that is political rhetoric, and we have limited time.

So on the structure, I wanted to ask the minister about another part of the structure in temporary assistance which is unique to B.C. — the two-out-of-five-year time limit. B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada where there is a time limit on assistance, and I wondered why the ministry feels it's necessary to have such a limit.

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess it comes down to a matter of philosophy and philosophical differences. If there is no incentive for someone…. Well, there's a young fellow I talked to who's 24 years old and had been on welfare or income assistance — whichever you like to call it — and that was the only life he had known. He's a fourth generation on welfare. If there is no incentive for him to get off of that welfare, he's caught in a poverty trap — isn't he? — and he's not going to go anywhere. The minute you say: "You can only collect this for two years out of five, and then you must either find a job or get into one of our programs, a job-ready program or job training, whichever you want to call it, through one of our service providers…."

I remember that when we first introduced this two-out-of-five, there was all the doom and gloom about: "Oh, we're going to have hundreds and thousands of people walking the streets because they don't qualify for welfare." Well, very few clients have been impacted by the time limits. We've found so far that only 29 people have actually been removed from the rolls because they didn't get into a work-search program or into a job or into a training program of some kind — only 29. That's a far cry from what was predicted.

It's working. As far as I'm concerned, it's working, and it's a good incentive to say to people: "You can't sit here forever and collect welfare."

C. Trevena: If there are only 29 people who have been removed from the assistance rolls because of this rule, why have it there in the first place?

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess that it proves the point — that there are thousands who are not on welfare. That was, I think, a pretty good incentive to get out and find a job. This is why everybody who has gotten a job hasn't gone through one of our programs, but a lot of them, when they saw this writing on the wall, if you like, said, "I better go get a job," and many thousands of them have done that.

C. Trevena: I think, again, we're talking about a fundamental philosophical difference. I think that with B.C. being the only place that has this rule, it doesn't necessarily justify it. I think this concept of a culture of dependency is very worrying. I think that most people living on an assistance rate…. Most people do not want to live on assistance. Most people would rather be in the workforce. They don't need to be terrorized into

I'd like to ask the minister a little bit more about access to assistance. If I can quote a letter that the minister wrote to The Daily Courier in Kelowna during the summer, he said that in B.C. people don't need a fixed address to become eligible for income assistance as long as they're residents of the province. However, in the checklist of items for proof of eligibility for income assistance, it does ask, under point five, for shelter or proof of residence. I just wanted to know how this works — how you can have that.

Hon. C. Richmond: As you are aware, income assistance is paid in two portions: the support portion and the shelter portion. If you don't have an address of any kind, either in a shelter or a fixed address, then you will receive only the support part of the allowance — if you do not have an address for the shelter part of the allowance. That's one of the reasons it's broken into two.

C. Trevena: This means that if you don't have a proof of residence — so assuming you're homeless — you can still claim temporary assistance but without the $325. You can claim $185 a month temporary assistance if you don't have proof of residence.

Hon. C. Richmond: The member is absolutely correct that they are ineligible for the shelter portion if they don't have an address. However, they are eligible for the support payment. Our staff work with them to find them accommodation, and we have done this in many instances. In fact, we have a good outreach program working now in Vancouver.

What we're doing is taking people who are eligible for income assistance but aren't applying. We're reaching out to them and saying: "You can apply, and we will help you find accommodation." We've done that in several instances — as long as they stay there.

There are homeless people, of course. As you probably are aware, you can put them into shelter and give them the shelter allowance, and the next month, they're gone. They're back on the street somewhere. You know, we can get into homelessness…. I know you probably plan to get into that later.

The thing with homelessness is that it cuts across a lot of jurisdictions — municipal, Health, housing, our ministry — but one of the things we find with a lot of homeless people is that it's very difficult to get them to change their lifestyles for various reasons, for drug addictions or whatever. It's a very complex problem.

It's not quite always just as simple as finding the person, getting them into an address, into housing, giving them the support that they are entitled to, and then the problem is solved. It isn't, because they have many other problems that have to be dealt with.

C. Trevena: I'm pleased that we're touching on this topic, because I actually did hear the minister talking about it on the radio some time ago. I was just wondering: for this outreach program, what is its funding level for this last year and for the present year, and its projected funding, and which cities it's operating in, and how many staff are working on it?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's pretty hard, if not impossible, to pin down an actual budget for it, because we're working with other agencies. Where it impacts our budget is when we work with these other agencies — with shelter providers, with police, with community drop-in centres, rehab services and hospitals. Where it impacts our budget is when they actually are brought to us, and then, of course, they go on income assistance.

We're working with municipalities, including the city of Vancouver. We're working in Victoria and Nanaimo, as well. It's also to serve some individuals who don't always feel comfortable attending a regular government office, and those are some of the reasons they haven't come in. As I said, it's one of these situations that crosses a lot of boundaries and a lot of agencies, so we're working with these other agencies.

Region one of our ministry administers two downtown outreach services offices — one serving greater Victoria and one serving Nanaimo — again, working with any other agencies that we can to provide this service, but hospitals, as well as Vancouver community urgent response team and all kinds of agencies who deal with homeless people.

We are reaching out to them. Many of them will not come into a government office unless they are reached out to and brought in. They're assured that there's nothing to fear there. But just to reemphasize what I said earlier, that's quite often not the end. Just because you bring a person in and give them shelter and an allowance to live on, then you can't say: "Well, the problem is gone now." There are many other things involved.

C. Trevena: This project, then — it's actually other agencies that are running it, and they are directing people to assistance. I mean, if it's not coming to offices, where can people get assistance? There must be some…. There's obviously involvement from the ministry, so I wonder what sort of staffing involvement and what other involvement is there?

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess I can shed a little more light. It's hard to explain some of the graphs in a situation like this. In Vancouver, for example, specific outreach activities include regularly visiting outreach centers for women and youth at risk. This is our staff working with the city of Vancouver to more actively seek out homeless individuals and connect them with ministry services.

In addition, we also have an initiative to expand outreach to hospitals in partnership with the Vancou-

ver Coastal Health Authority, Vancouver community urgent response team. Through St. Paul's Hospital, ministry staff will work with a nurse, a mental health worker, a social worker, a case coordinator to assist patients with the application process for income assistance and related supports such as funding for medical equipment, etc.

The one thing we don't do is send our people out onto the streets. It's just not safe, so we don't do that. We have a list here of outreach programs that we can share with you, now that there are a lot of outreach facilities that our staff actually go to and work with.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. It would be very useful to have that list of outreach programs. I just wondered, because it's a very good idea, and it's a great way of getting people to be able to access assistance.

I'm a little concerned. There doesn't seem to be a fixed budget line for this. I wondered if you could explain why there isn't and if there is a plan to have one in the next budget.

Hon. C. Richmond: There are other programs in government that dedicate funds to this, such as the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness and the Ministry of Housing, I believe. I'm not sure about Health. On ours we don't have a dedicated budget. It's part of the work that we do. The FTEs are there to do this work. We don't have a separate budget for them, no. The only time it impacts our budget, of course, is when they're brought on to income assistance. It's a demand-driven budget, as you know. Then we do incur costs at that point.

C. Trevena: From the ministry there is no guarantee that it will be able to carry on over the next few years. It's dependent on other ministries continuing with it. Is that so?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. We are committed to doing this outreach. I just mention other ministries that do actually have lines in their budget to deal with this thing. We find that it's a very effective program. It's a good program, and we have every intention of continuing.

