Hansard — Tuesday, March 13, 2007 a.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


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6123
	Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)
	Hon. I. Chong

Second Reading of Bills		6123
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	C. Trevena
	J. Horgan
	Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	M. Karagianis
	L. Krog
	N. Simons
	A. Dix

Committee of the Whole House		6134
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6137
	Estimates: Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance (continued)
	Hon. C. Richmond
	J. Brar

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

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

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. Local governments play a key role in the vibrancy and sustainability of all British Columbia communities — communities where there are real economic opportunities, communities that are socially responsive and environmentally sustainable, and communities where one size does not fit all.

Resort-oriented communities face unique challenges as well as opportunities, and this legislation provides important tools to recognize their extraordinary circumstances and to let them thrive while we work towards doubling tourism revenues by 2015. For example, how does a local government ensure that there is housing for resort employees? What about the dollars needed for visitor services and infrastructure? How can they make sure the development is attractive, is sustainable and fits in with the community?

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act provides tools and resources for these resort communities, as well as other amendments that can help all local governments work more effectively, such as streamlining an aspect of the bylaw ticketing system; enabling consistency and accountability regarding land use regulations during multiphase developments; or for example, supporting Vancouver in establishing a community energy utility system, an authority that all other municipalities have.

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act is about balance. It's about effectiveness and opportunity for local government and their citizens throughout British Columbia. It's about ensuring economic potential, including tourism and resort opportunities. So not only is British Columbia the best place on earth to live and work, but it is the best place on earth to visit and play.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate of Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and in Section A, the continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, now be read a second time.

Bill 12 amends a number of statutes. Minor amendments will update the Architects Act and Architects (Landscape) Act to reflect the new name of the University of British Columbia's school of architecture and landscape architecture. Amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act will ensure that professional engineers and geoscientists in the province are sufficiently and appropriately regulated and that the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists has the legislative authority and resources that it requires to protect the public interest.

These amendments will clarify the association's mandate and improve public protection by permitting mandatory professional development and modernizing investigation, discipline, dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms. The amendments will also clarify and streamline the legislation by removing unintended restrictions on the ability to seal professional documents by allowing electronic ballots, by simplifying and improving administrative processes, and by removing provisions meant to be transitional.

Bill 12 will enable the repeal of the Music Teachers (Registered) Act, which establishes the B.C. Registered Music Teachers Association and creates a right to title for its members. The association will reincorporate under the Society Act, which under part 10 offers superior mechanisms for protecting the occupational titles of its members.

The New Relationship Trust Act will also be amended by this bill. The act delivers a provincial commitment to provide $100 million for the New Relationship Trust, a not-for-profit corporation which supports capacity-building so that first nations people can share in the economic and social development of the province. Directors to the board are appointed by a number of first nations organizations and government. The proposed amendments will allow more latitude for the

appointment of organizations to recruit the very best candidates without imposing unnecessarily restrictive time lines.

Amendments to the Child Care Subsidy Act will modernize the rules for sharing and verifying information by making it possible for government to look into the unsolicited third- party tips if they relate to a person's eligibility for a subsidy. This is consistent with a verification and the audit powers in the Employment and Assistance Act.

Bill 12 also amends the Employment and Assistance Act. Currently the appeal panels of the employment assistance appeal tribunal must be composed of three members. The amendment will allow the tribunal chair to appoint panels of one, two or three members. This will afford operational flexibility to convene panels in a timely manner, especially in areas where recruitment is difficult.

The Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act will be amended to repeal the definition of "health professional" and replace it with "prescribed professional." This will provide flexibility to define approved professionals by regulation.

The use of the term "prescribed professional" also reflects that both health professionals and non-health professionals are crucial in providing supportive information as part of the persons-with-disability designation process.

Amendments to the Coal Act will afford private property owners new notice provisions before free miners enter their land. These amendments are intended to help reduce conflict by promoting and facilitating communication between free miners and landholders.

This bill also introduces amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act. Similar to the amendments to the Coal Act contained in this bill, these amendments will reduce conflict by affording private property owners new notice provisions before mineral developers enter their land. Further amendments will add to the streamlining of the mineral title registry brought about by the implementation of the Mineral Titles Online registry in 2005.

Finally, two additional amendments will provide for greater security of title by confirming mapped positions of claims and issuance of a lease based on that confirmed position.

Bill 12 will also amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Currently, those exploring for oil and gas in British Columbia may lease the government's underground oil and gas rights for a period of either five or ten years, after which they are allowed to retain all the rights from the surface of the ground down to the bottom of the deepest zone in which the oil and gas has been found. The deeper rights return to the government and may then be leased to others who wish to explore for deeper oil and gas.

The proposed amendment will allow the initial leaseholder to retain only the rights within any zone or zones in which oil and gas is found, but not the rights to any other zones. Thus, both shallower and deeper zones will be made available for others to explore and develop, creating greater development opportunities and increasing revenue to the province.

In addition, the bill proposes to repeal the Parole Act. In July 2006 the government publicly announced the decision to eliminate the B.C. Board of Parole and to transfer the responsibility for parole administration of provincial offenders to the National Parole Board. These changes will bring B.C. in line with the national standard, as Ontario and Quebec are the only other provinces who maintain their own parole boards.

With the repeal of the Parole Act, the federal government will have the responsibility for parole matters, and parole decisions will be carried out by the National Parole Board.

Finally, amendments to the Police Act will restructure the way police services are financed. Local property taxpayers and municipalities with populations over 5,000 presently contribute 70 percent to 100 percent of their policing costs, while those in rural areas contribute significantly less. Municipalities with populations of under 5,000 make no contribution.

With these new provisions, these areas will now collectively contribute up to 50 percent. The costs will be apportioned to each community using a balanced formula that combines property assessment values and population. The amounts will be requisitioned and collected in the same manner as the School Act.

L. Krog: I always enjoy the opportunity to stand and speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It's such a thrill for the public to see these bills come before the House. They never know what exactly they're going to contain. It's a wonderful grab-bag of legislative reform sometimes and what we in the opposition like to think of as sneaky little tricks the government might try to pull to slide things past us. I'm sure that's not the case.

I see the member from Comox has sat up. I'm making a small joke here this morning, Member. You can relax and take your blood pressure down.

There are, however, a number of items in this bill that do raise the concern of the opposition quite legitimately. With respect to the changes around child care subsidy, we have concerns that these provisions in fact represent a further intrusion into privacy matters and indicate a significant lack of trust in people who actually apply for assistance from the government.

It's not the most pleasing measure that the government has put forward in this particular area. Requiring the provision of further personal information raises great concerns, particularly around the issue of security. There is no question that on various occasions, governments have lost information of a personal nature. Citizens have a right to be concerned about what will happen to the kind of personal information that will be provided.

It's certainly not clear from the statute exactly what personal information will be required or whether regulations may require further information that would not be appropriate, useful or needed in order for the government to achieve its aims in this area.

Certainly, it's fair to say that we on this side will be supporting the New Relationship Trust Act provisions allowing for flexibility around appointments. But with respect to changes to the Employment and Assistance Act, we have some genuine concerns. Unfortunately, not all members who wish to speak to that will have an opportunity this morning to raise that particular issue.

I noted the Attorney General referred to the problem of being able to convene tribunals in a timely manner. As much as one appreciates that this may provide a difficulty for government in order to ensure that tribunals are available, the opposition's response is obvious. Surely if these positions are difficult to fill, then the government — which seems to have had no problem historically substantially raising the wages paid to very senior public servants or heads of organizations like Partnerships B.C. — shouldn't have much difficulty making it somewhat more attractive for people to participate in these panels and therefore provide a forum of justice that is certainly due to people in this area.

I can tell the Attorney General that in my office, issues around social assistance are the dominant theme of complaint and concern. The opportunity to have a system that is fair and that provides a full opportunity for people to receive justice, I would suggest, is far more guaranteed by a tribunal of three than by a single tribunal officer.

The Attorney General, having been well familiar in his career with the Court of Appeal, appreciates that generally speaking, the Court of Appeal sits in panels of three. There is a very good reason for that. It enables other views to be exchanged and considered by the tribunal to ensure that justice is done. It's the opposition's belief that by reducing the minimum to one, you are raising the distinct possibility, and indeed I would suggest probability, that justice will not be done in all cases.

Of course, we are talking about people who are in an extremely vulnerable position to begin with, for whom the success of an appeal means a great deal more than perhaps the successful appeal of a traffic violation to an ordinary citizen who can afford to drive a motor vehicle. We are talking about issues that are enormously important to those who have to make these appeals.

With respect to the issues around the abolition of the Parole Board, I suppose we on this side of the House are always delighted to see costs passed up the train, so to speak, to the federal government as opposed to the provincial government, although it's not clear from the Attorney General's remarks this morning whether or not that will be the case. Certainly, we are hopeful that it may represent a reduction in government costs and perhaps some useful standards that will be more national in focus.

Around the Mineral Tenure Act, the Attorney General is well aware that this is a matter of enormous concern to British Columbians. They have discovered, much to their chagrin, that complete strangers, as far as they're concerned, have the opportunity to come on to their land. Admittedly, there is indeed a requirement that they put it back in place, so to speak, and restore it to its former state. But during the course of any exploration or mining activity or something of that nature, this comes as a pretty dramatic shock.

For those of us who live on Vancouver Island and are familiar with the E&N land grant, it's perhaps less of a shock. But other British Columbians in this province are very concerned and have raised this concern publicly. A number of organizations have raised this concern around the ease with which their quiet enjoyment of their privately owned property can be disturbed by individuals or corporations seeking to profit from the mineral resources under the land.

This is a matter of no small importance. The measures, it would appear, are simply more of a band-aid rather than addressing the serious nature of this problem and its impact on British Columbians. The fact is that allowing a little more notice is not going to make British Columbians feel much more secure in the ownership of a property that they buy in good faith.

With respect to the Registered Music Teachers Act, my understanding is that this statute or a form of it has been around since 1907. In fact, this change, if you will, or this opportunity for cabinet to be given authority to repeal the act raises some serious concerns for music teachers who wish to ensure a level of professionalism in this province. Surely the public has a right to expect that before this happens….

I trust the Attorney General can give this House some assurance that before this happens, those who have worked hard to attain a professional status and those who employ music teachers or take lessons will be able to be satisfied that their interests in the quality of their profession are in fact being protected.

There has certainly been a great deal of debate in this House in the last few weeks over the issue of private colleges, etc. This likewise raises some concerns on our part, on this side of the House.

With respect to the Police Act, this has been a longstanding difficulty. As much as one appreciates the serious concerns of those who live in larger municipal centres and cities in this province, the fact is that rural folks do not receive the benefits of many services that those of us who live in urban areas do. They are now being asked to pay for a portion of policing costs, which historically was not the case. And as much as this is an issue of fairness, surely the government in these circumstances — we suggest on this side of the House — needs to seek more input from stakeholders, local governments and landowners.

This is an issue of serious concern. If you are living miles and miles away from the nearest police officer or police station, what level of taxation are you expected to pay as opposed to someone who lives in

Surrey–Green Timbers, for instance, and can have a police officer at their door within a couple of minutes by calling 911? We are talking about very significant differences in the level of service that can be provided.

Fairness is the issue here. British Columbians are willing to pay for government if they get services, and they expect to pay for services that they may not need today but will need tomorrow or that their children may need some year down the road. But the fact is that if we are going to increase taxes on rural British Columbians who in many cases do not receive the benefit of publicly delivered hydro power or who live on dirt roads or who live miles away from other government services, surely the issue of fairness must be paramount.