C. Trevena: Just shifting the focus a little. Now I've come back to issues of homelessness. In a little while I have a colleague who wants to ask you a couple questions as well.

But going on to, or basically going back to, getting people with disabilities into the workforce. This is obviously a big focus for the coming year, with the RFPs going out shortly. I just wanted to know what tools and assistance the ministry will be providing to help people with disabilities get into the workforce.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, I just want to correct something you said in your question. That is, the RFPs that are going out in the spring are not for persons with disability. Those are for people who are expected to work — okay? I just wanted to correct that right off the bat.

Employment strategies for persons with disabilities. We have all the numbers in the budget here for pre-employment services, planning in employment direct innovation fund, public service employment program, self-employment reviews, volunteer programs.

In 2004 and 2005 the council used the innovation fund to sponsor several projects. A research project on recruitment and retention of persons with disabilities concluded in December 2004 with the release of a research report and an employer handbook to assist employers when recruiting persons with disabilities. A new website, workablesolutions.ca, was launched on December 3, 2004. The site is dedicated to employment for persons with disabilities and provides resources for employers to make job postings and for job seekers to find work.

I met with this group, WorkAble Solutions, in Vancouver a couple of months ago, and they are very impressive. They use self-advocates who go out into the community and literally inform employers as to who they are and about their disabilities and the reason they should be hired. I can tell you: the enthusiasm in that group is just unbelievable. You have to go and hear one of their presentations, and then you realize just how keen and eager these people are to get in the workforce.

Likewise, I visited the Neil Squire Foundation. I don't know if you've heard of them or if you've been to their place in Vancouver. If you see the people there — they are disabled people but not in their minds. You get your eyes opened a little bit when you look at some of them.

I was most impressed by one fellow who is a quadriplegic in an electric wheelchair that he has to work with a puffer tube to steer it. He had just achieved his real estate licence and got his first listing the day we were there. I mean, this is a guy you would never know had a disability when you talk to him. He was looking forward to his first sale. He has to use a computer the same way, with a puffer tube. It's very laborious for him to type something, but he's pretty good at it. When you watch him, it makes you think: "Boy, if this guy is employable and wants to be employed, then it's…." You know, you just take heart when you see someone like this.

I've spoken to employers about it, too, and I mean it when I say to them: "If you hire one of these people, you'll have the most loyal, dedicated employee that you ever dreamt of." There's a lot being done to assist those with disabilities back into the workforce, because literally…. You said it earlier too. Most people do not want to be on income assistance. These people don't — in spades. They will tell you right now: "I'm willing to work, and I want to work. Just give me a chance."

Sometimes people with disabilities need certain tools to enable them to do a job and certain devices which are specific to that person's disability. So I wonder if there's any assistance from the ministry in providing people with those tools, which are, then, portable for that person, so they can move from job to job.

Hon. C. Richmond: Medical equipment, medically essential equipment and devices are provided to clients eligible for ministry-sponsored health supplements in order to meet basic mobility, positioning and breathing needs when supported by a prescription from a medical practitioner and a functional assessment by a relevant health professional. Medical equipment includes power and manual wheelchairs, customized wheelchair seating, specialized beds, mattresses, positioning devices, etc. Equipment may be purchased or rented, depending on the nature of the equipment and the duration of the need. The majority of ministry-purchased equipment is supplied through master standing offers that are let through an RFP. They are regionalized so that clients are served through their own communities.

There's an awful lot more I could read, but suffice it to read a couple of things into the record. Employment strategies for persons with disabilities include a full spectrum of programs, services and supports to address varying employment needs of British Columbians with disabilities. Elements of the strategy include the employment program for persons with disabilities, the ministry's council on employment for persons with disabilities, a strategic partnership with the federal department of Human Resources and Skills Development and interministry coordination. Disability supports include goods, services and supports tailored to enable client participation in employment-related activities. So we do support them in their needs for employment.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister because it was the last part of the answer that I was wondering about, not the medical supports but the supports that will get people into the workplace and allow them to transport that support.

One last question for this session. I wondered whether these supports for people with disabilities will include reinstating the clothing allowance.

The Chair: Committee A will now stand recessed and will come back at 6:40 p.m.

The Chair: Welcome back to the Douglas Fir Room. Committee A will commence. Does the minister want to make a statement first?

Hon. C. Richmond: Earlier when I was giving figures for employment programs for expected-to-work and for persons with disabilities, I was in the wrong column. It's not a huge mistake, so I'd just like to correct it for the record. For the expected-to-work it was $57 million, and employment strategy for persons with disabilities was $22 million, for a total of $79 million. We had the total about right, but this makes it absolutely right.

For the record, too, I wonder if the member could repeat her last question, because it's been so long, I've forgotten what it was.

C. Trevena: Yes, the question was…. We were talking about helping people with disabilities into the workforce, and I wanted to know whether one of the tools that was being offered was reinstatement of the clothing allowance for people on PWD.

Hon. C. Richmond: I am informed that we did not eliminate the clothing allowance, and I'll read what I have here. "The confirmed job supplement was introduced in November 2002. It assists those income- and disability-assistance clients who have found a job but who are unable to commence work because they do not have money to purchase an essential work-related item of modest cost. By providing this supplement, the ministry removes immediate barriers for clients who might not otherwise be able to start a job they have been offered, thereby promoting independence from assistance." This is for employment programs for persons with disabilities, so it hasn't been removed.

C. Trevena: That's very good to know, as informed. I have more questions on assistance to work and for people with disabilities, but because time is quite limited, I will try and get back to them, if we do have the time. I want to move on to the issue of assistance rates themselves.

Again, the service plan — the narrative around this supplementary, the budget update — talks about the revived economy in B.C. So I would really like to reflect on how this does reflect on assistance rates. The B.C. Progress Board benchmarking report last year showed B.C. with the percentage of people living on less than a StatsCan low-income cut-off level at 18.7 percent, which puts B.C. at tenth out of ten provinces. In fact, in review of welfare rates nationwide, B.C.'s rates were described as cruel and punitive.

Nowhere in this service plan are assistance rates mentioned. I find that troublesome. In the Estimates themselves, page 89, the amount allocated for temporary assistance has actually gone down from $391.176 million to $355.187 million, which I calculate to be a drop of almost $36 million.

I have a very basic question, bearing this in mind, which is: how does the ministry determine the assistance rates? How much for the cost of food, for clothing, for transport and for shelter? I mean, I know shel-

ter is separate in that total, but I would like to know how this is assessed, bearing in mind the criticisms we have had as a province about it.

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm going to refer, I believe, to the same survey that you were referring to.

In 2003 B.C. recorded the highest rate of low income among Canadian provinces, using Stats Canada's aftertax low-income cutoff. The two major influences on low income in B.C. over the past decade have been a poor economic cycle throughout the '90s followed by a sharper slowdown and relatively slow growth in 2001 and 2002, and a larger share of immigrants relative to other provinces. Immigrants experience higher rates of unemployment and low income in the first ten years after they arrive in Canada.

It is expected that B.C.'s low-income rates for 2004 and 2005 will show considerable improvement as our employment growth has been the strongest among the provinces in '03 and '04. New evidence indicates recent immigrants have been doing better in the job market, with average incomes displaying a strong growth trend.

With a balanced budget all British Columbians benefit, because government spending is in order today, and social programs are sustained for future generations. A balanced budget instils investor confidence in our economy and brings a larger tax base to the province with more public dollars to spend on programs for those who need them most, including people with disabilities, people with persistent multiple barriers and families on income assistance. In fact, the Premier has always said that British Columbians most in need would be among the first to benefit from a balanced budget.