It would seem that the government, in fairness, should be talking more about ensuring that local governments receive appropriate assistance from the provincial government in order to deliver these services. In other words, we want to see the money, and that is an important issue for those of us on this side of the House.

Clearly, there are a number of areas that I have referred to this morning which raise concerns for the opposition. Committee stage of this bill will be of no small importance as we try to ensure that the proposed changes set out in Bill 12 are in fact in the best interests of British Columbians, reflect their needs and reflect the fairness that is appropriate and that all British Columbians are entitled to receive when dealing with the provincial government.

I know that other members wish to speak to this matter this morning. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

C. Trevena: I'm speaking about the one section in the bill about the changes on child care subsidy, where it would allow the minister to collect "third-party tips." It is already being dubbed a snitch line or a snoop line.

I think there are many concerns, as my colleague mentioned — concerns about security of information, concerns about the lack of trust. I understand what the Attorney General is saying — that this is already part of the employment and income assistance act and that it's to bring child subsidy in line with that. However, that act and the decision to have third-party intrusion in that are not very healthy either.

My concerns are quite strong on the fact that allowing a third party to come and allegedly say that somebody is or isn't eligible for child care subsidy opens the way for malicious gossip and attacks on individuals. It will be very time-consuming to check these out, and I believe it's unnecessary. We're not talking, with child care subsidy, a huge amount of money. I cannot see that people are going to be willingly trying to defraud the government and the province of British Columbia of amounts of money through maliciously defrauding the child care subsidy system.

We have seen the number of children who are eligible for subsidy actually drop from 40,000 in '05-06 to 24,400 in this coming year, '07-08. That's the target, so we're seeing a decline in the numbers of children who will be eligible for child care subsidy. To put this extra question mark over those parents who are claiming subsidy is a great concern.

There is also the issue that parents already have a huge amount of detail that they have to go through when they're filling out their subsidy form. So there is the question of why this is necessary. I am very concerned.

We're already hearing that there are clawbacks going on from people who, through no fault of their own, have been overpaid subsidy and are now having to repay this. We are obviously talking about very vulnerable families and vulnerable children who are now being put in a more precarious position because of the repayment of subsidy.

I have to ask, and will ask when we get to the committee stage, whether the decision to have this third-party tips line is part of that process to really give the rubber stamp to something that's already going on.

On that note, I'll leave it. I will be asking a number of questions for clarification in the committee stage. However, my concerns are that this implies a huge lack of trust in the people of B.C. who are claiming child care subsidy and could open the way to malicious attacks on people's good standing. I think it's going to be exceedingly time-consuming to check all these out and completely unnecessary.

J. Horgan: I rise to make a few comments at second reading on Bill 12, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — the first of a couple, I bet, as we're so early in the session.

In particular, I want to touch upon those amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act. I've had a discussion with the minister, and I certainly look forward to a more detailed discussion at committee stage of this legislation on how these amendments will affect fee simple landowners and what benefit there will be to free miners and those who are staking claims on other people's property — or at least that's the perception.

Down here in the city we have a sense that when we purchase our home and we purchase the property it sits on, we're not going to have a free miner show up one day and start prospecting for precious metals. That's a reasonable assumption for landowners to make.

I know that in the throne speech, the government signalled that they were going to address this challenge. Certainly, one of the more vocal groups opposed to this legislation, the B.C. landowners rights group, an organization located in Vernon, has been quite vocal — and rightly so, as a landowner protection group trying to protect their property from intrusion by free miners.

Of course, the mining sector is a significant portion of the B.C. economy, and those resources that we are able to find in the northern and rural areas of British Columbia are paying for the urban amenities that we all appreciate here in the lower Island. I know the

minister and I are of one mind on that. However, it still seems incongruous for most folks to have somebody show up one day and start poking around in their back yard saying: "I'm sorry; you don't own the rights to the minerals underneath your sod lawn or your rose garden."

I'm looking forward very much to probing a little bit deeper on these issues at committee stage, but I wanted to get an opportunity at second reading, hon. Speaker, to recount for you some of my concerns about the various changes in the act. As I say, I talked to the minister about this. I put him on notice that I will be representing the interests of those who don't believe these amendments have gone far enough. Certainly the requirement for notice of attending onto a person's property is a step in the right direction, but as I understand it from those who have certainly been writing me as the Energy and Mines critic and other members of our caucus on this side, particularly the member for Nelson-Creston, this is a significant issue.

I know there are many people in the province who are very concerned about it. I appreciate that the minister is new to the portfolio and has picked up this amendment that's been worked on for some time. He's going to carry it forward with aplomb and enthusiasm. There are certainly some deficiencies, as I see it, and I think we'll be able to highlight those at third reading.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 12 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007.

In April 2006 the hon. Ted Hughes presented a report to the government, the B.C. Children and Youth Review, with 62 recommendations for sweeping changes to our child welfare system. I'm here today to talk about 22 of those recommendations that will be implemented through amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act and through a full proclamation of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, including the amendments we are proposing to the act in the bill before us today.

Amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act in part 1 of the bill build upon the amendments that were made last spring. The provision for a director's review of services under the act to a child or the child's family has been clarified and strengthened, while the list of purposes of a review, including a public accountability, remains unchanged.

A new requirement is for production of a report to ensure that each review is completed and will clarify a director's ability to release a finalized report. Legislative authority has been established for a director to release information in the report in accordance with the regulations. The regulation will strike a balance between the public accountability and protecting the privacy of children and their families. This is consistent with Mr. Hughes's recommendation and with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provisions that already apply to these reports when they are requested under an FOI request.

The Representative for Children and Youth Act received third reading and royal assent at the close of the last session of the House. At the time I committed to a public consultation on the legislation in anticipation for further amendments in part 2 of the bill, now tabled for second reading. Our consultations included discussions with public agencies interested in or affected by the legislation, including the Ombudsman, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the comptroller general, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and other social service ministries.

In addition, comments on the legislation were solicited from approximately 40 community service agencies and 70 aboriginal organizations and service providers. On the basis of these discussions and consultations, there is widespread support for many of the Hughes recommendations, including the creation of the new representative's office as an independent officer of the Legislature.

Some concerns were expressed, however, about the extent of the representative's jurisdiction and the powers of the representative to access confidential records in the control of other public officials, including the Ombudsman and other officers of the Legislature. These issues are addressed in part 2 of this bill.

Several aspects of part 2 of the bill are also critical to ensure a smooth transition from the current office for children and youth to the new representative's office. These provisions deal with the scope of the representative's jurisdiction and with the sharing and disclosure of information. Both of these issues were considered at

length by Mr. Hughes's review. They have also been the subject of extensive discussion and consultation since the act was passed in May 2006.

Part 2 of the bill before us includes important related amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act, which will address the orderly transfer of records from the office for children and youth — a government entity — to the representative as an officer of the Legislature, the timing for submission of service plans and the excluded status of the representative's staff.

In accordance with the Hughes recommendations, a representative is to oversee the activities of any person providing service to children, youth or their families under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As the Representative for Children and Youth Act currently provides, agencies funded through sources other than the provincial government — including federal or private agencies designated as directors under the CFCSA — are excluded from the scope of the representative's jurisdiction.

The amendments in part 2 of the bill before us today give the representative express jurisdiction to monitor and to investigate services provided by agencies which are not public bodies, including, most importantly, delegated aboriginal agencies. As these agencies provide services to the majority of children in care who are receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the amendments in part 2 of the bill confirm the government's commitment to fully implement key recommendations in the Hughes review.

Several information and privacy issues were left unresolved when the Representative for Children and Youth Act was passed in the spring of 2006. Time was simply not available at that time to consider the right legislative balance between the representative's obligation to report publicly and the representative's duty to respect the privacy interests of children, their families and the staff engaged in service delivery.

In addition, detailed consideration was not given to the relationship between the representative and other officers of the Legislature, who at the same time might also be engaged in their own independent investigations or reviews of related matters.

Section 16 of the current act requires the representative to apply some of the access provisions from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in determining what information to disclose in a report. The use of access provisions from that act in this manner for an officer of the Legislature is unprecedented. Their use could also serve as an impediment for the representative in reporting out at the end of an investigation and in achieving the kind of public accountability that Mr. Hughes envisioned.

Section 16 of the current act also contemplates that an investigative report could be severed at different times or in different ways before it could be made available to individual recipients and that some recipients, including the Legislative Assembly's Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, could be required to enter into confidentiality agreements with the representative.

Confidentiality agreements of this nature would be impractical, cumbersome and unenforceable. Furthermore, the extensive severing of public reports, as permitted under the current section 16 of the act, could be expected to weaken or undermine the more open and transparent processes recommended by Mr. Hughes.

Section 14 in the bill addresses these issues by adding a new section, 15.1, to the act. Section 14 of the bill permits frank disclosure by the representative to service providers, to family members and to others during the course of an investigation before recommendations are made public and the investigation is concluded.

The approach set out in section 14 of the bill is intended to encourage a more open and collaborative process among the agencies responsible for providing service to children and youth. It has been adapted from processes currently authorized under the Ombudsman Act.

As a corollary to section 14 in the bill, the report which is released at the end of an investigation, under section 18 of the act, will be a public document issued in full without severance.

There are specific guidelines in section 15 of the bill that amend section 16 of the act and that require the representative, first, to consider whether the disclosure of personal information is necessary to support the report's findings and recommendations and, second, to weigh the public interest in disclosure against privacy interests of individuals on a case-by-case basis.

The new guidelines in section 15 of the bill give the representative the authority to consider what information to release within the factual context of each individual investigation and case. These guidelines will be particularly important in tragic circumstances where a child's death has been widely reported in the media and continued public scrutiny might be seen to further harm or traumatize surviving family members.

Section 10 of the act is also being amended to limit the representative's right to information that is in the custody or in the control of an officer of the Legislature or that is otherwise protected by section 51 of the Evidence Act.

The amendments in section 10 of the bill protect confidential investigations being carried out by the Ombudsman and other officers of the Legislature and protect confidential committee reviews into hospital practices. It is both inappropriate and unnecessary for the representative to have the power to compel information in either of those particular circumstances.

Other amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act are intended to streamline the legislation and facilitate an orderly transition from the office for children and youth to the new office of the representative. In this respect, there are amendments which provide for an orderly transfer of records and the confidentiality of information and records. Section 24 of the bill achieves that goal as well.

The objective here is to adjust the dates and timing for the submission of the representative's first service plan to reflect the time taken to recruit, appoint and establish the new representative and her office; to address the status of the representative's office as excluded employees under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, consistent with past legislation and practice for other officers of the Legislature; as well, to streamline and clarify the functions of the representative to address confusion and ambiguities which were brought to the government's attention during the consultative process. Section 9 of the bill repeals and replaces what is currently section 6 of the act.

The initiatives we are considering today address the inclusion of delegated aboriginal agencies within the scope of the representative's jurisdiction and the appropriate balancing between public accountability on the one hand and personal privacy on the other hand.

The amendments in part 2 of the bill are also central to the effective functioning of the new representative's office and necessary to effect a seamless transfer of responsibilities from the child and youth officer to the new representative.

On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development, let me conclude by saying there is widespread support for the amendments that we are considering here today. As we move forward, our government remains firmly committed to building a strong and publicly accountable system for support for children, youth and their families in this great province. The amendments in this bill before us today will allow the government to achieve these important public policy goals.

I wish to acknowledge those who have contributed to the transformation of services for children and youth with the establishment of the new Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, from the hon. Ted Hughes and his dedicated team, through community agencies and individuals who participated in their review, to the dedicated public officials who have committed themselves and who have responded to the Hughes review and worked diligently to ensure its early and effective implementation.

I am indebted to all of them, and thank them on behalf of the government of British Columbia, the children and youth of this province, their parents, their families and communities. I look forward to the debate which follows.

M. Karagianis: I am happy to stand today and engage in the debate at the invitation by the previous speaker, the Attorney General. I actually see that this bill is a partnership with the Coroners Act, which was also tabled in the House here.

In fact, these two together should be called the reparation bills because these are steps towards repairing the devastation that was wreaked on the province by the actions of this government in 2002 with the destruction of the previous children's representative office and, as we know, the historical issues around the files that were transferred to the Coroners Service without adequate mandate or resources. Consequently, hundreds and hundreds of children's death reviews were lost and to this day have remained incomplete. In many ways this bill, in conjunction with that, takes the first steps towards trying to repair some of the damage done there.

I know that the Attorney General has evoked the hon. Ted Hughes's name throughout his comments in introducing this bill. But in fact I would say that this bill has not explicitly addressed many of the concerns that the hon. Ted Hughes recommended to us here with his report.

Ted Hughes recommended that MCFD review every death and injury of children in care regardless of the circumstances. I do not believe that this bill actually has gone far enough to be explicit in covering off that recommendation from Mr. Hughes.

In addition, Ted Hughes said that the ministry should adopt a common review tool to guide the conduct of case reviews across all problem areas that are relevant in the life of a child who has died or been seriously injured. Again, I think that the lack of that explicit direction in this bill does not well serve the recommendations that came from Mr. Hughes.

Nonetheless, I do know that the new children's representative is an extremely knowledgeable individual. I would anticipate that any deficiencies in this act will certainly be addressed as time goes on, both in how the representative carries out the work from day to day in her responsibilities, and certainly in how it actually applies in reality to the goals that she herself has set for that office. I expect that any shortcomings will probably be addressed as time goes on, and it's my hope that we'll see some amendments coming forward to make this bill actually work in the manner in which it was intended — I certainly hope — to follow the Hughes recommendations.

I do have some concerns about other things that are missing from this bill and, in particular, two aspects of this. One is, again, some language in section 6 about cabinet determining the criteria used for reviews and in some way trying to prescribe the actions of this children's representative. As always, I think government has to be very cautious here in both the real and perceived interference in the independence of this office. Because the Public Inquiry Act debate that has just taken place actually resulted in no changes being made to that act, in conjunction with any kind of language in here that talks about cabinet's ability to determine any criteria, I think we have to be very cautious of that.

I think that the importance here of the independence of this children's representative office is the single biggest aspect of the actions that this government has been forced to take in reinstating this representative. That needs to be left very clear in the public's eye as being untampered with and unprescribed by cabinet or by government in any way. I will certainly be having those questions here in the House when that section comes up for debate at committee.

I would say the other piece that for me is clearly missing from this is in section 9: the omission of any direct language about the representative's mandate covering children in the home of a relative. These individuals — and there are thousands of them here in the province of British Columbia — who are in the home of a relative are seen as not receiving services of government and are therefore not covered under this bill, and in many ways are the ignored and forgotten children here in British Columbia.

We hear repeatedly from families that they are not treated in the same way as foster care parents, that they are not treated in the same way as other children who are in the protection of government. In fact, if we look at the genesis of the debate and the instatement of this children's representative, it was around children in the home of a relative, children who were not seen as being specifically and directly under the care of government.

I think the omission of clear language to protect those individuals and to expand the tools and mandate of our children's representative to those individuals is a huge omission in this bill. I will certainly be requesting of government that there be an amendment — that they seriously consider an amendment to the bill at committee stage that will expand that language and ensure that the representative clearly has a mandate to include those individuals.

Certainly, the language…. I think even Ted Hughes recognized this. He talked about the fact that government needed to extend the definition to children who had been in the care of government in the past 12 months — not just currently in care but who had received services at any time.

I think that is probably the largest omission in this current bill, and I would hope that government will seriously consider amending language in order to include them, because I know that that particular vulnerable group is going to be the one that causes the most concern here. It has, at this point, been the driving force behind the changes the government has been forced to make in their own directive around cancelling the original Children's Commission and the actions subsequent to that that have led us to this through the Hughes report.

The other thing that gives me some concern here is the prescribed time line of pushing the service plans back to 2008-2009. I have to confess that I'm a bit confused as to why government would be pushing the time line back so far when in fact the children's representative is way ahead of government on this.

There is both the reference of a service plan and a presentation to the Standing Committee on Children and Youth, and the children's representative is ahead of government by a long way on this. She has already presented to this committee and I suspect would have no plans whatsoever to delay reporting out a service plan or anything else until 2008-2009. That seems like such a long way away. So in some ways, it seems that the bill is a bit redundant, if in fact action is already taking place that negates some of the language in here.

I think that we have seen clearly, as well, that the new children's representative has already made some innovative proposals to government that are both refreshing and sensible and that are pragmatic. I would sincerely hope that this bill can be amended to catch up with the children's representative, because she's racing far ahead of government on this. The language already seems outdated in what the expectations are of this representative.

Aside from the proposed amendments that we will bring here at committee stage, I expect there will be a number of amendments to this that will be driven and impelled by the children representative's office and actions in her own right, and that either through amendments to the bill and the legislation or through regulation, some of these issues can be addressed — both those I've raised here today and those the children's representative herself has already foreshadowed. That's the only way to make this legislation relevant and real. In fact, I think that's an important point here today. It does have to have relevancy, especially given the history that has led us to this and the other bills around the children's representative.

I think that this bill does go far enough in giving the representative, initially, the tools and the support system she needs in order to carry out her job and to begin to implement her actions at the beginning of April, as she has indicated. I will save questions and debate for the committee stage and hope that we can look to government to put some tighter language, more explicit references in here, especially around the issue of children in the home of a relative. I think it is the biggest vulnerability we see right now, and I would anticipate that government will take seriously our recommendations on that.

L. Krog: I am honoured to make my modest contribution to the debate this morning following the very thoughtful and intelligent remarks from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

My recollection is that there are three types of wrongdoing. There is misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. In some respects, the history that…. All of this mess, I would argue, created by this government, has brought us to this place today. I would not accuse them of malfeasance in the damage done to the officer of the Legislature, which we have so recently instated. But I think there was certainly misfeasance in the sense that they did not consider fully the ramifications of what they did.

Having corrected itself, so to speak, and asked absolution for its sins…. We have now appointed, I think, a remarkable individual to be the child and youth representative in this province. So I would say, in fairness to the government, that they're on the right track at last — in one aspect of their administration of the province's affairs over the last six years — but only having got there after making grievous errors that caused a great deal of destruction and sadness in this province, particularly with respect to the children under the government's care.

When I said that all aspects of what I talked about — in terms of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance — are present, surely nonfeasance applies here. As the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin pointed out, the Hughes recommendations — which were substantial and cogent and supported by every member of this House, as I recall — are not in fact reflected in what is being proposed.

The government historically since 2001 has, where it wanted to, moved very quickly on issues that it thought were important. Whether it be dramatic tax cuts without considering the effect on government revenues or whether it's substantial changes to existing laws that might have dramatic impacts, the government has been willing to drive that agenda very quickly.

Here we are with an opportunity to correct a gross error or a series of errors, and we are taking what can only be described as baby steps. I would have thought that the government, having this opportunity in front of it and having had months and months now — a year, really — to consider the report of Ted Hughes, who is probably one of the most respected individuals ever to have served the public in this province…. One would have thought that by now, in the spring of 2007, they could have come up with something more than what is proposed by Bill 7.

I'm not going to argue that Bill 7 isn't progress. Perhaps the old phrase, "You should never look a gift horse in the mouth," may apply. But considering the seriousness of the issue, surely Bill 7 should be a fuller document and should take us further down the road to implementing the recommendations of the Hughes commission.

One would have thought that the Attorney General, in conjunction with the minister responsible, would have tried to drive this agenda more fully to ensure that children were appropriately protected in this province through the new office of the child and youth representative.

I look forward to the amendments that will come forward in this bill. I look forward to committee stage when we review this section by section. I look forward, hopefully, to this government being prodded by the representations made to it on this side of the House.

I look forward to this government actually moving forward more quickly. The session is not over. There is an opportunity to correct their path, so to speak. There is an opportunity for them to move forward quickly on this.

Maybe this is just the first part of the full implementation of the agenda and I'm being a little impatient here this morning, but I suspect not. Like Oliver Twist, we want some more, and quite legitimately, the children of this province deserve more.

N. Simons: I'm pleased to stand and offer my comments regarding Bill 7. I think that it's good to see that the government is moving along with this process of bringing some accountability and some sort of framework for the representative.

I have a few concerns that I think could be addressed through some minor amendments, if government sees fit and if in fact my concerns aren't already addressed by the legislation. The legislative schedule obviously makes the review of the legislation be done hastily, and perhaps we'll have some more opportunity for clearer thought at the time of committee stage.

Let me just begin by saying that ultimately the goal of this legislation in large part is to ensure that there is clear, dispassionate and neutral oversight for services provided to children in this province. What needs to happen is to define what that neutral oversight will be and which children in this province.

There are numerous references to other governments and to legislation passed by other governments. I think we need to clarify as to whether or not that includes first nations governments, federal governments or other legislation that impacts on children, or whether or not this legislation applies only to children who are receiving delegated services from the provincial government. There are numerous concerns in that respect. In particular, I'd be interested in knowing what kind of discussions have been held with first nations communities.

The definition of "designated services" has slightly changed and actually seems to have broadened slightly. I think that there are some areas of further examination required in that respect. Section 7, while it does clarify that care services means child care services…. And no longer will the director of adoptions be subject to the officer of children and youth's purview.

Section 13. I think my most serious problem is with section 13. This act and every consequential act since the appointment of the Representative for Children and Youth — and in fact the development of that body, that office of 30 employees and $5 million — were all a result of the acknowledged failure of the previous governance authority, which had obviously changed what had been a better system before.

If we can say that this particular bill, the child and youth statutes bill, is an attempt to improve on the system we've decided is necessary in this province — that we have an independent body overseeing things — then let's find out….

Well, at the core, this legislation is designed to prevent government or anyone else, including ministries in government, from suppressing information and from keeping a lid on what could be potentially embarrassing to them, potentially harmful to children or potentially destructive for families.

My most sincere concern with this legislation is that it doesn't address what takes place when, as in the case of the young girl from Port Alberni, the ministry decides that this is not a case that requires review. It was only

upon the engagement of an independent body that it was pointed out that in fact further review was required. The representative having to wait one year after critical injury or death will be a repeat of the problem that faced the province after the death of the little girl in Port Alberni.

Ministry officials, independent examiners, were prevented from accessing information that could potentially have saved the life of a child. We have to wait one year or until the coroner's office has done its duty, which may take longer than a year. We have to wait at least one year before the director responsible for the provision of services is required to make changes.

Now, we know that we knew within weeks and perhaps months of the death of the little girl from Port Alberni that an independent oversight mechanism was necessary. However, despite that knowledge, government was able to suppress that information, deflect attention from that information and begin what is essentially a litany of cover-up.

My concern, to the hon. Attorney General, is that this delay…. This delay could potentially be an opportunity, a window, to correct what would be an abject failure in policy before the year is up. Why should we wait if we know, if the director knows, that there's a fundamental flaw, as there was in the policy of this government? If there was a fundamental flaw that could potentially be a critical or a fatal flaw, we should have the ability to address that issue before the one year is up.