This year we've increased the disability assistance rate by $70 to $856 a month, the largest increase in our history; restored the senior supplement to approximately $50 more per month to low-income seniors; and invested $14.5 million for increased medical, dental and optical coverage for low-income British Columbians. On top of that, we are always reviewing our rates. There's a formal review done once a year, and as the budget allows, of course, rates will be increased accordingly.

There's another stat that we have here that I should read into the record. Only 25 percent of low-income people are on income assistance.

C. Trevena: You didn't answer my question. I wanted to know how the ministry determines rates for how much you're allocating for food, for clothing, for transport and for shelter.

Hon. C. Richmond: We were just having a private little chuckle over something that happened recently.

We don't have a formal formula for arriving at rates. We do compare ourselves with other jurisdictions — other provinces, especially — so that we know…. At least, we try to be positioned where we want to be in the national grid of welfare. We neither want to be way out in front of everyone else or way behind, such as some other things we were talking about recently — being positioned in the proper spot on the grid. We look at this diligently.

Also, a lot of where we end up is based on what we can afford, what the budget will allow. Naturally, I guess like every other ministry, we go to Treasury Board once a year with our asks, as they call them these days — we used to call them "requests," but now they're asks — and we don't always get what we want. But we try very hard to be very fair as compared with other provinces, to end up about where we want to in the national scheme of things, and they're reviewed formally once a year. As the budget allows, rates are increased. I outlined some of the increases we've done over the last year.

C. Trevena: I am very pleased that you do this review annually. As I mentioned earlier, I do have some freedom of information material, which was prepared for the former minister ahead of the last supplementary estimates in the past session.

In these, it states that since 1994 income assistance rates have consistently fallen behind inflation. The cost of living, as measured by price index of food from stores, clothing, rental accommodation and electricity has risen by 15.6 percent since June '94 until June '04, which means that for people living on employment and income assistance, the ability to purchase the basic necessities of life has diminished by 13.6 percent over the past decade, so I'm very pleased that you are having an annual review. I would like to ask the minister, taking into account the 15.6 percent inflation and the decline in rates over this ten-year period, whether he will commit to raising the temporary assistance rates.

Hon. C. Richmond: As I just said, we do review them and we go with our requests once a year to Treasury Board, so I really can't answer that question yet, although I'd like to, because I don't have a response as yet to our request for a budget for the coming year. When I'm able to do that, I will. I can't at the moment. I just cannot commit to saying yes or no, we will or won't. But probably we'll be able to before too long.

C. Trevena: I can understand that you obviously don't have your budget yet, but it is something that you will be planning for.

I hope that you will make that commitment, that you will be putting that as an ask in your budget request — that income assistance rates do increase.

In the throne speech there was a pledge to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities. While there have been increases in the rates, the B.C. rates for disabled single people are $102 less than they are in Ontario. Given that this government has pledged to create the best supports in Canada for people with disabilities, will the support rate for peo-

Hon. C. Richmond: I cannot commit to that, and I'm not at liberty to say what was in our Treasury Board submission. Suffice it to say, we've already been to Treasury Board, and we will be waiting anxiously, as I'm sure everyone else will be, for what comes out of that.

We take the pledge made by the Premier and the government to be the best in Canada for supports for people with disabilities very seriously, and we intend to do that. Our focus in this ministry is on people — well, not only with disabilities, but especially with disabilities and multiple barriers, and even people expected to work who have a lot more problems than, say, the ordinary person. So it is our focus for the coming year.

C. Trevena: It's very good to have these assurances. I hope they will be reflected in the next budget and that we are actually seeing figures coming out that match the words that there will be those increases. In fact, if I sit down, maybe you'd say that on the record, minister.

I will ask it a different way through a different question. B.C. ranks ninth out of ten for families with two children and seventh for couples and for people who have a persistent multiple barriers designation. I wonder, minister, if you can tell me whether your government, your ministry, will work to raise B.C.'s standing on these levels?

C. Trevena: Thank you, minister. Every jurisdiction in Canada, apart from B.C., has an earnings exemption for able-bodied people who are wanting to get back into the workforce, people who are on income assistance. They are universally seen as a way to help people get back into the workforce. We've been talking earlier on this evening and this afternoon about how people can get back into the workforce. Bearing in mind that about a third of social assistance recipients in B.C. are single parents — and 90 percent of these are women — I wonder what the rationale is for no earnings exemption in B.C.

Hon. C. Richmond: Just to back up for one minute, though, to the two-parent family that you quoted a little bit ago, the question before this one. You have to go beyond just the support benefit and the shelter allowance. You have to go to the B.C. sales tax credit, the B.C. child tax benefit, the B.C. family bonus, etc. So the total income for a two-parent family — two children and two parents — is $1,550.56, so it's higher than it appears when you look at a lot of the stats, because all they're taking into account is support and shelter allowance.

Employment exemptions were eliminated for temporary assistance clients in April of 2002. These exemptions tended to encourage clients to combine part-time employment with welfare and thus to stay on welfare longer.

I agree with you on the single parent — the single mom, usually — who is working. That's to encourage clients to combine part-time employment with welfare and thus stay on welfare longer.

I agree with you on the single parents — the single moms usually — who are working, and that's why we have increased the day care subsidy quite considerably over the last year through federal moneys and — not through this ministry; it is MCFD, I think — the Ministry of Children and Families. The increase in day care subsidies has been quite significant to assist that person to stay in an employable position. It's something that has been needed for a long time.

On the other side of the coin, those with multiple barriers and persons with disabilities do have earnings exemptions, considerable exemptions. It's $400 a month now, with a promise to increase that in future.

C. Trevena: I wonder what the rationale is that people with barriers and people with disabilities do get it, but people who are able to enter the workforce…. It has been proven that having an earnings exemption and being able to have a part-time job will help people get back into the workforce. Why is it good for one group but not good for the other?

Hon. C. Richmond: As I've said, if you give an employment exemption to people who are expected to work, it just tends to keep them on welfare longer. A lot of them will get a part-time job and then just stay there and collect their income assistance and stay on in a part-time job. We view those with disabilities, of course, a lot differently than people who don't have disabilities. That's why they get a substantial earnings exemption and others don't.

C. Trevena: Again, we've got the divide of getting people off welfare and how people can be encouraged back into the workforce.

There have been back-to-work benefits in existence, and in other provinces, there are ways of encouraging people to get back into work that don't encourage them to stay on welfare. As we both agreed earlier on in the afternoon, people don't want to be on assistance. They want encouragement to get back into the workforce. Why is the ministry not looking at back-to-work benefits as a way of helping people into the workforce? Why is it just keeping very focused on the job placement schemes?

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, I guess it's an agreement to disagree on what works and doesn't work. Our programs seem to be working very well. We have thousands and thousands of fewer people on welfare than

there were just a few years ago. I don't say the system's perfect, but it is working.

As I have mentioned before, we don't want to turn this safety net into a dragnet again that just catches people. The thinking is that if you allow them to earn X number of dollars, that just is going to keep them on the welfare rolls a little longer.

I know it has been tried in other places, but probably the best thing we have to encourage people off income assistance is the possibility that if they go through one of our training programs, they'll get a job, and there are jobs out there for them to have. I think the best thing we can do for them right now is to give them that hand up to get the jobs that are available instead of a handout.

C. Trevena: As you said, I think we are going to agree to disagree on this one. However, there is the issue of volunteer supplements for people with disabilities and people with persistent multiple barriers. I wondered if you have statistics on how many people are receiving these and how much these supplements are worth?