I believe that the Representative for Children and Youth should have the authority to examine and make findings before a coroner's inquest or a coroner's review has been completed — because of the delay, for one thing. The second thing is that the expertise thus far has not resided with the office of the coroner.

When it comes to child death reviews, I would recommend to this government that they have in place a system where somebody familiar with their policies would be able to review, where the Representative for Children and Youth will have an opportunity to say: "You've implemented this policy without the appropriate foresight, without the appropriate study, without the appropriate buy-in from the various communities on which it's being imposed."

You're imposing new legislation; we have no idea if it will work or not. If it fails on its first attempt, as it did in 2002, as it did with the little girl from Port Alberni, the first ever kith-and-kin placement…. If it's so clear from the very first that we have a problem with policy, the Attorney General should recognize that that understanding should happen immediately. We do not wait one year for an administrative review or any review from a coroner. We must not wait. We must not wait when it is possible that, in fact, the changes that can be made could impact on the safety of children.

I find a fundamental flaw in section 13, where it says that the representative isn't authorized to investigate the critical injury or death of a child until the earlier of one year after the critical injury or death and the completion of the coroner's investigation, etc., etc., as written in Bill 7.

My request is to the Attorney General, the minister responsible for this legislation, and to the Minister for Children and Families, who represent our greatest asset, the children of this province — who, I am pleased to see, are in the gallery listening to this debate. The fundamental reason we have protections built in, checks and balances built into systems like this, is to make sure we correct errors quickly — that we don't hide errors, that we don't complicate matters by blaming third parties, that we actually get to the root of the problem. If it is obvious — after a week, a month or even half a year — to the Representative for Children and Youth, those changes should take place.

We mustn't rely on external parties to determine, necessarily, at the outset whether or not a review should or shouldn't take place. If a child dies, a review should take place. It should be an independent review. It should be a review that isn't hindered by the concerns of government and the delays and cover-ups that we saw in the past. Those delays and cover-ups were not only, potentially, a political thing; they did have an impact on the health of children subsequently.

Hon. Speaker, I'm looking forward to being able to canvass these issues with the Attorney General at the committee stage of debate. I believe, obviously, that if we've pointed out a flaw that in fact was not noticed before, perhaps government will make the appropriate amendments to this bill.

A. Dix: It's a very positive thing, sometimes, to be able to rise when progress is being made on issues that many people have worked on over time. I think, in this issue, of the extraordinary work of aboriginal social service agencies, social workers, parents and people of good faith who have expressed concerns on the issues dealt with and touched on by this legislation. The progress we've made in the last little while, after years of reluctance on the part of this government, is very heartening. It's good to be able to talk about legislation that moves things forward.

I wanted to raise a couple of points about the legislation, though. I think one of the real, fundamental concerns was raised in the Gove inquiry, subsequently in the Hughes report and by many people in the interim period.

One of the fundamental concerns around how we treat children — children in need as well as children in care, children known to the ministry, and children who need the ministry's protection and sometimes need the ministry's and the government's support — is the tendency of the way we organize government to ill-serve the children who need protection, services and support.

This is an issue the Attorney General will know, because less than a year ago we stood in the House to talk about the bill that was brought in. He will remember, as I do, that the bill was brought in on short notice. I was very gratified it was brought in. We had a good exchange at the time. One of the issues we raised is the narrowness, the narrowing of focus and the narrow focus of the role of the representative and the review process of the representative on the Ministry of Children and Family Development itself. I raise this issue, and I raised it with the minister at the time. I'm sure, in his closing remarks, he'll deal with this at length.

The issue that I raised was a program that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has talked about. It involves, I think — if you consider the number of children in care in total in British Columbia, a number almost one-half of that size — about 5,000 children in a program called Child in the Home of a Relative. I know we have a former Minister of Children and Family Development here in the House, the member for Surrey–White Rock, who was very concerned about these issues as well.

I know that those who work in this sector understand that one of the challenges today is the poor and incomplete working relationship between the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. This is vitally important because many of the children who are candidates for protection end up in the program of Child in the Home of a Relative. I believe that the child representative should have a responsibility for reviewing those cases as well. They are strictly relevant because if you follow the lives of children, you see how they move from one program to another at times and how the need to combine information between those two ministries is paramount.

I want to make the case that the child representative should have specific responsibilities, where relevant, for children who are currently in programs of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — and we've made the case with the program Children in the Home of a Relative. We made the case first here in the House to the Attorney General last year. We then made the case in the committee to select the child representative to the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Seckel. We continue to make the case today that there is a need for this. What we learned in the Gove inquiry, the Hughes report and many reports by the children's commissioner is that one of the keys for government to respond properly is to have a flow of information and a continuum of services between ministries.

When government fails, it's frequently because children are lost. They are dealt with by a social worker or an income assistance worker in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. They disappear, and then they reappear. This is when and this is how children frequently fall through the cracks. That's why I think — and certainly our critic, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, has talked about this — it's vitally important that the new child representative have responsibility and have an interest in the children involved in the Child in the Home of a Relative program.

I want to make that case very strongly to the minister. We'll continue to do so at committee stage. It's probably, with respect to an amendment, beyond the scope of the legislation, so I don't believe an amendment would be in order. But it reflects our collective desire to ensure that the legislative supports and resources given to the child representative are adequate to ensure that the failures of recent years are not repeated. This is one of the areas that we have raised and that we hope that the Attorney General will act upon.

Further, I want to say — and in fact we saw this — that one of the challenges with the regime that was set up in 2002 with the elimination of the children's commissioner was this very fact: there was inadequate communication. I mean, I don't even need to say it. They lost 713 child death reviews; they lost them. It is a grotesque example of lack of communication.

It continues to be an issue within the government, continues to be an issue with respect to child protection and continues to be an issue with children known to the ministry or children who require the support of government. Those children, I would argue, already don't get the supports that they need to have an equal shot at life.

I believe the child representative should have a chance and have the opportunity and the capacity to speak for those children too. I think it is a flaw in approach. It's one we're going to continue to work on. I think the Attorney General knows of our concern in this issue, and I hope he'll speak to it.

I believe we need to ensure that these mistakes of the past are not repeated, and these are historic mistakes. It's not just mistakes that have occurred under the B.C. Liberal government. They are historic mistakes of the system of allowing children who are known to the government, who are receiving government programs, to fall through the cracks — to not have one set of people dealing with a case or a child know what another set of people in government are doing.

That can be catastrophic. We know it can be catastrophic. It has shown to be catastrophic. It was catastrophic in the context of the severe cuts imposed on the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the coroner's office in 2002 with terrible, shocking consequences. In general, it's a challenge for government on all occasions when dealing with the protection of children.

I ask the Attorney General to consider those comments and to respond to those comments, hopefully, as he summarizes debate on what I think is a very important bill. I want to congratulate the government for moving forward on some of these amendments. There's more work to do, and the most important part of that work is to ensure that social workers have the resources to protect and support children, to ensure that children in British Columbia in the context of growing child poverty have the supports they need to have an equal shot at life — to have every opportunity they can.

These issues are fundamental to what the child representative should be doing and must be doing. I

hope the government will respond and continue to ensure that the child representative has the mandate to do what she needs to do and, just as importantly, that social workers, ministry officials, government officials and, most importantly, children have the resources to be able to live their dreams and their hopes in life.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

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

Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; H. Bloy in the chair.

L. Krog: I note that the definition of participant in section 1 talks about a person who's been provided with notice under section 11. Can the Attorney General explain what he anticipates in terms of the participants being? In other words, are we talking about individuals against whom a finding of misconduct may be made, or are we talking about people who wish to participate for some other reason?

It's a very broad term, and I want to have some understanding from the Attorney General of what exactly is meant by the legislation when we talk about participant. Is it simply someone as is set out in section 11(2) — and 11(3) allows others to apply, as well? What do we anticipate a participant to be?

Hon. W. Oppal: With me today to support me during the committee stage of the Public Inquiry Act are Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel and Russell Getz, legal counsel with the Ministry of Attorney General.

Section 11 particularizes the definition of participant under section 1. It states that the section permits people to apply to participate in the commission after considering a number of factors: (1) whether the applicant's personal interests may be affected by the findings of a commission, (2) whether the applicant's participation will further the conduct of the inquiry and (3) whether the applicant's participation would contribute to the fairness of the inquiry.

So it's a fairly wide definition. It contemplates the commissioner having a wide discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis who ought to participate during the course of any inquiry.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could provide some specific examples of the kinds of inquiries that he's no doubt anticipated in bringing forward this legislation — some individuals — so that the public may have a clear understanding of what a participant may be.

One understands that it can be a person who may have some interest. But, for instance, if one were doing a public commission into the state of some forest scandal in British Columbia, would every major forest company be a logical participant because it may affect regulation? Would the IWA constitute a participant if they wish to be involved? Would WorkSafe B.C. be a participant? In other words, what are we talking about quite specifically?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer to that question would depend upon the terms of reference of any particular inquiry. Perhaps to further answer the question, the example that comes to mind would be an inquiry into police misconduct. A number of witnesses may be called who are police officers, and if there is a possibility that the evidence that would be elicited at the inquiry would jeopardize a position or leave an officer…. There could be possible charges arising out of the circumstances and the evidence, which may arise at the inquiry, would, in all likelihood, be a participant.

L. Krog: I must say with some amusement that I note the Attorney General keeps referring to police complaints and issues involving police officers. He did so in the second reading debate. I think every officer in British Columbia must now be quaking in their boots, wondering who's going to be investigated by the public inquiry the Attorney General may be contemplating.

That aside for a moment, it's not clear to me, but I wonder if the Attorney General can clarify. I presume that all persons who became participants would be entitled to be represented by counsel.

Hon. W. Oppal: Section 13 states what a participant may do and the rights that accrue to a participant, including a right to counsel under particular circumstances.

L. Krog: I note the enthusiasm of the government backbenchers to get through this bill fairly quickly. I

hate to disappoint them, but I intend to ask questions on every section, so perhaps they can restrain their incredible enthusiasm to speed through the spring session of the Legislature.

With respect to section 2, 2(1) refers to what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers to be of "public interest." I'm just wondering what the Attorney General believes that term to mean. Are we making reference to perhaps the Interpretation Act or something of that nature? Or are you intending it to be just as broad as whatever cabinet brings into its little head on any given day, so to speak?

Hon. W. Oppal: The term "public interest" is designed to be sufficiently expansive and sufficiently broad to encompass the widest possible range of potential subjects. As I'm sure the member realizes, the intent here is not to constrain the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from what may be defined as a public interest.

L. Krog: With respect to the setting of the purposes of the commission, given the Attorney General's response to my question around the issue of public interest, I'm wondering: does the Attorney General believe that the definition of purposes or setting the terms of reference of the commission…?

Firstly, what does he see as the difference between them — the purpose and the terms of reference? Are we talking about a broad document? Are we looking for a general response? Or are we going to leave it so open that cabinet may get to solve its problems, so to speak, by defining the terms of the commission so narrowly that, in fact, the public will never get to the bottom of the issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the answer to that is obvious. There's a difference between what a purpose is, or the intent of any particular inquiry, as well as specific terms of reference with which the inquiry ought to proceed.

In other words, the terms of reference are always a guidance so that there is some specificity to what the object of the inquiry is going to be. I would think that would be apparent from the different subsections of 2(2).

L. Krog: Is it the plan to have cabinet define the purposes of the commission, or will the potential commissioner be consulted with respect to the terms of reference or the purpose for any commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: As a matter of law, it's clearly the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who would set the purpose of the inquiry. But I can state that the practice is that when the terms of reference are specified, then the commissioner is consulted.