Hon. C. Richmond: The volunteer program for persons with disabilities — the community volunteer supplement and program — is up to $100 per family unit. The training initiative supplement and program is up to $50 per adult. The number of people on the program is 2,789.

To go back to the last question just for a moment, and I don't want to belabour it, there are other things that people who are off income assistance are eligible for. Let me just read this so I get it proper: "Children age 18 and under whose families receive any level of Medical Services Plan premium assistance are eligible to receive basic dental and optical service. MSP premium levels are tied to family annual income. Depending on the number of individuals in the family, the maximum income that would allow for qualification for the Healthy Kids program is $24,000 adjusted net income." There are 162,000 children at the moment qualifying for that.

There are other aids for people other than employment exemptions. Fees paid for optical frames and lenses were also increased in April 2005, allowing children a greater choice in their selection of glasses. They were increased by $25 for frames and $10 for lenses. Total maximum for single vision is now $132. So there have been increases over and above just employment exemptions.

C. Trevena: Going back to the volunteer supplements, I've heard of a case — and I don't think this is alone — where a person who was collecting 50 cents for coffee money at a local event was deemed able to work and removed from assistance. I wondered how many people have been denied assistance because it has been deemed that because they're able to do volunteer work, they are able to re-enter the workforce?

Hon. C. Richmond: That's a difficult one to answer because people with disabilities are the only ones who get the volunteer supplement. Their designation doesn't change, and they're not required to work. Again, we've got to separate out those who are expected to work. If they have a disability, which is always backed up by a doctor's certificate, they're not expected to work, and their designation doesn't change. Nobody can say to them, "Well, you're doing volunteer work; therefore, you're able to work," because they're still a person with disabilities, and that doesn't change.

I would like to ask the minister about the Christmas bonus. I understand the ministry offers a Christmas bonus to people on temporary assistance, PWD and PPMB. I just wanted to know: what is the amount of this bonus?

Hon. C. Richmond: Christmas supplement: "The ministry may provide an annual supplement to a BCEA client or client family to assist with Christmas expenses. The amount of the Christmas supplement is as follows: $35 for a single person; $70 for a childless couple; $70 for a family with dependent children; and $10 for each dependent child in the family."

I could go on and read those who are not eligible for Christmas supplement: "Clients who are not receiving assistance for the full month of December; persons in receipt of a hardship assistance; children in the home of a relative; and persons in receipt of medical services only."

C. Trevena: The issue of crisis grants. We touched on it earlier — emergency grants, crisis grants — and I wondered if you have a statistic for how many crisis grants have been given in the province in the last year.

Hon. C. Richmond: The crisis grant varies depending on what the need is. The total number of crisis supplements issued from April '05 to July '05 was 25,641. Crisis supplements are available under the following headings: food, shelter, clothing, utilities, furniture, home repairs, essential utilities and other.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister knew how many of these grants are for families. Of the 25,000, how many would be for families?

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't have that information with us. We can get it for you if you like, but we don't have it here.

I know the minister is aware of the problem of bedbugs in Vancouver's downtown east side. Also in other areas, there is that issue. Recently, I heard about one person, a woman named Violet Pukas, who is a client

of the ministry. She had a serious bedbug infestation at the place she was staying and had to destroy all her clothing, all her bedding and so on.

When she went to the ministry for a crisis grant, this was denied. The ministry worker said it didn't qualify as unexpected need and advised her to turn to other community resources, to thrift shops and others for help. I wanted to ask the minister why the ministry is denying a crisis grant for something the health authorities are saying is a crisis and is clearly a serious public health problem in Vancouver's downtown east side.

Hon. C. Richmond: I can tell you I spent a couple of meetings in Vancouver a while ago, and I learned more about bedbugs than I ever cared to know. It is a problem, especially in the downtown east side of Vancouver and somewhat in Victoria as well.

It's one of these problems that cover a lot of jurisdictions and ministries. It's a municipal problem. It's a landlord problem. It's a tenant problem. It's a health problem, and it's housing. Many of the clients are ours, so we're very concerned about the bedbug issue.

It's one of those things that…. The little pests are so very hard to get rid of. You can fumigate an apartment or a room, destroy the mattress and fumigate the person. It's all very successful, and they move back in. Then they get a visit from a friend down the street, and he brings the bedbugs back in. It's very costly to the landlords and to us.

We have, through the actions of the deputy minister, purchased — I don't know how many — several thousand mattress covers and issued them to people. There's no charge for that. We have issued crisis grants to people to deal with the bedbug problem. If for some reason this person was refused a crisis grant, we would like to know about it. If there truly is a crisis, an individual crisis, we will help them. If you want to furnish us the name of the person, we'll look into it.

It's a terrible problem, and there isn't a lot you can do about it except that you can cure it for the moment. You can fumigate everything. You can burn clothing and mattresses and all the rest of it and put bedbug-proof mattresses in, but if the person is visited by someone from down the street that has bedbugs, they're going to show up again.

C. Trevena: Can the minister assure me that anyone who has a crisis, who has lost clothing or bedding because of the bedbug infestation, will be guaranteed a crisis grant when they go to the ministry for assistance?

Hon. C. Richmond: No, we won't guarantee just carte blanche that anyone who shows up gets a crisis grant. Each case will be assessed on its individual needs. Maybe we have to go beyond a crisis grant, depending on the situation. Maybe they're not eligible, but we would sure like to talk to them, if they feel they have a real problem with bedbugs.

We still have an ongoing dialogue with municipal leaders and colleagues in other ministries. We're doing our best to come to grips with the problem, but it's not an easy problem. It's going to be with us for a while, I'm afraid to say.

I guess the other thing we're doing that's sort of related to this is working closely with municipalities to get rid of slum landlords. We've got some landlords out there where the conditions they put our clients into are absolutely deplorable. We have shut one down in Vancouver and are working with the city. It's really their lead in dealing with the slum landlord, but they're our clients, again, so we're very interested.

With a lot of that, the conditions are related to bedbugs or vice versa, so it's a problem on two fronts that we're dealing with. As I said earlier, it crosses a lot of jurisdictions and municipal boundaries and ministries in government, so we're dealing with it as best we can.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to hear that. I'm going to ask a bit about landlords and the relationship between the ministry and the landlords in a moment.

First, I think one of the things that leads to slum landlords is the shelter rate. The shelter rate is $325, and the cost of an apartment — again, talking from my own experience in Campbell River — is at least $400. In Vancouver, it's about $700. People in Vancouver are paying $400 for, basically, a cubicle in a house. I want to know, really, how the minister can justify this low level of shelter rates.

Hon. C. Richmond: The shelter-rate issue is one that does concern us, naturally. We don't like to be in the wrong place on the grid in shelter rates. The results of a 2005 survey on low-income housing in Vancouver's downtown core, including the downtown east side, were presented to Vancouver city council in September 2005. This survey is part of the homeless action plan approved by the Vancouver city council.

The report also outlined the rising cost of rent for single-room occupancy, stating that in June '05, only 19 percent of single-room occupancies rented for $325 a month, the current shelter rate provided in our income assistance, as compared to 27 percent in 2003. Simply raising the shelter rates for income assistance clients is not the answer.

We know from past experience, and I know from years ago, that the minute you put the shelter rate up, that's exactly where the rent goes. We know that landlords take this as an opportunity to automatically increase rent to the level of the new shelter rate, so it doesn't benefit the client or solve the problem.

Instead, we are taking direct action to increase the housing supply and rental options, including 24,000 units of subsidized housing in the city of Vancouver, with 6,500 units in the downtown area. There are 350 new housing units under construction in downtown Vancouver, and $42 million in Budget 2005 over three years in the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, the SAFER program, to improve subsidies for lower-income seniors who rent.

As well, I can tell you that the Ministry of Housing has many more housing units planned for the province over the next few years. One of the ways we want to offset the shelter rate is by increasing the supply of housing, but again, one of the big problems is — and we thought about this many, many times, and of how we could get away from this — if you raised the shelter allowance to, say, $400, as you quoted, that's where the rent would be the next day. If you raised it to $350, that's where it would be.

We have even thought about the idea of not announcing what the shelter rate is. That may be something we may do in the future. It's just something I'm thinking out loud and telling you we're thinking about: taking the whole income assistance package and making it one package so that the landlord doesn't know what the shelter allowance is. That's just another idea we're looking at.

C. Trevena: I was going to ask you about putting it together in one package, and I think that might be a good way forward, but I also think we've got a real problem. It's not setting the shelter rate at a level where rents will meet it. The shelter rate at the moment is so inadequate that people cannot afford rents.

This is one of the reasons why we have an increase in homelessness. I mean, if you're getting $325 for your shelter and you're paying a minimum — a minimum — of $400, and that's in a town…. We're not talking about cities. It's a small town. You talk about a minimum of $400, and you're already cutting into what is a limited assistance package. I think it's not an issue of raising the rates and worrying about the rents going up. It's a matter of raising the rates so that people can afford some rent at all.

I also wanted to know why we have the discrepancy that for a single person, the rate is $325, and for a couple, it goes up to $520, when the space we're talking about is not going to be that much different between a single person and a couple.

Hon. C. Richmond: Since the early '90s all the increases have been to the support allowance only. I understand what the member is saying about the $325 being inadequate, but I just ask her to look at the other side. If we increased the combined amount and didn't say how much was shelter, then I think we'd be better off than saying: "This is the shelter allowance." I point out, too, that the Minister of Housing is right now working on a long-term plan to address the problem by adding more units into housing.

As for your last question, it wouldn't be fair to pay couples twice the single rate for shelter, because they live under one roof and share the rent. The rent doesn't double just because someone moves in with you. That's why they don't get paid as much as two times single.

C. Trevena: I was wondering, really, why the single rate isn't higher, rather than why the rate for the couples isn't just a doubling of the single one. As you say, the space isn't going to be that much bigger. If $520 is necessary for a couple, I think we can move it up for a single person.

I have a question about the relationship between temporary income assistance and homelessness. I was at UBCM and attended the panel where you were addressing a certain number of issues and, at that stage, mentioned that there was no correlation between income assistance and homelessness. I wondered if this is something that you believe or whether it is…. We are looking at the fact that income assistance levels, shelter levels, are low and that we do have an increase in homelessness in our cities.

Hon. C. Richmond: That's a difficult one. I'm not sure there's a correlation between people on income assistance and homelessness. There may be, but I don't think it's very pronounced. When we look across the country, it doesn't seem to be. Homelessness is on the increase, sometimes in the order of 200 percent across the country, so we're not the only ones dealing with a homeless problem.

It's an issue that cuts across the entire country. It cuts across communities, not just the large ones like Vancouver and Victoria, but Nanaimo, Kamloops, Prince George, Kelowna. We're all experiencing it. The rates have gone up just exponentially in the last couple of years.

It's probably the result of many factors, including, but not limited to, mental health and addiction problems. As I was talking about earlier, when we get someone off the street and put them on income assistance and find them shelter, it doesn't mean they're not going to end up back on the street next month, because sometimes, as soon as we give them that money, we know where it's going.

It's not going into subsistence for them. It's going to support a habit. There are so many things related to homelessness, and addiction is a big one. Then that begs the question. There is no doubt we need more rehab and need more rehabilitation to get a person to the point where you can get them off the street and have them stay off the street.

We have responded with a multilevel approach to homelessness through the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. I've been at two meetings of it now, and it's encouraging to see the type of solutions that come forward from some of the other communities. We're all learning from each other on this.

It's a great group of municipal leaders committed to breaking the cycle of homelessness by creating housing developments and the support services I just mentioned, such as rehab, rehabilitation. This year, this government has budgeted $194.3 million for subsidized housing. It's the largest annual amount ever in the history of the province — $194.3 million.

The government has also maintained last year's 40 percent budget increase for emergency shelters, bringing the annual budget to $18.2 million, a $5.1 million increase, for a total of 868 year-round beds and 391

cold-wet weather beds. We are continuing the work with municipalities, the federal government and service providers to address the challenges of homelessness. It's a big problem.

C. Trevena: Just to let the minister know, I think this is the subject — his task force — that's being discussed at the moment in the Premier's estimates as well.

If we can move on from homelessness to the issue of the shelter rates, one of the concerns that has been raised to me a number of times is that there have been instances when people have had their assistance stopped because it has been deemed they're spending too much of it, too great a proportion, on shelter rates. I wondered why this can happen.

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm told that you wouldn't be cut off just because you're paying too much rent. Usually, what it is when the worker looks at it is that you're paying rent far beyond what you can afford on income assistance. If your total income is $510 a month and you're paying $700 or $800 a month rent, which happens, then you obviously have another source of income that is paying for that extra rent. Do you follow? If your income's only $510 total and you are paying $700 or $800 a month rent, then that begs looking into and investigating, and we do. The workers do come across that. But if you're just paying too much rent and they feel you are still living without an outside source of income, you wouldn't be cut off.

C. Trevena: If somebody is getting $510 assistance and they pay $425 for a basic room in a hotel in Vancouver, they would still be able to get their $510, and that $425, even though it is $100 more than the shelter rate, would be okay?

Hon. C. Richmond: The answer is yes unless for some reason the worker had reason to believe that there was an outside source of income there somewhere. We could go into some of the ways that this happens, but I would just as soon leave it there. If the worker is satisfied that the person is just paying more rent than they should be and they don't have an outside source of income, then they would not be cut off of income assistance.

C. Trevena: Seeing as basic accommodation in most communities in B.C. costs at least $400 to $425 a month, which leaves people with approximately $90 to $100 from their temporary assistance, how are people expected to live on that much money for a whole month?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's one of the issues that we're looking at very closely, because we ask ourselves the same question. It is one of those things when we do our annual review of rates that we canvass very, very closely. It's also one of the things that we would like to change.

We know a lot of singles who share accommodation with roommates, etc. But you do raise a good point. There's no question about it. When rents and shelter allowances are where they are, it does not leave an awful lot for someone to live on. There is no question about it.

C. Trevena: This may be a fruitless question, but bearing that in mind and bearing the minister's recognition of how tight it is for somebody to live on $100 a month, I will try once more and ask whether he will say that rates will increase in the next budget cycle.

Hon. C. Richmond: No, I can't give you that guarantee because I don't know. But all we can do is try very diligently to make sure that we are where we should be on the nationwide grid and make sure that we are being fair to people. We do try very diligently to do that.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that, because I think we both agreed on the fact that trying to live on less than $100 a month for all your necessities is not fair.

I would just like to carry on asking a few questions about housing and security deposits. We were talking before about slum landlords, but I just wondered…. The security deposit. Is it given to the client or directly to the landlord? Also, what accountability is there in handing over the security deposit when somebody rents accommodation?

Just as a little extra in the way of stats for you, the number of security deposits issued — in '05-06 to July: 10,886. The amount paid out is $2.2 million; the amount recovered, $3.4 million. Now, how did we do that?