L. Krog: With respect to the terms of reference of the inquiry, do I read this section to mean that the terms of reference could, in fact, be expanded or contracted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the initial creation of the commission?

L. Krog: With respect to the remuneration to be set for the commissioners — compensation for expenses, if any — subject to the directives of Treasury Board, in the past my understanding is that commissions have had a fairly broad mandate with respect to that.

Is the government contemplating any guidelines around what will be paid to a commissioner, what sort of budgets will be set?

Hon. W. Oppal: The commissions of inquiry have always been subject to directives of the Treasury Board. However, that section is not designed to put constraints on commissions of inquiry.

L. Krog: I am wondering what sort of issues the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the Attorney General is contemplating with respect to joint commissions. The section talks about the government of another jurisdiction. Do I take it to mean that could include joint commissions with, for instance, the state of Washington as opposed to the province of Alberta or the Yukon?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no immediate contemplation, I can tell the member. But one could easily imagine an issue that crosses borders. If there's an issue of mutual interest between the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia, that would be an example.

There may be something of marketing boards or something that is interprovincial in nature that might well involve an agreement to establish a joint commission. Those are two examples that come to mind.

L. Krog: When the section speaks about an aboriginal organization exercising government functions in British Columbia, can the Attorney General explain what that means?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, obviously, it's intended to be broad. We are still in the process of negotiating treaties with aboriginal people, so that's the purpose of that — to take into consideration any amount of flexibility that may be necessary for the future.

L. Krog: For instance, if the Nisga'a First Nation set up some governmental body or organization within its jurisdiction — other than the government, so to speak, of the Nisga'a people — would that be included in the term "aboriginal organization exercising government functions"? In other words, if they have delegated some authority to a body like that, would it in fact include a body of that nature?

Hon. W. Oppal: Anything is possible, but that example may not be entirely a realistic one.

L. Krog: So I take it that we are giving the widest possible latitude to government to enter into joint arrangements without having to obtain any consent or approval from the Legislature.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way I can answer that is that the Legislature is really authorizing cabinet to enter into an agreement with an aboriginal organization.

L. Krog: With respect to section 3(2), which makes reference to an order exempting "the commission from all or part of a provision of this Act or the regulations made under it if necessary to avoid a conflict of law."

Do I take it to mean that we are referencing, perhaps, joint commissions involving other governments and, obviously, potentially different rules around witnesses, participation or participants, under the meaning that the Attorney General referred to earlier when I questioned him around the definition section? Is that what we're making reference to? And perhaps the Attorney General could explain how he sees that playing out.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm imagining that if a joint commission between British Columbia and Alberta or British Columbia and Washington State were to be held, the commissioners would be in a position to agree on the set of procedural rules that ought to be followed in the circumstances.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has received any advice or whether the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement would have any impact on this particular section.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to give an example. I'm not in a position to give advice on that question.

L. Krog: I'm not seeking advice. But I am concerned that the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement requires harmonization of certain rules. I'm just wondering: will the agreement in fact have an impact on this legislation?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Charter of Rights has applicability across the country. Any provisions that TILMA may have that are inconsistent with the Charter would not be applicable because the Charter would prevail, and that sets out the rights.

L. Krog: With respect to the appointment of commissioners, the section talks about the appointment of one commissioner and the possibility of appointing other commissioners.

My interest is in determining whether or not the legislation would provide…. If one commissioner were appointed, and the commission got underway, would in fact this permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint, for instance, two other commissioners in addition to work on it, even though the process had started?

Hon. W. Oppal: In my view, section 5 does not contemplate adding commissioners. One could imagine how unrealistic and impractical it would be to add commissioners after a commission of inquiry has commenced. It would be like bringing in another judge to hear a trial after the trial has started or adding another juror after the commencement of a trial. It would not be practical to do that.

Having said that, it may well be that if there's illness or death or something of that sort, the section, under appropriate circumstances, may contemplate the appointment of an additional or a replacement commissioner.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, my reading of section 3 means that, in fact, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has very broad discretion, not limited by section 5, to add commissioners, to drop commissioners, to replace commissioners. It doesn't indicate any particular reasons, nor is there any legislative requirement for reasons to be stated.

The Attorney General may say it's impractical or difficult, but my reading of that section is that it gives the broad discretion to cabinet to add, subtract or to do, frankly, whatever it wishes with respect to the appointment of commissioners. I'm wondering if the Attorney General agrees with that, or whether he can advise me of something different.

Hon. W. Oppal: We might have to resort to the Interpretation Act, which is not accessible to me at this time. We'll canvass that statute over the break.

L. Krog: Then I'm reserving my right to ask further questions with respect to section 5.

L. Krog: The head of a commission of inquiry now appears to have some fairly specific responsibilities not contained in the existing legislation, as I read it. It's more financial and very administrative in nature. It talks about the effective management and operation of the commission, ensuring that the commission is financially responsible and accountable.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can explain what constitutes being financially responsible and accountable and what sanctions, if any, are contemplated anywhere, with respect to a commissioner who is deemed by the cabinet to be financially irresponsible and not accountable. In other words, who gets to judge in this case whether a commissioner is, in fact, being financially responsible and accountable?

Hon. W. Oppal: Any commissioner who is appointed under this legislation must follow the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, which is governed by Treasury Board.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could repeat part of that. I couldn't hear all of it.

Hon. W. Oppal: The commissioner is obligated by the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

L. Krog: I take it that there are sanctions provided in that statute with respect to a commissioner not being financially responsible and accountable. I'm just wondering why there isn't a particular cross-reference to that in this section.

Hon. W. Oppal: In a technical sense, it's an offence for any person not to follow the Financial Administration Act — cabinet ministers and people in government. I would suspect from that that a commissioner of inquiry who is appointed under the act — the legislation would be applicable to him or her as well.

L. Krog: In terms of how the commission is going to work in a practical way, the section empowers the chief commissioner to appoint employees in accordance with the Public Service Act, which I presume may involve seniority in other issues. To exercise its powers, he can retain or engage consultants, investigators, lawyers, expert witnesses or other persons considered necessary. I note the Public Service Act doesn't apply to some of those specialists.

When it comes, then, to the setting up of the commission and to considering the budgetary responsibilities as outlined in section 6, it seems to me that anyone who's going to undertake the responsibility of being a chief commissioner is going to want to know what they're undertaking.

If they wish to perform their task appropriately, it strikes me that a commissioner is going to have to engage in a fairly extensive consultation with government. It's very clear that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council gets to set the budget for the commission, and it gets to pick the commissioner.

The commissioner has significant responsibilities that are now clearly outlined in section 6, so it strikes me that that commissioner is going to have to know what they're doing. There is going to have to be an awful lot of consultation with the commissioner before they undertake the task. Is that the way the Attorney General sees it as well?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's a long history of…. The general procedure is that the budgets are set in advance of the commission of inquiry beginning its processes. But there's also a practice where, from time to time, commissions have had revised financial challenges, and so they come back and ask for more money. That's happened.

Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes. I want to make a few comments just to clarify a few numbers that were asked for yesterday.

The member opposite asked about the cost of the $50 shelter increase for people on temporary assistance, and we didn't have that number yesterday. The staff worked on it last night. The cost for that is $12 million in 2007-2008.

Also, I just want to clarify a statement yesterday. Just for accuracy, we gave round numbers. The member asked the percentage of clients receiving the maximum shelter allowance, and I think we said about 60 percent.

As a matter of fact, it's exactly 63 percent who paid more than the maximum shelter for rent and utilities, and 17 percent paid exactly the maximum shelter for rent and utilities. This means that 80 percent of clients were receiving the maximum shelter allowance, and all this was before the recent rate increases. So I'm pleased to provide the exact percentages.

My critic also quoted "an expected-to-work family of four with an income of $1,101 per month." But with other child care credits and supplements, the actual income is $1,704 per month. For the same family on PWD — persons with disabilities — the total is $2,098 a month.

J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, Minister. The information on some of the questions provides the accurate information. I appreciate that.

I would like to start to ask a few more questions on the subject we were talking about yesterday on the shelter allowance, the increase part of it. Yesterday responding to my question with regard to the shelter allowance passing through the client to the landlord, the minister once again admitted that: "…we are after these unscrupulous landlords who will attempt to grab any rent increase that we give. I was aware of it then, and I am aware of it now…. We are doing everything we can to prevent them from doing that." The minister also admitted yesterday that the minister has been trying to fix this problem since 2005 without any major success.

Another question with regard to the minister's comments in last year's budget debate whereby the minister offered a solution to fix this problem by combining both shelter allowance and the support allowance into one category so that 100 percent of assistance goes directly to the clients. The minister, in his response, once again admitted:

My question to the minister, in light of both the comments made by the minister, is: under the above-said challenging circumstances, would it not be wise public policy to combine both increases — $50 shelter allowance and $50 support allowance — into one and increase only the support allowance by $100 until the minister is able to fix the computer problem and subsequently combine both support and shelter allowance together?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, the member started off by saying we have been working on this, the unscrupulous landlord situation, without much success. I beg to differ. We've had quite a bit of success. We've cut this down to a bare minimum. In fact, we are close to 90 percent of our clients in the downtown east side having their cheques sent directly to the landlord rather than the hotel manager. We are also closing in one by one on these unscrupulous landlords with the help of the Vancouver police department. So to say "without success" is not correct; we've had quite a bit of success.

I would just reiterate what I said yesterday. We would like to combine the payments, and we're working towards that end. We're also checking with other jurisdictions across the country to see what they do and exactly how they do it. I've always believed that if somebody's got a wheel that works, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can go and borrow one from someone else. But it's something we're working towards, and we will get there before too long — once we have the capacity to do it.

On this recent increase. The rent supplement had not been increased since 1992. For nine years the NDP had a chance to increase it, and they didn't, and we were always getting hammered by everyone for not giving enough shelter allowance. The Premier announced it at UBCM in the fall, and we decided to go with the first shelter rate increase since 1992. That's the reason we left it. Until we can combine them properly, we are pretty much obliged to do that.

Which, incidentally…. Two points I want to make. That put the expected-to-work singles, and children of families expected to work, at the highest shelter rate in Canada, and his party voted against it.

J. Brar: Thank you once again for the clarification. The question here is not whether the shelter allowance increase is good or bad. The question here is whether that is going to help the most vulnerable people of the province. In your own comments, which you made last year, which you also made this year, you are of the view — it's not me; it's your comments — that at the end of the day that $50 increase is going to go in the hands of the landlord, and at this point in time there is no effective way that the government can stop it, other than working hard trying to deal with it. I understand that part.

Having said that, one of the options you had at that time when you made up your mind — particularly knowing the situation, the challenging circumstances as to how this money is going to end up in the hands of landlords, how they are going to prey on the most vulnerable people of the province — is that you could have put the increased money only in one side, which is the support allowance.

The support allowance goes directly to the clients, so they have the flexibility to use that amount the way they want. In other words, they will be in a situation where these landlords will not be able to prey on them. That was a simple public policy. That was a simple choice — until you have figured out exactly how to deal with it and how to fix the computer problem to combine both the shelter allowance and the support allowance together.

That was an option there, and somehow you didn't choose it. I would like to know why you didn't choose that option.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, you know, the member makes it sound like all of these rent increases are going to unscrupulous landlords. It's a very small percentage, and we're whittling that percentage down every year by the methods that I'll outline in a moment. Adding $50 to the maximum shelter rate for all family-unit sizes allows recipients to access more housing options; recognizes higher costs due to market increases; recognizes market increases in utilities, particularly heating costs; provides clients who are currently over a maximum with funds which can now be used for support purposes — food, clothing, toiletries, etc.