Hon. C. Richmond: Different year, I'm told, because that's pretty good accounting. Cumulative rate of

C. Trevena: I wondered what sort of accountability there is when the deposits are handed out. You have a 56.6-percent return rate. What is happening to the other 40-odd percent?

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm told we're doing a lot better on collections than we used to. Back in the '90s the rate we collected at was under 10 percent, so we're up to 56.6 percent. What we do with clients is…. It's collected over time. Even if they move and the premises are damaged and they lose the damage deposit, they still owe that. If they're still on income assistance, we collect it at $20 a month over a period of time. If they leave income assistance and gain employment, then it is out of our hands and turned over to collection — I guess Minister Thorpe's ministry, provincial Revenue. But as long as they're still on income assistance, they still owe us that money, and we collect it over a period. So we have come a long way up to 56.6.

C. Trevena: I wondered how many security deposits a client is allowed in their term of being a client.

Hon. C. Richmond: In April 2002 clients were limited to a maximum of two outstanding security deposits. Prior to April 2002 only clients on hardship assistance were limited to a maximum of two security deposits. Exceptions to that rule are that a third security deposit will be issued if clients are fleeing an abusive relationship or have to move because their rental premises are being sold, demolished or condemned. The answer in most cases is two.

C. Trevena: You also answered my subsequent question about people fleeing unsafe situations.

I do have the latest numbers of people who are on assistance in all three categories: temporary assistance, PWD and PPMB. I wonder if the minister and his staff have the numbers of those who have applied for assistance and were refused assistance in all three categories.

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't have it with us, but we do have statistics on people who have actually applied, completed the process and been turned down. There are a number of people who get halfway through the process, and then we just don't see them again. We have no stats on that. We can get that for you, but we don't have it here.

C. Trevena: If I may ask the minister…. That would be very helpful. I wondered, when your staff does provide that information, if you could also provide me with the reasons for refusal, how many of those refusals were appealed and the success rate of those appeals, please.

Hon. C. Richmond: We're not sure if we have that detailed information. If we have, it's yours. But we may not have it.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. If you do have it, it would be very helpful. Thank you very much. If you don't have it, I'll have more questions next time around.

I have some questions about PPMB. Again, it's a statistical question. I wonder if you have on hand the number of people who moved from temporary assistance to PPMB.

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't have numbers for you on that. We may be able to get it for you. Suffice to say, too, though, that everyone who's on PPMB came from temporary assistance. They had to be on it for a year. Then they go to temporary assistance. But I don't have numbers for you right now.

C. Trevena: That is one that I find to be a catch-22 about PPMB, that you have multiple barriers, persistent multiple barriers, but you have to be on assistance first for a year and looking for work for a year before you get the PPMB designation. It really doesn't make much sense to me.

However, I still have a number of questions about it. I understand that in 2004 the ministry brought in new guidelines for PPMB. I wondered if you could explain them to me in relation to this present budget cycle.

Hon. C. Richmond: To ensure that eligibility for PPMB is evidence-based and consistently determined throughout the province, policy guidelines and a new business process were implemented in July 2004 as follows. Policy guidelines provided: a definition of "seriously impedes and precludes" to assist in assessing how a medical condition affects employability; examples of appropriate interventions that demonstrate a person has taken all reasonable steps to overcome their particular barriers.

Forms completed by staff and medical practitioners were revised to ensure relevant and complete information is provided for the adjudication of PPMB. A medical consultant with expertise in both medicine and occupational rehabilitation is available to interpret more difficult or ambiguous requests and the impact of certain medical restrictions on employability. Any expert opinion that is provided by the medical expert is available to the client upon a request for reconsideration. Many people with significant barriers often obtain employment. No name.

C. Trevena: I have been hearing from community advocates as well as individuals who are receiving income assistance that gaining eligibility for PPMB is increasingly difficult. I've heard of cases where people

have been denied PPMB only to get PWD designation. I just wanted to know whether the minister had heard about this and had any explanation for why somebody can be denied PPMB and then get PWD.

Hon. C. Richmond: We take concerns about how clients are treated, of course, very, very seriously, and we are working with the Ombudsman at the moment. The Ombudsman has undertaken his own review of practices and policies to ensure that clients are treated consistently and fairly and has implemented a number of changes to address the issues under investigation. We have also met with PIAC to review their concern, and we're working collaboratively with them to resolve any outstanding issues.

We are continually evaluating our policies and procedures to assure administrative fairness for all clients. There may be the odd case where, you know, there are questions to be asked like: how come you're refused PPMB and you end up on persons with disabilities? They're two entirely different things, but I can understand the reason why someone would question that.

We are working very closely with PIAC and the Ombudsman to try to end these anomalies that do pop up. There aren't very many. They're very rare, but they do happen.

C. Trevena: Sorry, I thought you were getting information on the previous question.

I have a couple more questions on PPMB. How many income assistance recipients were transferred from PPMB into an employable status, taking it one stage onwards?

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't have those numbers with us. Again, those are kind of flow numbers. We don't have them, but we can get them for you. How many that were on PPMB were put into employment is what you're after? Just so we're clear.

C. Trevena: It's how many were on PPMB and then moved back to an employable status. So they're back on temporary assistance — having been designated PPMB, where they have moved back to a temporary assistance role.

Hon. C. Richmond: Again, we don't have those numbers with us, but at least we know exactly what you're after now. But there are people who leave PPMB because whatever barrier they had has disappeared. Maybe it was physical — broken limbs, something like that — and they're back onto temporary assistance. It could be the barrier that they had is gone.

The other thing we should make clear is that a PPMB need not be able to work. I mean, a lot of them just have so many barriers they cannot. But people on PWD can work — and want to work, usually. So there is quite a difference. A lot of the people with barriers are just unable to work. I assume that a lot of times the barriers they have are not going to get better.

C. Trevena: Just a couple of queries. The guidelines for PPMB say that it is a person with a medical condition that precludes employment, which obviously doesn't mean a broken leg, which is not a persistent multiple barrier. I'm just trying to work out why we have the three designations: the temporary assistance and the PPMB — which is exceedingly hard for people to get; it's easier to get the PWD — and then the PWD. I'm still trying to work out the rationale of the PPMB designation, particularly given the difficulties people have in accessing it.

Clients designated as persons with disabilities, PWD, have a severe mental or physical impairment that meets the persons-with-disabilities eligibility criteria set out in the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. It goes on over here to say that a person who has reached the age of 18 may be designated PWD if the following criteria are met:

Whereas clients receiving assistance as a person with persistent multiple barriers, PPMB, either have multiple barriers to employment, one of which is a medical condition which seriously impedes employment, or have a medical condition which by itself precludes employment. But the emphasis on the PPMB person is employment. They are perhaps temporarily inflicted with multiple barriers, but if it's not temporary, then they could be reclassified to PWD.

So I guess it's an interim step between expected-to-work and persons with disabilities. It's halfway in-between.

C. Trevena: On the PWD designation, how long does it take to process the applications for someone who is claiming PWD status?

Hon. C. Richmond: The length of time for PWD decisions. An average of 50 new PWD designation application forms are received daily, and with the exception of urgent situations, they are adjudicated in the date order they were received. There is a triage process to identify and advance adjudication for urgent medical situations and for disabled children who are trans-

ferring from programs provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Decisions generally take eight to nine weeks to complete from the time an application form is received at the health assistance branch. This is in part due to the thoroughness of the adjudication process and in part due to the adjudication demand for health supplements. The eight-to-nine-week period is down from 14 weeks, so it is down considerably.

C. Trevena: It takes up to nine weeks to process it. Then, assuming it's turned down and the person wants to appeal, how long is the appeal process taking?

Hon. C. Richmond: The whole process follows thus: within 20 business days from the date the client received the ministry's original decision…. You are assuming, I'm sure, that they are turned down.

Within ten business days of receiving the request for reconsideration…. So they have ten business days to request for reconsideration. Within seven business days of receiving the ministry's reconsideration decision…. So that's to file a notice of appeal. If eligible for appeal, the chair appoints a three-person panel, and within 15 days of the notice of appeal being delivered….

Anyway, client and ministry informed of the panel hearing date at least two business days before the hearing. Regional appeal panel decision is forwarded, with all documentation, within five business days. Panel decision is reviewed within five business days of receiving the panel's decision and forwards panel decision to both parties within five business days of receiving the complete decision.

So it's a fairly lengthy process, as you can see — 20 days, ten days, seven, 15, two, five, five and five — from the time of the request for reconsideration by the ministry.

C. Trevena: I wanted to ask a little bit more. This is a very lengthy process, and people are obviously very anxious throughout this process. One always hears about the worst cases. We so often hear about the cases for reconsideration and what has been happening with those. I just wanted to give an example: a woman who has a PWD designation on multiple occasions. She has chronic obstructive lung disease, asthma, degenerative disc disease and advanced osteoporosis.

The adjudicator in the case confirmed that the application had the information to make a decision but then went on to deny the application because of lack of clarification of information by the physician. The adjudicator has the right to contact the physician but didn't do this. In the written decision, the adjudicator downgraded the diagnoses to low back pain and sore wrists and shoulders.

I wanted to know what weight in the reconsideration process is given to adjudicators vis-à-vis the medical professionals?

Hon. C. Richmond: The thoroughness of the adjudication process we went through, which takes several days…. It ensures quality and consistency in decision-making and compliance with the principles of administrative fairness through consideration of substantial medical and health-related information on the PWD designation and application form and attachments specific to the criteria in legislation.

It is subject to a review by a second adjudicator in all cases and a further audit in some cases to ensure accuracy, consistency and quality in decision-making and documentation. Where necessary, review with a consulting health professional and contact with the applicant's physician or other health professional when clarification of the information submitted is required….

Quite often, we do not get enough information from the physician, so we have to go back and say, you know, that we need more information to assess this person, because it's incomplete. PWD adjudicators have extensive experience in the health professions and/or in the adjudication of program benefits, including experience applying legislation and policies to adjudication decisions and knowledge of medical terminology, medical conditions and associated disabilities — and the degree to which they may impact daily living.

Really, the physician has the final say in this, but as we say, quite often we have to go back because they haven't given enough information. We rely very heavily on the physician's interpretation.

C. Trevena: In a case such as this and in other cases I have had come through my office, if the physician said the person has these disabilities, that is what would be regarded as having disabilities, and the adjudicator would have to abide by what the physician says.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes. If the information is complete that comes from the physician, then we go by what the physician says, but there are many occasions where the physician disagrees with the client's description of their disability. There is often conflict there. We basically go by what the physician says, and if the information is complete and we don't have to go back for any more information, then that's usually the deciding factor.

C. Trevena: This is a very long and very complicated process right from the application for PWD, which is a very detailed form, and then through getting the information, making sure you've got the supporting statements and so on. I wonder if there is any assistance for people applying for this, particularly when it comes to the reconsiderations and appeals. Since we don't have many law centres or women's centres available anymore and the number of paid advocates has declined over the last four years, how are people expected to be able to navigate both the application and the reconsideration system?

Hon. C. Richmond: Physicians and other health professionals were involved in the design, and the

form has been generally well received. It was done with the help and advice of physicians and health professionals. It has been well received by the health professional community as an appropriate method of gathering information to support evidence-based decisions. Physicians and other health professionals are compensated for completion of the form, so the person applying for PWD doesn't have to fill it out on their own. They can take it to their physician. The ministry pays the physician $205 in total — $130 for the physician report and $75 for the assessor report. They are paid to do this, and the person is not on their own when they go in.

I think we have to be clear, too, that we get an awful lot of applications from people on temporary assistance who want to be reclassified PWD for obvious reasons. A lot more money per month is payable, so we have to be very thorough and have to make sure that the physician is satisfied that this person is a person with disabilities. I do agree, though, that the process, from the time they ask for reconsideration until the end, is fairly lengthy, but it is also very thorough.

C. Trevena: The issue of PWD and designation is a difficult one because often, as you say, there are people who've got PPMB and temporary barriers and sometimes people on temporary assistance who don't apply for anything beyond that because they're too intimidated by the system, I believe.

I heard of one man who had crushed discs in his neck and back so severe…. He lived on the north end of the Island, and he had to go to Vancouver regularly for cortisol injections for his condition. He was able to access the TAP program, which paid for his walking on the ferry but didn't pay for any other transportation. I just wondered why it is only people on PWD who receive assistance for transportation for medical issues?

Hon. C. Richmond: The ministry assists clients who face extraordinary costs when travelling for essential medical treatment within or outside their local community. Clients are expected to use the least expensive appropriate mode of transportation to travel to their medical appointments. Medical transportation funding may include transportation needed — for example, bus, taxi or airfare — accommodation, food and/or other necessary supports.

Should a client need to travel outside their local area when medical treatment is not available, they should first access the Ministry of Health transportation assistance program. TAP offers travel discounts to eligible B.C. residents who must travel within the province for non-emergency medical specialist services not available in their own community.

Medical transportation is also provided to persons who are not eligible for schedule-C health supplements but who face a life-threatening health need and have no resources available to meet that need. There is a list of eligibility. The following clients are eligible: persons with multiple barriers — clients and their spouses if the spouse is also a PPMB client; persons with disabilities, designates and their dependants; PWD designates under 65 years of age who achieve financial independence through employment earned by either the person or the person's spouse, receive federal pensions or other payments while maintaining residency in B.C.; dependent children of all clients of B.C. employment and assistance; Child in the Home of a Relative, only if equivalent payment for services is not available through the child's parents; all persons over 65, including PWD designates who, prior to their 65th birthday, were eligible for health supplements; clients under 65 who are eligible for health supplements but became ineligible for B.C. EA because they're now receiving federal income support. That pretty well sums it up.

C. Trevena: So, basically, what you're saying is that anyone who is on assistance, income assistance or PWD or PPMB, if they have to travel for medical need, will get the travel costs covered.

Hon. C. Richmond: It applies to PWD, PPMB, children — but to temporary assistance recipients only if it is a life-threatening illness.

C. Trevena: Which brings me back to my original question: why is it only available for people on PWD or PPMB? Why not for everyone who has such a limited income? I mean, if you have that $510 and $400 is going on rent, and you've got your $100 a month, it's very hard to get down for medical treatment.

Hon. C. Richmond: It would apply to someone on temporary assistance, but they may have to apply to the Ministry of Health, to the transportation assistance program. If it was deemed to be a serious illness or life-threatening, then they would be eligible.

I want to point out one more thing. It's even for non-emergency medical specialist services that are not available in their own community.

C. Trevena: When somebody is travelling for medical treatment, whatever designation they are, I just wondered how much allowance there is for meals while they are away.

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't have the numbers available for you, but it is a small amount they're allowed for meals because they're expected to pay for their meals, under normal circumstances, out of their allowance. When they're travelling, there is a small amount over and above that, but I don't have the number for you. We can get it for you, but I don't have it.