The ministry does work cooperatively with landlords, local agencies and other levels of government, and the residential tenancy branch to ensure clients are informed of their rights. For example, in the downtown east side, the ministry is already working collaboratively with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association — DERA — the Pivot Legal Society, and new landlords or owners of properties who are not aware of the rules around rent increases and eviction notices, to assist clients in exercising their rights under the residential tenancy agreement.

The ministry's housing integrated task team — which I spoke of yesterday, and which we call our HIT team — is working closely with clients and these groups to advise on situations when they become aware of instances where illegal increases are being sought. The HIT team is monitoring and has prevented a number of illegal increases simply by contacting owners to advise of the RTA requirements.

I guess in answer to the member's question again, we haven't got to the point yet where we're going to integrate both. A rental supplement increase was promised, and we delivered on it. I reiterate: it's the first increase these people have had since 1992, and it puts them at number one in the country.

J. Brar: The minister mentioned that he's still working on combining the shelter allowance as well as the support allowance, and that way the minister thinks that this will help us actually put it to bed when it comes to the exploitation of the most vulnerable people of the province.

My question is: can the minister give us some time line as to what is the plan? What is the time line when the minister will be able to combine both the shelter allowance and the support allowance so that the most vulnerable people of the province are not being exploited anymore?

Hon. C. Richmond: About the best information I can give the member in all sincerity is that it's in the planning stages now. A few other things have to happen before we can get there. I'll be in a much better position at this time next year to give you a more definitive answer.

I'm not trying to dodge the question. I'd like to give you a date right now when we would be able to do this, but I can't. We'll have to wait. Hopefully you'll still be the critic next year, and I'll still be the minister.

J. Brar: So we have to wait for one year to come back and ask you the same question again.

Having heard what the minister said, I would certainly suggest to the minister that this is something very, very important. In particular, the minister is aware of it; I don't need to emphasize the fact. This is something which I think should be as expedited as soon as possible, because there are hundreds of people who are being preyed on by those landlords. One year's time seems to me a bit of a stretch. If you can do it sooner, of course, that is better. That will provide a fairer administrative process, in fairness to the people who are most vulnerable in the province.

My last question on this particular piece to the ministry is: we have been talking about how to deal with it, but there are some special categories of people who are being preyed on by the landlords. Those are people with mental disabilities, people who have huge addiction problems and who cannot make informed and good decisions for themselves. What is the minister going to do to assist those people? The solution for those people may not, at the beginning, be a police action. There is much more that needs to be done before the police come into the picture. Do you have any support network so that these people are not being exploited because of their limitations?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, we are very much aware of the problem and have been for some time, as I've told you, and it concerns us greatly. There are not that many in the category that you mentioned. We're trying to whittle it down one client at a time, as they say, by getting people to have their cheques deposited directly with the owners of these properties.

Quite often it's the manager that's ripping them off, to put it in the vernacular. We have reached nearly 90 percent effectiveness in having their cheques deposited directly, and we know the problems they're under. They get threatened by some of these unscrupulous managers, if you like, that if they don't hand over their cheque, they'll be kicked out, so they hand it over. In some cases they get a few dollars' worth of drugs, and then they get kicked out anyway.

We work firstly with the residential tenancy people to make sure the law is being complied with, but in

extreme cases like I've just mentioned, this is where we call in the police to go in and deal with these people. It's unfortunate, but we do have people out there who prey on these people. We're whittling them down one by one, and we've let them know we are coming after them. We are being proactive. We don't like them any more than you do or anyone else does, but they still exist out there. We want them to know we are coming after them.

J. Brar: I would like to move on to a new topic, Minister. If you need to bring in your staff, you have a choice. I want to talk now about the overpayment audit which was conducted.

I would like to start with a copy of an audit we received on the JP2 contracts through FOI entitled Final Report on Job Placement Program (JP2): Risk and Control Assessment. The audit concluded that in their opinion, there are no effective processes in place to ensure the accuracy and validity of payments to service providers and that they estimate the possible financial exposure to the ministry from inaccurate billing data to be between $1 million and $4 million in overpayments per year.

I would like to ask the minister a question. Can the minister explain why the Ministry of Finance auditors came to this conclusion about his ministry's employment program contacts?

This was a subject that was canvassed extensively over the last four or five months with the member opposite. In fact, the audit that he spoke of is one that I decided we would discuss and release publicly to the press and to the member, because we had nothing to hide in it. I will just go off the top of my head for a moment and say that when we started into this job placement program and followed up with the B.C. employment program — especially when the program first started back in about 2002, before I was the minister — ministry staff realized that they were into bigger programs than they'd ever managed before, and it was quite outside what they'd been used to managing.

These were huge contracts. In fact, the total of the contracts was in the area of $80 million or more — not each contract, but the total of the contracts. They decided to ask for audits to see if they were handling it properly, that there weren't loopholes — that they had to be doing things right. I commend them for that. The request came from the ministry, and this was the last of the audits that were done. The one you were talking about was the last one of three audits.

In each case — and the one you mentioned, the $1 million to $4 million — the auditor said that because of maybe a procedure that wasn't exactly right, there could have been an exposure of between $1 million and $4 million. The purpose of these audits, of course, was to assess compliance with contracts, but note that the auditor said that there could have been an exposure.

The report found for that period from 2002 to 2004, in 2 percent of the cases, or approximately $1 million, there was evidence of overpayments resulting from situations where independence was not due to employment. From 2005 on, after the ministry implemented the verification process, the ministry did not pay service providers until there was adequate evidence that demonstrated that independence was due to employment.

The ministry recovered the $1 million in overpayments when negotiating the early settlement payments with JP service providers in January of 2006. Although the exposure was there, and there was a million dollars that had been overpaid, it was recovered. The last audit went on to verify that.

This was a risk and controls review, as I have stated. It looked at the checks and balances in the JP2 program. A traditional audit report looks at the past and concludes whether things were done correctly. A risk and control review looks forward. It looks at a program's checks and balances and where we can improve them. A risk and control review follows a standard methodology. The auditors identify what could potentially go wrong — which are the risks — and assess the likelihood and consequence of these events happening and what we're doing to prevent them — the controls. Then they assess the residual risk and determine whether the controls are either adequate or inadequate.

In the JP2 risk and control review the auditors assessed 91 risk areas ranging from housekeeping items, such as keeping manuals up to date, to key items such as achieving program goals. Some 74 percent of the risk areas were evaluated as adequate. However, the auditors identified three general areas where the ministry needed to take action and calculated that if this wasn't done, the ministry could potentially make overpayments of $1 million to $4 million per year, as the member stated.

They also noted that we'd made good progress in strengthening our controls, and we took action in all three areas of concern. The first was our verification process. These were to make sure that payments were triggered only when clients became independent due to employment. We put new processes in place in January of 2005.

The second area was our reporting. We developed new reports and improved our forecasting methodology. Work commenced on this in the fall of 2003.

The third area was the audit trail being able to track changes in the client's status. We implemented some new audit tools — the same ones that the auditors themselves used — in September of 2004. In summary, we took action and reduced our residual risk to low. This is as good as it gets.

J. Brar: Thank you, Minister, for the brief clarification. I would actually remind the minister about the document of his own ministry which was released as recently as January 25, 2007, entitled Ministry of Employment and

Income Assistance Job Placement Program Briefing. On page 4 what we have is the payment model, job placement pilot program JP1 from 2000 to 2002. What they found under that was that service providers were paid when clients referred to them became independent from income assistance for any reason. In other words, the employment was not a requirement at that time.

When you talk about, in the same document, job placement JP2 from 2002 to 2006, what has been mentioned here in your document…. Service providers were paid when clients referred to them became independent from income assistance due to employment, and that case had been underlined. So in fact you found that in 2002. Now you are telling us, Minister, after two more years in 2004, that you implemented verifying the employment status of clients before making payment to service providers effective 2005.

My question to you: how many times do you need to do these audits in order to actually implement effectively so that the hard-earned money of taxpayers is being paid to these service providers for the actual work they are doing?

Hon. C. Richmond: The JP1 program, the job placement pilot program. From 2000 to 2002, the service providers were paid when clients referred to them became independent from income assistance for any reason. Apparently, that was put there because of the urgency to get the program up and running.

Subsequently, after we requested an audit, the auditor said that service providers were paid when clients referred to them became independent from income assistance due to employment, not for any reason. The auditors also found that the one place where there was overpayment of a million dollars, which the auditors identified, was recovered. The only overpayment that they could find was $1 million, and we recovered that.

J. Brar: I will come back to the $1 million issue. But at this point in time my question is simple. The recommendations were made by the auditor in 2002 to implement verifying that people became independent due to employment. Did you and your ministry implement it effective immediately after that audit, which is 2002? If the answer is yes, I would like to see the confirmation.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's difficult to put exact dates when everything was implemented. But to reiterate what I said earlier, the ministry requested these audits to make sure that they were doing things in the proper fashion. As soon as they were told that they should tighten certain things up, it was done.

The audit report was received in March of 2005, but they took action as soon as we received the draft report in April of 2004. So as soon as the auditors pointed out where procedures could be tightened up, they were implemented immediately even though the final report wasn't available, the first one, until 2005.

J. Brar: I totally disagree with the comments made by the minister here. This is the document of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — the most recent document I'm talking about. This suggests very clearly — unless the minister tells me otherwise, that this is a mistake — that at the end of 2002 the ministry was advised that the only way they should be making payments to the service providers is after verification of people becoming independent due to employment. That was at the end of 2002.

Now the minister is telling me that they started implementing that process in 2005. In other words, I would take it this way: the minister failed to implement these recommendations for two years, which are 2003 and 2004. If that's not the case, I would like to know the answer from the minister.

Hon. C. Richmond: When the job placement program was permanently established by the ministry in 2002, as part of a fair and open tendering process we introduced employment verification. Service providers were only paid when clients became independent from income assistance due to employment. The first payment was made only upon receiving proof of a client's employment — that is, employer name, start date, location of employment, hours per week and wage rate. That was started in 2002.

J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, Minister. I will take it that effective 2002, the ministry started verifying the employment — the people who became independent due to employment — before making the payments. That relates to the overpayment of $1 million, so I will come back to that in a few moments.

My next question is, again, on this document. A recent document entitled Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance Job Placement Program Briefing was released by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance on January 25, 2007. On page 9, under "Audit finding," it points out: "Managerial and operational reports not meeting needs."

Subsequently, under "Action taken," it claims: "New reports and forecasting methodology implemented."

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain what was missing from the existing managerial and operational reports for not meeting the needs, and what were the new additions, for the new reports and forecasting methodology, claimed to be implemented in this document?

Hon. C. Richmond: I have the same page here as the member has, and it says: "The audit findings, managerial and operational reports not meeting needs. Action taken — new reports and forecasting methodology implemented."

The member is asking what exactly was done. Well, we're down to pretty miniscule management tools here, but: "New query tools were implemented to monitor the program, and new reconciliation processes were put in place."

J. Brar: That didn't help much to understand as to what was changed. One of the discussions we are talking about was that there was no effective system to verify — before making payments — whether people have actually been employed or not. Now, this piece, in my opinion, talks about that those reports which were being submitted by the manager did not have sufficient information, or accurate information, to verify the employment status of the income assistance clients so that the accurate payment could be made.

I would like to ask the minister: particularly when it comes to the verification of the employment status of the clients for whom the payments were made, was that part of this report or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't know what more I can say except to repeat that we requested these audits so that any shortcomings in reporting could be corrected. The auditors found places where we were vulnerable. We took action to correct these, I guess, improper reporting methods. We took the action immediately that we were told. We recovered the $1 million that had been…. The only overpayment the auditors could find was $1 million, which we recovered.