C. Trevena: You acknowledge a small allowance, and it's always cheaper to cook at home than to eat out. I wonder, again, in the coming budget line, because this budget is obviously not in the present — when we are discussing it, it's not there as an increase —

whether it can be considered there as a possible increase the next time around in February.

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess that's about the size of it, though you will have to just wait and stay tuned to this station to find out.

C. Trevena: I have some more questions on this area, but I am not sure I'm going to have time for them, so I will move on.

I wanted to talk to the minister about dentures. This is a very big issue. Given the ministry's stated commitment to helping people get back to work and that part of getting back to work is having a clothing allowance so you can look acceptable, that part of it is to look acceptable, I want to know how long it takes for a client who wants dentures to be approved and to have them fitted.

Hon. C. Richmond: Dental work is approved by Pacific Blue Cross and is generally approved immediately. For those on PWD and PPMB, it includes dentures, etc. For people on temporary assistance, it's primarily for relief of pain. If they're in pain, then they can go, and it is generally done right away. Having said that, from talking to our service providers — and when we went out to talk to them about changing the way we deliver the programs, which is coming up, we asked them, and they told us even before we asked — we know that the biggest impediment to an awful lot of people getting a job is teeth. The appearance is terrible. So we're very cognizant of that, and we're paying very close attention to it.

On the 29th of this month there will be an announcement along those lines. I can't tell you about it today. It won't cover the entire province, but it's a pilot that we're putting out there where the need is the greatest at the moment to solve for people this problem of appearance and of looking for a job when you really need dentures.

C. Trevena: Obviously, you don't want to spoil the surprise, but could you tell me whether it is going to be upper and lower set? Will it also include poor people who need dentures for medical necessity as well as for appearance for looking for work, and people who are on PPMB or PWD who need to be able to chew for nutrition?

Hon. C. Richmond: People on PPMB and PWD get that already. That's already taken into account, that they require dentures to be able to nourish themselves.

C. Trevena: There is, however, very often a time lag in getting the dentures. This doesn't happen immediately. I talked to many advocates and individuals who have waited many months for dentures. They don't wave their Blue Cross card and get them. People have had to apply, and they've had to wait.

I talked to one person who waited eight months for his dentures. He had hepatitis and did need nutrition. He was receiving supplements, so that helped. He received from the ministry $600 for his dentures and was billed a thousand dollars. He was on assistance and so was unable to meet the $400 gap between what he was provided and what he was billed for.

Apart from the fact that it took so long, I'd like to ask the minister, firstly, how people are expected to pay this difference if they're on assistance; and secondly, in your new program, which you are waiting to review at the end of the month, whether people will still be billed for the dentures or whether they will be provided as part of the assistance package.

Hon. C. Richmond: The new schedule of fee allowances was implemented effective April 1, 2005 — the case you are talking about may go back to before then — bringing the ministry to 80 percent of the dental association's 2004 fee guide, and ranking B.C. third amongst provinces, behind P.E.I. and Manitoba. Before the fee increase, B.C. was ranked tenth.

Most dentists and denturists now are adhering to our new fee schedule, and they're not charging extra. They're not bound by our fee guide, but most of them accept ministry payment as payment in full. A new schedule of fee allowances was implemented in April '05 for denturists, bringing the ministry to 80 percent of the denturists' fee guide. The same applies to them: they're not bound by the fee guide, but they generally accept the ministry's 80 percent as full payment. Perhaps this case was before this change in fee.

C. Trevena: The minister is confident dentists and denturists across the province are not trying to claim the extra 20 percent from assistance recipients?

Hon. C. Richmond: Our experience is that they are accepting our fee schedule as payment in full.

C. Trevena: I know the minister has various announcements to make over the coming months about changes in services. There have been a number of changes in the way the service has been delivered already, including the more centralized service delivery we were talking about earlier, with the Internet and the 1-800 number that's been set up.

But again, on the 1-800 number, I have been talking to individuals and advocates who say that this is a real difficulty for people who are trying to access the service. When they call, they get a different person every time. That's if they can navigate the system. The system is quite complicated for many people who are trying to access it. I just wondered, really, how the minister sees that people on low incomes are being served by this increasing centralization?

Hon. C. Richmond: I can tell you that I have only been in one service call centre, as we call them, or call service centre, and that was in Kamloops shortly after I

became the minister. I went over to reacquaint myself with some of the older people there and meet some of the newer people. The old ones remembered me.

I actually toured extensively a new service centre, and it was working very well. There were several people. There were minimal waits, and people seemed to be accepting it. The reaction from clients…. I guess clients is the best term — our customers. They seemed to like it very much. It was very thorough. They didn't have to drive in from Cache Creek or the Hat Creek ranch or places like that. They could pick up and talk to the same person every time they phoned in. Now, there may be some times when the person would be busy for a few minutes, but the calls just seemed to come in.

Just speaking from experience, it worked very well. It's a model that we're starting to expand, because people, especially in the outlying areas and when you get weather like we are starting to get now…. It's much easier to pick up the phone, and the waits were very minimal. I was very impressed when I was there.

We're working very hard to keep those times down and the information flowing. If what I saw is an example of how it's going to work, then I was very pleased with it. But we're always willing to hear of any cases where someone wasn't well-served, and we're always willing to improve on it. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

C. Trevena: I will actually take him up on that offer. As I do hear of concerns, and if there are complaints about it, I will pass them on to him and his staff, because what I have been hearing is very different from what he has been hearing. I've heard a number of people who have been very dissatisfied with the move, with the 1-800 number and with the increasing centralization, partly because we are also talking about people on low income, many of whom don't have phones and don't really want to go into a public pay phone, if they can now find one, to access the service.

But I leave my best question for last, because we're clearly going to be wrapping up shortly. The minister has been talking and hinting at changes to service delivery that are being planned. I know there is the RFP looking for ways to encourage people on PWD to get into the workforce. There is going to be the announcement about dentures.

I wondered if we are talking about an overhaul in the way that people are accessing the service. At the moment we already have the centralization and using the Internet and the 1-800 numbers rather than necessarily front-line staff. Or are we talking about the delivery — literally, the physical delivery — of how people are able to get what they require and their ease at getting access to it and speed, particularly? Because many of the people that we're talking about are in crisis and do need very quick assistance.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, it's a bit of a misnomer to say it's being centralized, because these service centres make up a very small percentage of our staff. The 48 ministry staff represent only 4 percent of the 1,216 dedicated staff working in our district offices. So, no, we're not thinking about changing the way we deliver our services.

We still have 104 offices in the province, and as I said earlier, 1,216 staff to service people. But the caseload has declined rapidly, from 157,000 to 105,000. We have closed some offices, some when they were close together. There were….

Hon. C. Richmond: Yeah, there are still 104 offices left, and as I said just a minute ago, the staff that work in the service centre are only 4 percent of our staff. So we're not really centralizing everything, but we are closing some offices that were probably redundant — not very many of them. But because the caseload is shrinking and is down to 105,000, we're finding that people now can spend more time with each individual client. They're serving fewer clients, and they're spending more time with them, whether it's on the phone or in the office. Of course, this is what we're aiming for — a little more personalized service and people being able to spend the time with clients.

We feel the same with our service delivery people. They will be spending more time with each client than they did in the past.

C. Trevena: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

	YEAS — 70

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Horning	Cantelon
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Campbell	Taylor	Bond
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Hawkins	Krueger	Lekstrom
Polak	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Brar	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Robertson
Karagianis	Ralston	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 1

	Mayencourt