A new program is now in place which started last July, I believe it was — the B.C. employment program. The program that the member is talking about ended on March 31, 2006, and now we're into doing the estimates for 2007-2008.

Beyond that, we had absolutely nothing to hide from these audits. In fact, the last one I insisted we do publicly. We called a press conference. I believe the member was there. I'm not sure.

Hon. C. Richmond: No, you weren't there, but we called the press. We opened up all three audits. We said: here were the findings. Here's what we've done. We recovered $1 million, which was the only overpayment, and gave everybody in the media a copy of all three audits, which I believe the member has — a copy of all three.

To me, the issue has been put to rest. Besides, it's a program that ended on March 31, 2006, and we're discussing the estimates of 2007-2008.

J. Brar: The $1 million which the minister claims was the only amount identified by the auditor…. According to these audits, that is not true, so I'm going to ask specific questions on that. We are talking about it because your ministry put together this report just last month. I think it makes perfect sense to ask questions which are relevant to the report you put together this year, just a few months ago.

A major finding of the audit, which I'm talking about, is that: "The current system calculates payments to service providers when benefit payments cease regardless of the reasons of the client's independence from benefits."

What the audit, which is a 2004 audit, is saying basically…. The minister just made comments a few minutes ago that the ministry actually implemented verification of employment before making payments to the service providers in 2002. But after two years this new audit again finds a different thing, that payments were being made when clients were kicked off the welfare roll.

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain why the "independence through employment" requirement for payment wasn't being tracked, since it was part of the agreement?

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm not sure I follow everything that the member says. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than I have. The auditors concluded that the verification processes we introduced in January 2005 worked well and that prior to that time approximately $1 million had been paid to service providers for clients who became independent of income assistance for reasons other than employment.

The ministry used this information in negotiating the final payment to the service providers. The $1 million was recovered during negotiations. I don't think I could be any more plain than that.

There is one item that the auditors found. It was an item of duplicate payment, where a client had gone to more than one service provider without the service provider's knowledge. They had no way of knowing that this client…. I believe there was only one, maybe two.

The amount of money I had is right. It was $92,000, and I was wrong on the number. There were 32 clients — I didn't realize it was that high — who went to more than one service provider. The service providers, of course — the contractors — had no knowledge that they'd been to another service provider. So there was $92,000 paid for these 32 clients that went to more than one service provider.

That's the only money that we did not recover. We had no way of recovering that $92,000 over a period of four years. That, we couldn't recover.

J. Brar: Can the minister clarify when in fact the ministry did start verifying the "independence through employment" requirement? Was it 2002 or 2005?

Hon. C. Richmond: We find out more interesting things the more we dig into this. In 2002 we began to verify people leaving income assistance.

The tools available to us, though, weren't inadequate to detect clients who, for example, had a part-time job and then left income assistance to go back to school or got married or moved away from the province, which a lot of people did in the 1990s. We had no way of verifying that because we had inherited a program

that was started in the year 2000 by the then NDP government, which had no controls on it at all. So as soon as we had the first audit done and they said there were some inadequacies in the reporting system, we took steps to plug those holes right away in the year 2002.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. If I may, just to caution the member, we certainly intend to give a wide latitude of questioning to the member — make it available. But I would encourage the member to relate the questions to the current estimates.

I will take the response from the minister that the verification of employment before making payment was in fact implemented in 2002. But I'm now talking about the audit which was conducted by 2004, which is mentioned in a recent report which was released in January.

I believe the JP2 contract, the second contract…in July 2002. This audit took place in April 2004. That is more than 20 months where contractors were being paid when people left income assistance for any reasons, not the employment reason.

Approximately how many people left income assistance during this period? How many people left income assistance during those two years? What percentage of them would have gone through the employment program, if you can tell me?

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't think we have the exact data that you're after, but this is as close as I can come to it. The total actual gross referrals were 108,966 that were referred to service providers, and the total actual number of clients achieving at least one month of independence was 28,867.

The Chair: And Member, again, if you are looking for historical data, I'm sure the minister would be more than happy to give you that. But….

The Chair: You certainly do. We intend to give you much latitude. But we would again direct you to ask them in the context of their relevance to the current estimates.

J. Brar: But Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify that I'm asking questions related to this very recent report. These things have been mentioned in this report, so I take it that it's part of the current estimates.

The Chair: As I've indicated, I've given considerable latitude on this, and I'm looking for you to be more creative in directing those and the relevance of that report to current estimates.

J. Brar: It's my understanding that if we're to ask more information about that, we can go back and ask the ministry directly on that one. I do have other questions. I don't want to spend a lot of time on that one, but we can get the answers directly from the ministry. Is that the understanding, Mr. Chair?

J. Brar: Okay. The audit also notes that the contractors were getting some financial compensation when a welfare recipient died and that an informal agreement was in place with two of four service providers to reduce the financial impact to the ministry of milestones being generated due to the death of a client. This is a quote from the actual audit.

Yet on November 23, 2006, in the Williams Lake Tribune — last year, I'm talking about — the minister is quoted as saying: "It is completely outrageous…to suggest that government was paying its service providers for dead welfare recipients."

My question to the minister: is the minister implying that the auditors from the Ministry of Finance made up the line about an informal agreement with two of the four service providers to reduce the financial impact to the ministry of milestones being generated due to the death of a client?

Hon. C. Richmond: The auditors in the report that the member is referring to said there was potential for people having passed away while they were still on the rolls of service providers. We have verified that there were no cases where payments were made for a client who had died — none whatsoever.

This was all canvassed publicly in the news conference that I held to go over this audit, the final audit, which gave us a pretty clean bill of health. I'm going to read it again, because it's worth repeating.

It's the JP2 final report. This was the third and final audit. It was a traditional audit report, and it looked at compliance with contracts and policy. The auditors selected a statistical sample of JP2 clients and examined ministry files and service provider files to determine if payments were made only when a client became independent due to employment. It answers the question: did the possible financial exposure identified in risks and controls review — that is, a potential overpayment of $1 million to $4 million — materialize?

The auditors concluded that the verification process we introduced in January 2005 worked well and that prior to that time, approximately $1 million had been paid to service providers for clients who became independent of income assistance for reasons other than employment. The ministry used this information in negotiating the final payment to the service providers. The $1 million was recovered during negotiations. I want to repeat that there was not one instance, as the member alluded to, where someone was paid when a client had died.

J. Brar: I want to clarify that it's not my questions. It is a question which comes from the audit done by the Ministry of Finance. I'm not making it up. I'm just asking you the question, which is part of the audit done by the Ministry of Finance of this government.

I want to ask the minister: as to the audit the minister is referring to, is that done by the Ministry of Finance or by your department? That's my one question. It's a simple one. You can say yes or no.

The other thing I wanted to ask…. The minister keeps mentioning $1 million. This audit which I'm talking about states very clearly, and I've said that before, that there were no effective processes in place to verify whether a client became independent due to employment. Subsequently, payments were being made to service providers without the verification whether they became independent with employment.

This audit states that. In the light of that finding by the audit by the Ministry of Finance, I want to ask the minister: how did the new auditor determine which clients, going back to 2002, had actually become independent for reasons other than employment? What system, what data do you have in place?

Hon. C. Richmond: To answer the member's first question, the audits were done by the Ministry of Finance auditors. I'm going to come back to that in a minute.

They looked in our files and the service providers' files for evidence, which is standard practice, and they came up with a report, which I just read for the second time. I could read it a third time, but I don't think it would serve any purpose.

This is the final audit of three, which we made very public — held a press conference, had all the media there. We gave them copies of audits 1, 2 and this one — the final audit — and let them ask questions, and all the questions were answered. And when they were in the media the next day, the member — I heard his own quote on the radio — said this was a cover-up.

Well, I don't think you could get less cover-up than holding a press conference and doing it publicly. Of course, it's a slam at the auditors and the Ministry of Finance. If he calls their audit a cover-up, then I think he'd better go and talk to them.

J. Brar: I think as a member of the opposition I have the right to ask the question of the minister, which comes from the action of the government. If I need to have any discussion with the department, I will do so.

But I want to ask you again…. You are talking about two audits done by the same department. Both are totally contradictory to each other. So you are basically supporting one which stands closer to what you wish. You certainly as a minister are questioning the other audit, which has findings of a significant nature when it comes to the effectiveness and the accountability of your ministry.

So I want to ask you this question. This new audit — did they ever address the issue which was identified under the previous audit? That was that the ministry made informal agreement with two of four service providers to reduce the financial impact to the ministry of milestones being generated due to the death of a client. Did the new audit say anything? If they said anything, I would like to know exactly what they said.

Hon. C. Richmond: The final audit that was done…. There was no reference made to people being paid who had died. We subsequently researched our files and, as I said a few moments ago, could find absolutely no instance where a service provider had received payments for someone who was deceased.

J. Brar: I'll take it that the minister is saying basically that the finding of the audit which was completed in 2004 by the Minister of Finance was wrong, and there was no such formal agreement as indicated in the audit. That's what I will take from this.

My next comment and question is that the author of this audit I'm talking about, 2004, comments that management has asserted that the ministry is willing to accept a medium or high level of risk throughout the majority of risk areas identified. My question is: can the minister explain why management was willing to accept a medium or high level of risk in managing these programs?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, I want to clarify, as the member started out by saying that I'm disagreeing with an audit. I can find absolutely no case — and I have read all of the audits and reports — where I'm disagreeing with anyone. The second audit of the JP2 program was a different type of audit. They called it a risk and controls review.

They also noted that we'd made good progress in strengthening our controls. We took action in all three areas of concern. The first was our verification processes.

These were to make sure that payments were triggered only when clients became independent due to employment. We put new processes in place in January 2005.

The second area was our reporting. We developed new reports and improved our forecasting methodology. Work commenced on this in the fall of 2003.

The third area was the audit trail being able to track changes in clients' status. We implemented some new audit tools, the same ones that the auditors themselves used in September 2004.

In summary, we took action and reduced our residual risk to low. This is as good as it gets.

J. Brar: On September 28, 2006, the Premier of the province made a comment about this audit on BCTV and said that the province would not try to recover the financial loss caused by inadequate billing by officials in the job placement program.

Then on October 1, 2006, the minister commented in a Kamloops newspaper that a total of $950,000 worth of double-billing had been recovered, which was totally contradictory to what the Premier and the minister said.

My question to the minister is: why did the Premier state that the province would not try to recover any amount? How much money was recovered that was overpaid in the first two years of the JP contract?

Hon. C. Richmond: I believe I have answered that question about four or five times now. I've rounded it to $1 million. It was some $900,000 — just under a million.

We recovered it at the end of the contract when we renegotiated the ending of that contract. We had to negotiate with our service providers to shut down those contracts because some of them reached out 19 months, and we didn't want that hanging out there. So we negotiated an end to those contracts. In doing so, the staff saved the taxpayers of the province approximately $5 million, and we recovered that just under $1 million overpayment.

I don't know if I can make it any clearer than that. That's about the fifth time I've said it.

J. Brar: The minister didn't make any comment about what the Premier was saying and what the minister said. Maybe the minister didn't want to respond to that.

Now, I want to come back to the $1 million figure. The first audit done by the Ministry of Finance — it's not my figures — said that the risk to the ministry under the current system, a lack of effective process of collecting data, verification of employment before making payments…. The risk to the ministry is from $1 million to $4 million per year. The audit is talking about two years, which could be from $2 million to $8 million.

My question to the minister is…. I understand the minister has recovered $1 million under the negotiation. Can the minister explain in a specific way how you were able to determine that the actual cost, the actual overpayment, was $1 million when there was no clear data existing with the ministry to verify the exact amount which was overpaid to these contractors?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, it was the auditors who came up with the figure of some $900,000 — rounded off to $1 million is what we've been doing. First of all, they said the exposure could be between $1 million and $4 million. The member interprets that as it was.

The auditors could only find this $1 million that had been overpaid, and for about the sixth time, I'm going to tell him that we recovered it. We recovered that overpayment. The only payment we did not recover was $92,000 that was paid out to service providers because 32 of our clients had gone to more than one service provider without the other service provider's knowledge, and two service providers were paid instead of one.

I guess on the positive side of that, the client was well served because he was served by two service providers. But that is the only dollar amount — $92,000 — that we could not recover.

J. Brar: Just for clarification, I don't dispute that the minister has recovered about $1 million. I understand that. That's simple. What I don't understand is that one audit is saying there was a potential exposure from $1 million to $4 million for one year — and in two years, from $2 million to $8 million.

At the end of the day, the new auditors came back to the ministry and went through the verification with the documentation available with the ministry. I understand that the ministry must be aware as to where they came up with that figure because the ministry is part of the negotiations.

Can you not explain to us and to the people of British Columbia in a more specific, transparent way — which this government claims — how the auditors arrived at a $1 million figure for overpayment in the absence of existing data, which was not clear? That is your own document suggesting it.

I have difficulty with that, not with $1 million. I want to understand exactly, if you can tell me and the people of British Columbia, how you were able to verify the information which was not existing there. That's the question.

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess for about the seventh and last time, they were the same auditors that did both audits. They explained the process of reviewing files. I explained it — reviewing files. They came to the clear conclusion that the overpayment was just under $1 million. This is from their report.

We tested service provider and ministry records for the risks identified. In the case of employment information, we found in almost all cases — 95 percent — either ministry or service provider notations indicating client placement in employment.

J. Brar: I'll try one more question. Again, the same question to get the right answer. Maybe the same number of times.

Can the minister explain to me and the people of British Columbia whether at that time the ministry had a database which was transparent and objective to verify the employment and subsequent payments made to the service providers? That database is your responsibility. It is the responsibility of your ministry. So did you have that database?

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't think I can be any more clear or transparent. First of all, we have opened up the audits to the public for everyone to see. There is nothing there to hide. We started doing the verifications of employment in 2002.

The auditors identified some reporting processes that could have been better, which we put into place. They identified — not us; they identified — this nearly $1 million that had been overpaid, and we subsequently recovered the $1 million. I just don't understand how it could be more clear or transparent than that.

The Chair: Members, just listening here is starting to get boring, and it's repetitious. I maybe want to remind members to go on. We've been hearing the same questions and basically the same answers for some time. I'll let you continue on now.

J. Brar: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope your guidelines apply to both sides, because I certainly don't want to ask the question a second time if I get the answer the first time.

My last question, for example, was on a database — not about $1 million. I will ask the question again. Did the ministry have a clear, objective, transparent database to verify the payments made to the service providers, verifying that people became independent due to employment? I'm talking about a database. I'm not talking about $1 million. You can say yes or no.

J. Brar: I would now like to move on to the other topic, which is the $19 million overpayment.

We received documents through, again, freedom of information that show that this ministry paid out more than $19 million last year to end the JP2 contracts. I see from my documents that your ministry gave $9.4 million to GT Hiring Solutions, $9 million to West Coast Group and $672,000 to ASPECT, the three service providers. There was one more that will come in discussion probably later on.

To begin with, my first question to the minister is: why was the public not notified of this large taxpayer expense?

Hon. C. Richmond: The $19 million that the member refers to recognized all outstanding amounts owed to service providers for services that had already been provided to about 31,000 of our clients — an amount of money which would have become payable to the service providers extending out to 2009.

The fees paid to the service providers were based on legal contracts which provide payment for very real services, which had already been provided to clients. This negotiated one-time final payment represented a net savings to the taxpayers of about $5 million.

Now the reason for that is…. It's a little hard to understand, but these contracts extended out for 19 months after the person was placed in employment. They didn't receive the final payment for 19 months.

However, these contracts were coming to an end, and we wanted to move on to a new program. We couldn't leave them hanging out there for 19 months while we were still paying people, so we negotiated an end to these contracts with the service providers based on probability. We ended the contracts and negotiated a total amount of $19 million for work that had already been done, and in so doing, we saved the taxpayers about $5 million.

J. Brar: Again, a note: my question at this point in time is not why the minister paid $19 million. I will come to that question. My question was simple. Why did the minister choose not to inform the public of British Columbia and make this deal? That was the question. Why does the opposition have to go through freedom of information to get this information about the hard-earned money of taxpayer dollars? That's the question. I will appreciate if you can focus on the answers related to the questions so that we can finish this work as quickly as possible.

Hon. C. Richmond: In government we negotiate contracts all the time, and we don't report every contract to the public when every contract is negotiated. But the payments are disclosed in the government's annual public accounts.

The minister did respond to this initially to my first question, but I would like to repose the question. Can the minister explain why the severance pay was necessary? Were there not other channels available whereby you could have saved $19 million, hard-earned money of taxpayers, dealing with this these contracts?

Hon. C. Richmond: The member is really saying that our staff gave away $19 million for nothing. Now, does he honestly believe that our senior staff is that incompetent that they would give away $19 million of the taxpayers' money and that the auditors would not jump all over this? I mean, come on.

We negotiated an end to contracts for work that had already been done. It wasn't a severance. It wasn't for something where, as the member implies, they got money for nothing. It was work that had already been done and money that was due to them over the extended life of these contracts. We wanted to bring

them to an end, so we negotiated a settlement and, in so doing, saved the taxpayers about $5 million.

J. Brar: I certainly don't want to use the staff members as the shield. I respect the work of staff members. The staff members' actions are not in question; it is the ethics of the government.

Again, I have the right to ask questions. That's my responsibility as a member of the opposition: to make sure taxpayers' dollars and money are being used in the best possible way and that they get the maximum benefit out of it.

I want to ask a more specific question to the minister: how many times has the JP2 contract been modified — one, two or three?

Hon. C. Richmond: Mr. Chairman, the member's question refers to contracts that were finished in the years '05-06. We don't have that information with us. We are supposed to be discussing the estimates of '07-08.

J. Brar: Mr. Chair, as the new member — the minister has been here for a long time — I think that the estimates include the last year, the current year and the next year. So I'm asking questions about '06. I have the full right to ask those questions.

I will give you the information, if you don't have it, on how many times you have extended those contracts. If you won't try again, that's your choice. I do have the information. I can provide that to you. Do you want to try again?

J. Brar: My understanding is that the JP2 contract was amended three times during the life…. On September 28, 2005, the government extended the JP2 contract. The placement period was extended to March 31, 2006, and the payment period was extended to July 31, 2009. So once again, if the minister has information…? Does the minister agree that the JP2 contracts were amended three times — or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: Let us clarify things here. When the member asked his first question, the word he used was "modified." How many times have the contracts been modified? We don't have that information.

The next time he stood up, he said, "How many times have they been extended?" which is quite a different question. They were extended three times. The last time, we extended the contracts so that we could do more consultation with our service providers, with staff and with clients to put together BCEP — the B.C. employment program.

Under the contract, we have the right to extend a contract, and we did. We extended it to March of '06.

Then the member went back to the word "amended," which is a new word. It was "modified," then "extended," then "amended" and then "extended" again.

Hon. C. Richmond: It was finally extended to July 31, 2006. I said March 31, which I thought was correct, but I'm told it was July 31. So yes, we extended the contract three times.

J. Brar: Is the minister suggesting that they never modified the contract? It sounds like the minister is saying that it is wrong to use the word "modification."

Hon. C. Richmond: We extended the contract three times. To the best of my knowledge and to the best of our knowledge, the contracts were not modified or amended. They were extended.

J. Brar: Mr. Chair, I would like to correct the minister on his own record. The contract was modified at least once. I am saying that to you — modified at least once. That was basically about the payments, where the lump sum payment, when people reach the highest milestone, was increased. That was not an extension of the contract. That was a modification. The payments were raised — I don't know the exact figure — from $3,500 to over $4,000. That was an amendment to the contract. So do you agree with that?

Hon. C. Richmond: The only thing that could be construed as a modification to the contract was in the final few months when we were negotiating an end to the contracts and we were negotiating a final payment, because we didn't want the final payment to be out there for 19 months and have to keep paying while a new program was being put out to tender.

So if that's a modification…. I would call it more of a negotiation, but we had to negotiate an end to these contracts. So for the final two or three months of the contract…. You could call that a modification. But other than that, we have no knowledge of the contracts being changed.

J. Brar: Minister, did you not negotiate and change the fee, the milestone payment, from $3,712 to $4,304? Is that not a clear modification, based on negotiation or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't know what time period the member is talking about — whether it was towards the end of the contracts or some other. But we just do not have that information with us. We have no way of being able to say that yes, it was amended or not.

J. Brar: I'll bring the time, as well, when I come back after the recess. But one thing is very clear here now. The minister agrees that, at least during the lifetime of

the agreement, the agreement was amended based on negotiations. So based on that concept, based on that practice and based on that precedent, I want to ask the question to the minister: if the government can extend and modify these contracts, why not negotiate a wind-down of the contracts that doesn't cost taxpayers $19 million?

Hon. C. Richmond: Once again, it did not cost the taxpayers $19 million to wind down these contracts. The payment recognized all outstanding amounts owed to service providers for services that had already been provided to about 31,000 of our clients.

The member makes it sound like we gave away $19 million for nothing. He said that in the press when it first broke, and he is saying it today — that we could have saved the taxpayers $19 million. We could not have. It was for work that had already been done, for services to about 31,000 of our clients, an amount of money that would have become payable to the service providers extending out to 2009.

The fees paid to the service providers were based on legal contracts which provide payment for very real services that had already been provided to clients. This negotiated, one-time final payment represented a net savings to the taxpayers of about $5 million.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the clarification, again. I understand the negotiation and the $19 million payout in this situation. But any responsible government, when negotiating these contracts, has some clear data to support them, so I would like to ask you: on what basis did you determine the amount of $19 million?

Let me tell you that I understand the milestone issue. I understand how many clients there will be going through the milestones and the maximum of 19 months to receive the maximum payment. Where that leads us is the total number of clients who were in the process, and then calculating the money based on that. So can you give me the figures based on which you arrived at $19 million to make sure, again, that taxpayer money is not being misused for no work?

Hon. C. Richmond: The payments to the service providers for work done were calculated on (1) payments due and (2) past trends. They had to use a probability of the person remaining employed and the time value of money.

In other words, if a service provider were to take the payment today instead of waiting for 19 months, the value of that money would probably be considerably less than if he'd had to wait for 19 months, hence the savings of $5 million for the taxpayers.

J. Brar: I didn't get a clear answer from the minister on this. Can the minister tell me and the people of British Columbia the total number of clients at that point in time who were going through the milestone for which you made the payment — just the number of clients?

Hon. C. Richmond: Just to answer the member's question before I forget over the lunch hour. I've used the number two or three times already.

There were approximately 31,000 clients in the system at the time. Some would have been at various stages of their employment programs or employment. Some might have been on for quite a while, others a medium amount of time and others just coming on to the program. This all had to be calculated as part of the final negotiation. The number is approximately 31,000, and they were at various stages of the program.

Noting the time, Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress 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.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.